Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Texan5

His family owned the land since the 1890’s, and it was taken from them with no compensation, and you feel he should be on the hook for grazing fees for land that was stolen from them?

The governmnet swops in with helicopters and snipers and assualt family members, and people feel it’s the militia’s
looking for a fight?

Which side are these people on? This is Free Republic, right? I’m confused.


104 posted on 04/14/2014 10:30:39 AM PDT by Travis T. OJustice (I miss you, dad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies ]


To: Travis T. OJustice

The article I read said it was government owned land BEFORE his family began grazing - am I wrong? Did his family own the land or not?


109 posted on 04/14/2014 10:44:53 AM PDT by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]

To: Travis T. OJustice
His family owned the land since the 1890’s, and it was taken from them with no compensation

That's not what I read. Are you saying he does not graze on federal land?

110 posted on 04/14/2014 10:48:22 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]

To: Travis T. OJustice

You don’t need to be reactionary-I’m just about the last person who thinks anyone should pay the government for anything but maintaining the military and maybe a well-run postal service-but certainly not holding land and leasing it out to people who farm or ranch.

If the fed could only own the land with military installations, and everything else is private, that would put a stop to all this crap. And my family are small ranchers in south Texas, not even close to the several thousand acres the Bundys own, so my info on grass leases is limited-and there isn’t a great deal of public land in Texas-but most of Nevada appears to belong to the fed....

It was my understanding that the Bundy family leased additional public land, to graze additional cattle because there isn’t enough vegetation and water on his acreage to increase his herd there. He agreed to pay XXX for this grass/land lease.

Supposedly, there was a dispute, the government didn’t meet the terms of the lease, so he didn’t pay, and then they insisted he remove the cattle because of some tortoise that is apparently more important than humans or cattle, but that turned out to be bogus. He lost in court, the whole thing went bad, and the ass****s at BLM and the rest decided to try to play Waco again, but forgot this is not the Clinton years, and got their bluff called by a bunch of real people. So they gave back the cattle, went away mad, and everybody will end up back in court.

All I suggested was that maybe if everybody helped him pay the back lease fees, he will be without blemish in court and can get a better result-like make the BLM go away once and for all and not bother any ranchers again. It is always good to be paid up-in this case, if he is, he might be able to get a judge to award him the money plus damages...


126 posted on 04/14/2014 12:22:12 PM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson