Stun gun used on rancher's son in cattle roundup
Source: Associated Press
Stun gun used on rancher's son in cattle roundup
| April 10, 2014 | Updated: April 10, 2014 1:01pm
LAS VEGAS (AP) Tensions have escalated between protesters and federal police who used a stun gun on a son of a Nevada rancher fighting a roundup of cattle that he claims have historical grazing rights northeast of Las Vegas.
No serious injuries were reported and no arrests were made, but family members told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that rancher Cliven Bundy's 57-year-old sister also was knocked to the ground during a confrontation Wednesday involving dozens of protesters and several U.S. Bureau of Land Management rangers.
The son, Ammon Bundy, told the Spectrum of St. George, Utah, (http://bit.ly/1euilKE ) that he was hit with stun charges twice. He acknowledged that he climbed on a dump truck, suspecting that it contained cattle that had been killed during the roundup.
The incident on State Route 170 followed the arrest Sunday of another Bundy son, Dave Bundy. He was released Monday with a citation accusing him of refusing to disperse and resisting arrest. A video posted to the Internet showed protesters waving signs and shouting and law enforcement officers holding yellow stun guns with barking dogs straining at leashes near trucks involved in the roundup.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/science/article/Stun-gun-used-on-rancher-s-son-in-cattle-roundup-5392661.php
uhnope
(6,419 posts)because they don't acknowledge the federal gov't. Next.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)but I doubt they are wannabe cowboys in the sense that working cattle takes cowboy skills.
I use to live in open range country in the lower Sierra Nevada Mnts in CA and helped with round ups there and wannabes could never ride up in those hills and herd the cattle down to the road and down the rode to the trucks.
We use to go to cowboy days in Las Vegas and I judged whether someone in cowboy boots there was a real cowboy by the presence or lack of horse shit stains on the boots.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)What the majority of people dont bother to do.. get off of their keyboard and stand up !
Codeine
(25,586 posts)and refuse to pay the grazing fees for their cattle.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)I don't understand your post.
Are you saying that the gov'ment is bullying these people and finally going after 'welfare queens'?
Or are you saying, well, I can't think of any other reasonable explanation you might have.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)About their positions but they are standing up for themselves instead of just complaining about it on the internet. ....
sendero
(28,552 posts)... between being right and standing up for yourself and being wrong and standing up for yourself. Based on my reading of this situation, these ranchers are wrong and after many years of getting away with theft the rules are being enforced, and they don't like it.
I don't like petroleum, timber or any other use of public land to not pay a fair fee for the benefit received.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)The blm doesn't have a clean past, would like to know . More about this situation than provided in the article.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)To graze their cattle on public land for very little, or even for free. They believe they have some "right" to do so because they pay taxes. That it is in a nutshell.
It would be like you going on public land and cutting down trees for firewood to heat your home because you believe you have a right to do so because you pay taxes.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Nevadas land is set-up like a checkerboard because of long standing cheap grazing on Americas 'public' lands. Private land owners can also cheap-lease the public lands for other uses like gold mines, ect. Here's how the 'checkerboard' map looks on some cheap private land I was interested in. (until I found there was no water or surface rights)
Response to Sunlei (Reply #36)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Paladin
(28,204 posts)They are long-time users of federal lands for grazing purposes, trying to get out of paying for those rights. Why don't you save your admiration for these jerks until they do the truly honorable thing: vacating those federal lands they've had cattle on for so long, and relocating their stock to non-federal (and probably much more expensive) acreage? Helpful hint: don't hold your breath for this to happen.....
christx30
(6,241 posts)they disagree with and, instead of complaining about it online, or begging for redress, they are protesting and refusing to go into their first amendment zones. I say good for them. Feds are going to do whatever they want, unless people physically stop them.
brush
(53,476 posts)They've been using lands that don't belong to them for decades without paying grazing fees. This has been going on since the '90s when they were first asked to pay up or move their cattle.
In other words, they've been getting a free ride and now want to create a big media stink about it for sympathy.
I live in Nevada and this has been going on for a long time with them making threats of violence even if anyone tried to move their cattle.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)This goes all the way back to the Sagebrush rebellions. The cattle ranchers started grazing the lands in the 1800's. In the 1930's the grazing lands were handed over to the BLM. The BLM's mission was to sell the land off or allow the public to use it however they wanted. In the mid-1970's the FLPMA was passed, formally federalizing the lands and bringing them solidly under BLM control. The BLM, for the first time, was also ordered to actually "manage" the lands. This sparked huge protests as ranchers, some of whom had been grazing the lands for more than a century, were told to start paying rent to the federal government.
The election of Reagan a few years later largely ended the Sagebrush rebellion. Reagan ordered the BLM to stop enforcing the law, a policy that continued through Bush I. By the time the Clinton administration began enforcing it again, it had mostly settled down, except for a handful of ranchers like this guy who continued refuse to pay.
brush
(53,476 posts)Boreal
(725 posts)using the land to sustain themselves until the white man and his governments came along and declared it theirs.
Why should anyone pay tribute to use the earth? This is like the kings of old - paying the master for the privilege to live.
Lets be clear here: This is not development for private use. It's animals eating grass. And, I don't buy the tortoise story one bit. The idea of the BLM being the protectors of any living being is laughable. The tortoise is their excuse to send in their goons to harass the people. The BLM also does nothing to maintain that land. They are infamous for harassment, though.
I find it sad when I see fellow liberals cheering on what has become an out of control police state. This is the kind of shit (brutal authority) that made me a liberal many decades ago. Oh, how the definition of liberal has changed. Free speech zones, constitution free zones, no knock warrants, etc, etc, etc are "the law" now, too. Fuck that.
ETA: I'm a life long vegetarian and animals rights activist and have NO sympathy regarding the raising of or hunting sentient beings for food. That said, I find another issue here (police state and the right to live) that I must stand up for.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)Then you know wild horses are being killed because there is not enough range for them and the squatters right?
Boreal
(725 posts)And I know that ranchers often consider other species "pests". The answer to that are tough laws against killing horses, prairie dogs, etc, not attacking the ranchers.
I could take it step further and suggest outlawing raising living beings for food but I know that will never happen so I want to practical.
Boreal
(725 posts)having been living on, tending and grazing that land since the 1800s (you know, back when life was more natural), long before there was a BLM and a police state.
Big ag and banks, which have conspired to kill small farmers and contaminate the land with GMO mono-crops are real danger to all of us. Individual ranchers are not.
hatrack
(59,446 posts)They're into us (you and me and all other Americans) because of north of $1 million in grazing fees accumulated over more than two decades, and they're "tending" the land?
Whatever.
Oh, and by the way, here's a handy demolition of their claims to "ownership", "sovereignty" and all that other happy teabagger horseshit they claim to believe in:
The 2013 order by Judge Lloyd D. George (starting on p.6) is a summary judgement against Bundy in his last ditch effort to stop the operation that culminated this week. It briefly touches on the arguments Bundy made in his 1998 case (see p.8, lines 7-22), but cites US v. Gardner (1997).
By taking both the points in the 2013 order and US v. Gardner, we can see what Bundy is trying to assert, where the right-wing talking points come from, and the legal basis for laughing those talking points out of the room.
The first Bundy argument
From the 2013 order:
"Bundy principally opposes the United States motion for summary judgment on the
ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public
lands in question."
As US v. Gardner states (and the 2013 order reiterates), the US was ceded the land in question by Mexico in 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty recognized existing grantees of land, however, nobody owned the land in question at the time (and the Bundys didn't arrive in Nevada until 1877).
Here's the text from US v. Gardner:
The United States and Mexico signed the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. In that treaty, Mexico ceded land that includes the present-day state of Nevada to the United States; see also Sparrow v. Strong, 70 U.S. (1865) ("The Territory, of which Nevada is a part, was acquired by Treaty." . The language of the Treaty itself refers to the land ceded by Mexico to the United States as "territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States." (1848). Courts in the United States have uniformly found that title to the land first passed to the United States through the Treaty.
So much for the argument that the federal government doesn't own the land.
The second Bundy argument
Bundy also argues that the federal government gave all public lands to the State of Nevada when it was created in 1864 because the US federal government can only hold land in trust for the future creation of states (implying that all federal land would have to belong to a state eventually). Again, US v. Gardner:
The Court stated that the United States held this land in trust for the establishment of future states. Once those new states were established, the United States' authority over the land would cease. This decision was based on the terms of the cessions of the land from Virginia and Georgia to the United States. Before becoming a state, however, Nevada had no independent claim to sovereignty, unlike the original thirteen states. Therefore, the same reasoning is not applicable to this case, in which the federal government was the initial owner of the land from which the state of Nevada was later carved.
To confirm further that the federal government did indeed retain ownership of the lands, US v. Gardner notes the Nevada Constitution, which states that:
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States
The third Bundy argument
Bundy claims that this clause of the Nevada Constitution doesn't apply because of the Equal Footing Doctrine which supporters say means that the federal government can't own part of Nevada because it would put the state on unequal footing with future states.
US v. Gardner, again:
However, the Supreme Court has declined to extend the Equal Footing Doctrine to lands other than those underneath navigable waters or waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tides. In Scott v. Lattig, the Supreme Court held that title to an island within a stream did not pass to the state of Idaho, but instead was retained by the United States. The Court stated that because the island "was not part of the bed of the stream or land under the water ... its ownership did not pass to the State or come within the disposing influence of its laws." The Court went on to note that the island was "fast dry land, and therefore remained the property of the United States and subject to disposal under its laws...." Id. Sixty years later, the Supreme Court characterized its decision in Scott as holding that the rule in Pollard's Lessee "does not reach islands or fast lands located within such waters. Title to islands remains in the United States, unless expressly granted along with the stream bed or otherwise." Texas v. Louisiana (1973). The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, does not operate to reserve title to fast dry lands to individual states.
Moreover, Supreme Court has long held that the Equal Footing Doctrine refers to "those attributes essential to [a state's] equality in dignity and power with other States..."
So much for that argument. Equal Footing applies to shores and navigable water, and equality in dignity and power. US v. Gardner also points out that the federal government retained ownership of land in many other newly-created states.
The Fourth Bundy argument
From the 2013 order:
"that the Property Clause of the United States Constitution applies only to federal lands
outside the borders of states"
US v. Gardner, again, makes it clear that no, the Property Clause covers all..you know...federal property:
As aforementioned, Congress' power under the Property Clause to administer its own property is virtually unlimited. See, e.g., Kleppe,. Indeed, the United States retains title to the public lands within states such as Nevada not due to "any agreement or compact with the proposed new State," but rather "solely because the power of Congress extend[s] to the subject." Coyle, 221 U.S. at 574, 31 S.Ct. at 693.
The fifth Bundy argument
Bundy also claims that BLM is basing its authority to sanction him on the Endangered Species Act (which has no authority for the type of sanctions they were seeking); clearly, given that he has admitted to trespass, no further argument is needed.
The sixth Bundy argument
Bundy also claims that Nevada law allows him to use the land.
"...that
Nevadas Open Range statute excuses Bundys trespass."
From the 2013 order, smacking this down:
under Supremacy Clause state statute in conflict with federal law requiring permit to graze
would be trumped
------------------------------
That covers the arguments in the 2013 order, and touches on most of the arguments in 1997's US v. Gardner (again, link here.
If you feel like arguing with a non-sensical, Hannity-watching, Infowars loving right wing nutjob who is being used and misled by those interested in inciting them to violence, have at it!
I could use the help...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/12/1291572/-Does-rancher-Bundy-have-a-legal-claim-No
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)It is now big business and large herds of cattle can devastate the land.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)land at bargain basement prices for years and think they don't have to pay anything now. Does that mean I can go camping at a federal park and refuse to pay the entrance fee? They should get there cattle off of that land and put them on their own property.
We are the ones who should stand up against their freeloading.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)They are squatters stealing public land for their profit. This is theft for profit and they steal from you and me.
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)But they are "right-wing" so it doesn't matter.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)So this is how you rationalize their refusal to pay lawful fees and rents... by getting on your keyboard and standing down. Cool.
Paladin
(28,204 posts)If you've got grazing rights on federal lands, you abide by federal guidelines and you pay the god-damned fees. There's no mystery or subterfuge about this, it's well-established procedure, over millions and millions of acres in the western U.S.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)of our federal funds are used to maintain all 'public land' roads, fencing, reseeding grass, fixing water trampled.
Welfare ranchers with great Federal subsidies & not even willing to pay the 1.50 a month.
Paladin
(28,204 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)Which comes out to $18,000 per year. Plus the government changed the rules, limiting the number of cows he can feed on the land. Less cows equals less profit. That drives people out of business. And it has for several of the ranchers out there.
And, let's face it. It's been 20 years. Can you point to one bad aspect of this country that can be attributed to this guy? I think if he were an actual problem, we'd all have heard about him before last week. I think there is more danger from a brutal police and military wing of the government than anything Bundy could come up with in 20 years. No knock raids, murder by cops which is barely (if at all) prosecuted, for-profit prisons, abuses of eminent domain for the benefit of private companies. It's pathetic to want to go after Clivus Bundy, but not give a shit about the rest of it.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)would love to find grazing for my livestock for 1.50 a month each!for that 1.50 have the land owner (us the usa citizens!) pay to maintain every road, pay and build all fencing and reseed all the land the cattle have trampled. maintain any springs/water ways the cattle have wallowed into muck
The "bad aspect attributed" to this guy is he got a sense of entitlement over OUR public lands. It is the BLMs fault for letting him get away with this for 20 years. Probably because he is one of the 'good old boys' who the BLM/DOI let get away with this crap for 20 years. The bad aspect is we spend multi-millions subsidizing these welfare ranchers.
$18,000? A year X 1.50 for one pair of livestock (or 3? sheep) is about 18.00 a year.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)happens to your livestock when contractor helicopters do a round-up. It is calf season & this ranches cattle are semi-wild from being out year round.
A lot of the young will not survive that kind of stampede over rocky ground, plenty of even the adult animals suffer critical injuries.
The helicopters vortex is used to 'push' the animals by blasting them with sand/rocks. These same (Utah based) contractors have stampeded animals, off long drops, leaving animals stuck on ledges, called "ledged" 30/40 feet or more drop, through & then wrapped in barbed wire fences and right over cattle guards. They can be blinded by the vortex blasts.
The Federal police always call the local police to assist with 'protester control' over this same BLM contractor. They all have always hated the cameras.
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)All Americans have the basic right to observe our Gov. at work.
This rancher family was doing just that, observing the helicopter round-up area from the side of a public road. Right by where the roundup people park their cars and the garbage/dead animals truck is parked. Where they could see their cattle.
The Federal rangers, local police?, and Federal Marshals with dogs descended on them. That they paid or didn't pay does not matter. They were treated very unfairly by the ridiculous pressure from the Feds.
This BLM helicopter contractor is well known for having many deaths & severe injuries on decades of round-ups they have preformed. They do not like to be observed or photographed. always violate the rights of observers and call for Federal guards to harass & move persons a mile away, out of visual sight of any roundup animals.
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)they don't believe the court has any right to give? "He has made his ruling now let him enforce it."
Crunchy Frog
(26,548 posts)or any other laws that we don't like?
Cheerful Charlie
(46 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)a Nigerian prince telling you that you had violated a law there and owed $8,000 I'm fines, you'd laugh it off because you consider the email fraud, and that person doesn't have any authority over you.
That's how Bundy views this federal judge. Judicial orders are toilet paper to him.
The people that will eventually go to his ranch to force compliance are not going to be federal agents to him. He doesn't recognize that they have any right to do what they are doing. They will be, to him, hired killers coming for himself and his family. Thieves coming to take what he worked for. He will respond accordingly. He will try to gain allies to help defend his home and family. A lot of people are going to die. Remember Waco? The ATF botched that raid, and four of their agents died. The people inside the complex weren't just fighting for Koresh. They were defending their home, their family, and their lives against jackbooted thugs.
Things are probably going to be the same way at Bundy's ranch. You want to crush them? You want to attack him to force compliance and to satisfy a government debt? Good luck. I just have no sympathy to agents that get killed doing it.
Best to forgive the debt and block access to the federal lands permanently.
Crunchy Frog
(26,548 posts)Sorry, people shouldn't be free to break the law just because they're delusional. I guess I agree with people who say that the severely mentally ill should not have firearms, but the NRA apparently disagrees. I suppose they all belong in mental hospitals, but I won't be crying any tears if they all get themselves killed. Yes, I do want to crush them, not over the debt, but over their use of the threat of violence agaisnt the legitimate authorities of this country. They're not defending their home or their family, they're defending their delusion.
You do realize that a fictional Nigerian prince has no jurisdiction here, but the BLM does, don't you? Or are you living under the rule of pink unicorns, and only recognize them as having legal authority over you?
christx30
(6,241 posts)the Judge and BLM have as much jurisdiction as the fictional Nigerian prince. "I believe that you have no right to rule me. So I will disregard everything you tell me, and defend myself when you try to enforce your rulings."
Your cow is not sacred to everyone.
StarryNite
(9,366 posts)anybody could use that defense and get away with anything. All they have to say is, "I believe that you have no right to rule me. So I will disregard everything you tell me, and defend myself when you try to enforce your rulings." and you get off Scott free? I don't think sooooo.
christx30
(6,241 posts)to make it not worth it to the government to attack and kill/arrest them.
I mean, is the government going to risk the lives of Federal agents to force someone to pay a ACA penalty?
Laws are great. Court orders are fine. But they have to be backed up by force. If you have enough firepower, the government can enforce anything they want. But if the other side has more, (as what happened in this case), the government can decide back off and look for other solutions. If someone can convince 100, or 200 or 1000 people to risk their lives and futures to stand with them to prevent enforcement of a law or court order, what are you going to do about it? You send more force than they have, or you forget it. If you can't convince someone to respect a law you put in place, it comes down to who wants it more. If someone feels that you have no right to give them an order, the better fighter will be the winner of that debate.
Crunchy Frog
(26,548 posts)I will now assume that you are currently living under the jurisdiction of the pink unicorns, and will not be engaging with you further.
I would request that you do the same, but the unicorns may have other ideas.
christx30
(6,241 posts)the government has used all the might at it's disposal to enforce laws. No knock raids. Drone strikes. National Guard stopping the L.A Riots.
Now we have a group of people that projected a little bit of might back at the government, and they (the BLM) backed down. This isn't magical unicorn thinking. This is the reality of the day. You can't force someone to respect you. You can't force someone to adopt your ideals or say "It's OK if you take something from me. I respect the law that you passed." You either take overwhelming force and take it without their permission, or you don't do it at all. One guy with a stick? No problem. 150 people with shotguns and handguns? You ask yourself if what you are wanting is worth the possibility of your death or the death of anyone that you bring with you.
The ATF brought force against the Branch Dividians. The raid failed, and those 4 agents died, in part because the ATF didn't bring enough power. That was solved when the FBI joined them and they slaughtered everyone in the building.
The magical pink unicorn thinking is that you can make something happen or go away just by passing a law or getting a judge to rule on it. If that were true, marijuana would be a thing of the past.
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)We provide armed response, according to a Montana militia member named Jim Lordy. Lordy traveled to Nevada in order to support a local rancher for believes that he should not have to follow federal court orders. When he arrived there, he told a local reporter that [w]e need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.
Lordy belongs to a militia group called Operation Mutual Aid, which provides [d]efense of public and private property, lives, and liberty to exercise God-given rights, seen plainly in the laws of Nature, and codified in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, at the request of such parties in need of such defense, according to a website associated with the group. Although only three militia members had arrived at the Nevada ranch by late Wednesday, when the latest reports came out, other militia groups reportedly inundated the [rancher's] household with calls and pledges to muster at the site.
The Oath Keepers, a right-wing law enforcement organization that warns about the government disarm[ing] the American people and blockad[ing] American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps, also announced that it will send people to support the defiant rancher.
This conflict arises out of rancher Cliven Bundys many years of illegally grazing his cattle on federal lands. In 1998, a federal court ordered Bundy to cease grazing his livestock on an area of federal land known as the Bunkerville Allotment, and required him to pay the federal government $200 per day per head of cattle remaining on federal lands. Around the time it issued this order, the court also commented that [t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundys livestock. Fifteen years later, Bundy continued to defy this court order.
......more at link
Boreal
(725 posts)some of the animals have already died in the chase, especially calves. I found this link on another forum, from a local out there:
So now they are using helicopters to round up his cattle and try to take them to auction. He claims he has about 500 head, they say 900. Probably because they don't know that the Taylor Grazing act counts a cow and a calf as one head. They are stressing the cattle and some of them are dying in the chase. That is why they brought in backhoes and dump trucks.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/22ntn8/take_aways_from_the_ongoing_bundyranch_situation/cgoyftl
(and, no, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (I'm not even sure what that is)!. I found the reddit link on a chat site.)
According to that, the BLM also slaughtered 1800 of the tortoises they claim to be protecting. Sounds totally consistent with what I know about the BLM.
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)Shemp Howard
(889 posts)From the article:
"The government says the cows are trespassing on arid and fragile habitat of the endangered desert tortoise."
So putting aside the fee angle for a moment, who should have priority? The endangered tortoise? Or the family? It's easy to choose the tortoise (as the federal government has), unless your family's income depends on that land. No easy answer, IMHO.
brush
(53,476 posts)like other ranchers do, or move their cattle.
Talk about an entitlement mine set they've been getting "welfare" for decades and don't want it to stop.
Plus, they've got 10 times the number of head on the land than they were originally contracted for that's where the environmental issue comes in.
LVdem
(524 posts)They're all about states rights. Since the BLM is a Federal agency they refuse the deal with them. They're also screaming about their "freedoms" getting trampled.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)they think they are more entitled to it than we are?
LVdem
(524 posts)meanit
(455 posts)Why should we subsidize their for-profit private businesses?
How socialist of them....
snooper2
(30,151 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)and his friends counter with threats of deadly force because of heavy handed government tactics. Not just guns, but rocks, bricks, bottles. Ambushes. They see a buddy of theirs getting tazed, someone throws a brick. Someone fires a shot. Lots of death on both sides. Maybe the cops prevail, but it'll be costly.
Response to snooper2 (Reply #47)
Cheerful Charlie This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cheerful Charlie
(46 posts)Seriously, I don't see why you are advocating violence against these people. I don't support the ranchers, but I don't want to tase them either.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)but the desert tortoise argument is bullshit. Fort Irwin, CA is where the Army does live fire training to prepare for Iraq and Afghanistan. And for other wars long before 9/11. It is supposedly Desert Tortoise habitat as well, but we do live fire exercises, vehicle convoys and troop movements 11 months out of the year involving thousands of soldiers every month. I can guarantee we are far more destructive (Army vet) than any cattle and YET no one says shit about what we are doing in Cali in the same habitat. Bullshit argument, the ranchers are wrong, but use the correct argument, not some bull crap environmental policy that isn't enforced anywhere but apparently Bunkerville, NV
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)threats toward anyone who tries to interfere with their theft, like the police. What is the difference between them and pirates?
Cheerful Charlie
(46 posts)The seas of rhetoric are running very high here.
rehabanderson
(25 posts)because they don't acknowledge the federal gov't.
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)then you are for Mexican cartels using public lands for growing cannabis.
Same type of theft applies to both.
Cheerful Charlie
(46 posts)That's a strange analogy.
Boreal
(725 posts)that cattle like this (free range) are where "grass fed" beef comes from (for all you Whole Paycheck and organic shoppers). It's either grazing, which always takes place on vast expanses of land, or factory farming. In the end, the both end up in the slaughterhouse so it's the meat eating consumer who's the real moral criminal but that's another thread.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I'm sure the BLM folks are hungry..
Yummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmy!
or factory "farmed"?
mercuryblues
(14,491 posts)do you think when his cattle over graze the land. Hold his hand out begging for federal dollars to bail him out. That is always what assholes like him do.
Boreal
(725 posts)that this man raises animals for other people to eat, on what basis do you say he's an asshole or begs for federal dollars? Do you know him? His family has had cattle grazing that land since the 1800s. IOW, it's the only life they know and it's far more likely he's never begged anyone for money.
mercuryblues
(14,491 posts)paying the fees to let his cattle graze on federal land.
letting his cattle graze illegally
Threatening a "range war"
Federal authorities had intended to remove the ranchers cattle in 2012, but that was postponed after Bundy threatened violence toward government employees.
Has made it known he has guns and will use them.
the guy is free loading on tax payer land.
He follows Ron Paul.
So My ancestors were here before his ancestors were, does that give me the right to go camping or logging on federal land without paying? He is refusing to pay. He does not own the land. can I come and cut down one of your trees for firewood for I'll pay you 100$. But of course when it is time to pay, I will claim my ancestors were living on the land before you, so I get it for free instead.
Boreal
(725 posts)to logging, mining, drilling for oil and gas, or other exploitation.
Maybe you missed this back story, posted up thread:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/22ntn8/take_aways_from_the_ongoing_bundyranch_situation/cgoyftl
Note the BLM killing all the tortoises before they claimed to be "saving" them.
With respect to your mention of camping: not all of the world is a park and I don't want a world where everyone has to pay the king to use his land.
mercuryblues
(14,491 posts)exactly the same. He is using the land without paying. He is free to use his own land for free.
The Wielding Truth
(11,411 posts)At least all the ones I know.
Kingofalldems
(38,361 posts)Col Happablap or something. Ex Special Forces and all the freepers and gun nuts just worship him.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)MFM008
(19,782 posts)lets all not pay our taxes or driving fees or anything else. I personally thinnk they werent handled harsh enough.
christx30
(6,241 posts)Make those BLM folks draw weapons. Might kill a couple of the protesters. The rest of the protesters, who will not recognize your authority, will gun down all of the agents without hesitation.
And then what? Send more people? Kill all of those people?
So you started bloodshed for the the concept of "the law", and the reality of cattle grazing. And you've pissed off a bunch of heavily armed people across the country.
It'd be better to find a way of working with these people and not try to crush them.