Posted on 04/09/2014 8:18:46 AM PDT by FBD
LAS VEGAS -- The son of a rural Nevada cattle rancher has been freed from federal custody, a day after his arrest by agents working to remove cattle from disputed grazing areas northeast of Las Vegas.
A U.S. attorney's office spokeswoman in Las Vegas said Monday that 37-year-old Dave Bundy is accused of refusing to disperse and resisting officers.Bundy's mother, Carol Bundy, says U.S. Bureau of Land Management agents arrested her son Sunday in a parked car on State Route 170 near Bunkerville.
Pictures obtained by the 8 News NOW I-Team show where David Bundy had parked his car to take pictures of the cattle eviction.
Bundy says he was only exercising his First Amendment rights when federal officers told him to leave the area and when he didn't, they grabbed him."Two officers surround me, third one in front of me. They jumped me and took me to the ground. You can see they scraped up my face," Bundy said.Bundy's father, Cliven Bundy, says his cattle are entitled to graze in the Gold Butte area."They steal my cattle, and that is bad enough. But they make my son a political prisoner," Cliven Bundy said.
This weekend wranglers, hired by the federal government, started removing cattle owned by Bundy from a stretch of land near the Virgin River Gorge.
(Excerpt) Read more at 8newsnow.com ...
Yep. I know. Knew that before that video, and I also knew I wasn’t the only one.
Those arguing minutia are missing the bigger picture and are no friends of a “free Republic”.
The ‘93 changes to the intergenerational grazing fee agreement was Bundy’s “tea tax”, his “intolerable act”, and his line in the sand.
He has my full support.
They (the quibblers) are no friends of freedom at’all.
The threads on the subject are quite revealing for that reason alone.
Confirms some of my suspicions.
I am. :)
“The law is the law and the law is what we say it is...”
“What about right and wrong? Freedom? Constitutionally limited governance? What about that?”
“You just hate the law and should be ashamed...”
Nothing more than Torries lining up to pay taxes on tea.
for later
Have been and will continue to do so.
Ok, you can cut and paste. Care to apply specific sections or clauses to this situation where the government is exercising it’s legal right (enumerated in the Constitution that flowed from this very document) to kick a squatter herd of cattle off of the land it owns?
You need to climb to the heights of Gold Butte and get a glimpse of just how far your horizons can extend.
Oddly, the goonvernment didn't give a rat's @ss in 1992. Why would THAT be, I wonder?
Again, a dodge of the question. You claim that you are a Declirationist yet will not or can not show what clauses of the Decliration of Independance apply to this situation.
Last chance to man up - Does the US Government own the land in question, yes or no?
This all got out of hand years ago, the federal government encouraged ranchers to think of it as “their land” it was supposed to be a perfect relationship between the government and ranchers. Government would let ranchers use land that in some cases was claimed by rancher before the
BLM existed when the unwritten code of the west was secure water and you could use all the grazing land you could control. The relationship between feds and ranchers was a secure and solid one at that time, like a happy marriage- rancher invested money in government land for improvements like water that benefited wildlife and allowed that to flourish. Roads were built,fences were built, waters put in sometimes at total rancher expense, sometimes on a cost share but rancher generally always provided the labor. This benefited the government in income from leases (which were always cheaper than private leases because rancher was expected to and in some cases required to make improvements and steward the land, benefited the wildlife because water was readily available, benefited the general public because there were roads and wildlife that would not have otherwise been there.
The relationship between ranchers and the federal government was so strong that federal grazing leases were/still are in fact considered part of the ranch. They were considered that way by the government, by banks, appraisers, tax entities. Ranches were valued based on the grazing lease that went with the ranch. Because of this relationship there is no real way to compare federal grazing leases to private leases.
The relationship between ranchers and the government went sour years ago when liberals decided cattle were bad and we should all be vegetarians so cattle/ranchers needed to go. liberals started using endangered species, environmental issues- you name it to get ranchers off of government land. I have no idea when it all began for sure since there was no FR then to keep up with shenanigans but I know it was going sour in the 1970s in some places. Going back to water rights, some ranchers had legally filed water rights in some cases on land they did not technically own. In some places there is a distinct difference between land ownership, water rights, mineral rights, and those rights can be owned by different people. Some of the ranchers owned water rights on what came to be government land. A rancher here in NM got in a similar situation as Bundy and relied on his documents that showed his family owned water rights on government land before the government claimed “ownership” remember state rights were more important then than federal laws and states allowed this to happen. Google Kit Laney NM to see the issues he had with the feds. In some places the government filed for water rights that were already owned by ranchers and then passed laws that the rancher would lose his water rights for non- use and would then not allow the rancher to have cattle there to use the water- catch 22. It has all been very complicated legally over the years.
Upshot is the article that said Bundy’s neighbors had been regulated out of business but he held firm sounds pretty accurate as to what started this battle.
I have to thank my lucky stars that my father was so wise, and that he and my grandfather did not trust the feds. We never leased government land, my dad said the ranchers were going to get screwed at some point because they did not have deed to that land and any rancher that paid millions of dollars (which they did and still do) for a ranch that was basically worthless as a ranch without the government land was insane. My grandfather and dad never fell for the whole, treat it like you own it, include it in your ranch for all purposes way of ranching because they did not trust the feds.
Sounds like your Grandad and Dad were very wise men. I live out West (Denver area) and own mountain property as well. Like you mention, I have seen a lot of “ranches” that were small homesteads plus a large government grazing lease. Actually, it is not all that uncommon.
A wise man once said, “posession is 9/10ths of the law” so whoever owns the land gets to make the rules. It is kind of like dealing with a land lord. If he wants quite hours at 9 pm ... you are going to have to sign an agreement to that effect or be kicked out when your current lease runs out. Sometimes you have good landlords, sometimes they are asses. But that does not change their right to set the rules for their property.
What saddens me is that so many conservatives so quickly gave up the foundations of owners rights or property rights just because the fight was between someone they liked and the government. That loss of principle is what we accuse the left of so often.
Hey! Just because the tortoises subsist on cowpoop doesn't mean that they like the cows, or socialize with them, or go to Prom with them, or anything like that.
So they MIGHT be "endangered" by cow bullying in the lunch room, or after school while they're all waiting for the cow buses and the tortoise buses.
;-)
I'm not dodging the question, I'm mocking you. Oh, and I'm mocking the tortoise Forts. And the cow bullying. And the eating of the cowpoop.
Are you thick, or something?
Say, you didn't get whacked in the head whilst they was maneuvering The Hover dam into position athwart the new navigable Waterway to Clark County, did ya?
If so, we all feel bad for ya. Mostly.
I do declir - you're more fun than a barrel of Moochelles.
You claim that you are a Declirationist yet will not or can not show what clauses of the Decliration of Independance apply to this situation.
On second thought, I am kind of partial to the Santa Clause of the Decliration. Izzat declir enough for you?
I've actually given up waiting, which is why you are in an Excel Spreadsheet under Troll, Statist, Likely Paid.
The turtles could actually enjoy lounging in the shade of a friendly cow on a hot summer’s day.
A symbiotic relationship!
In that case, the BLM is the one violating the Engendered Specious Act, and so are all their "non-affiliated" (wink-wink) NGO Watermelon pals.
My brother owns some acreage in CA that he is not allowed to remove brush from...yet every time there is a brush fire people say “why didn’t those idiots clear or thin the brush on their property?” There are so many laws now that contradict what is common sense that we are sunk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.