Posted on 04/11/2014 11:23:53 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s decades-long battle against the federal government over grazing rights has heated to the point where militia groups have joined in and taken up spots against the feds who’ve circled his land — and talk is, they’re not afraid to open fire.
A spokesman for the one of the militia groups said as much to local 8 News Now: I’m not “afraid to shoot,” he said.
Margaret Houston, Mr. Bundy’s sister and a cancer survivor, said at a town hall gathering this week that the situation “was like a war zone” and that she felt “like I was not in the United States,” The Daily Mail reported. The Las Vegas Review-Journal described it this way: “Serious bloodshed was narrowly avoided,” in a story about how dogs were unleashed on a woman who was pregnant while the rancher’s son was hit with a taser.
On Tuesday, armed Bureau of Land Management agents stormed Mr. Bundy’s property, escalating a court dispute that’s wound for two decades over the rancher’s refusal to pay for grazing fees.
~~snip~~
Now militia groups are on the scene, promising to help the Bundys keep up the fight.
“This is what we do, we provide armed response,” Jim Lordy, with Operation Mutual Aid, told the local broadcast station. “They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.”
Mr. Lordy also said “many more” militia groups are coming to the site to join in the Bundy family defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
My understanding was that in the 90s, they reduced the amount of AUMs allowed (from 1,000 to 150 is a number I've seen thrown about around here, but no official source). It was the reduction in herd, not the fee per AUM,that he was upset about.
Also, I've been told by some who know better than me that an equivalent fee per AUM on private lands is more than 4 times what the feds charge. Somewhere between 5 and 6 dollars per AUM. But, I can't find any data on that, so I don't know for certain. All I can find is source data on the federal rate for AUM on federal land (BLM and Forest Service).
“They’ll attempt to either provoke a response or fake a response, kill everyone that can testify against them, hide all the evidence, and blame the protesters for being massacred.”
Just get them tricked into going into a big wooden barn. Then call Eric the Pyro. Proven Tactics.
“Or does the land belong to the People of these United States? Should a hiker pay to walk the desert, or to burn King Barack’s wood in a campfire?”
Actually, I do pay fees to access some forests where I hike. Those fees help cover the cost of administrating the area, and CONGRESS has approved doing so. And under the US Constitution, Congress does have that authority.
I also ride my horses on state land - Arizona - and cattle graze there (in very low numbers). There are stock ponds and some corrals set up. That doesn’t bother me in the least. Before I entered the military, I studied range management & my closest friend from my college days is a rancher himself. One of my horses came from his ranch.
I oppose most environmental laws passed since Reagan’s first administration. I was stationed overseas for his second term, but I’m pretty sure I dislike most of what has passed since GHWB took office.
But in America, you do not start shooting people because you lost an election at the ballot box. My rancher friend pays his grazing fees and then he runs his sheep and cattle. He pays less for federal land grazing because of the hassle it involves. But he pays because it is reasonable to pay a fee to the landowner, and those fees reduce the general taxes.
This guy is pushing folks to start a bloodbath so he can graze his cattle anywhere, anytime. In the desert, that destroys the land.
“From 1973 or before until 1993, the BLM issued to Bundy’s father and Bundy, as his father’s representative, ephemeral grazing permits to graze livestock on the Allotment. Regions classed as ephemeral do not consistently produce forage, but periodically provide annual vegetation suitable for livestock grazing. 33 FED. REG. 18245. Before grazing on an ephemeral range, a person must submit an application to the BLM. The BLM will determine if adequate forage is available and that the use is consistent with all of the terms and conditions of the permit.”
Bundy ALWAYS KNEW his grazing permit did not give him the right to unrestricted grazing. That is part of what “ephemeral range” means.
I live in southern Arizona. I worked at Edwards AFB for a few years, and flew out of Las Vegas many time on Red Flag missions. In my youth, I worked for the Forest Service and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resource. I did vegetation surveys in the San Rafael Swell. Desert lands are easy to destroy. That is why grazing on them requires management.
I may not like the BLM, but they do have a legal right under the US Constitution to manage the grazing IAW the laws of Congress.
Holder would do it with Obozo’s blessing.
I do not think the feds will massacre them. Way too many Americans have said no more Wacos, Ruby Ridges, etc., regardless of the government’s claimed justification. An attempted slaughter at this time will cause a backfire. The union AA hires do not want to risk their own skin...
Now a false flag, that’s very possible here.
Hannity said Cliven Bundy will be live on the air for the entire next hour, starting at the top of the next hour..
In S. CA AM 1150 on the dial, at 1pm Pacific.
Or where ever Hannity stations are covered.
If they do, they’d better find a country to retreat to. This isn’t the 90’s. A lot of things are different now:
Internet
Fundamental transformation of America by a president who most people hate.
Many more guns in the hands of citizens
Hopelessness based on total lack of representation for decent people in any place in the world.
On twitter: Bundy family reports that the feds have shut off cell towers preventing communication and photo & video uploads.
“Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM.”
Evidence?
“On March 3, 1994, Bundy sent a check for $1,961.47 to Clark County for grazing fees. The BLM calculated that this amount is equal to the amount Bundy would pay to graze 85 cattle on the Allotment for a 12-month period if the fees were paid to the BLM in advance. Clark County returned the check to Bundy since it did not have jurisdiction over the Allotment.
In March and April of 1994, the BLM sent letters to Bundy requesting that he pay past due bills for grazing fees...
...In August 1995, the BLM sent Bundy another Trespass Notice and Order to Remove. Bundy responded by sending a Constructive Notice [*5] and Order to Stop, in which he again questioned the United States’ authority to manage the Allotment. See Exhibit 28 to #11.
In September 1997, the BLM tried to set up a meeting with Bundy to resolve the trespasses, but Bundy declined to meet with the BLM.”
Clark County agrees with the State of Nevada and the US government - they do not own the land and cannot accept payment for it.
Not surprising...I’m way beyond emotions concerning this administration....our country is flapping in the wind without any effective leadership....and the evidence continues to mount, an intentional agenda.
The link at Post #101 is quite interesting. Maybe those who 'think' the government is acting proper in this manner should do more research.
After reading more on this issue I am convinced the Feds are determined to brutalize this rancher.
The Federal govt today is mostly tyrannical. One way or another an example will be set with this rancher.
The Federal government stands in opposition to Free enterprise and hard-working American citizens.
If you read my original post, I was asking questions about the situation. I just mentioned the cost going up along with others. You have just named another, where they appear to be reducing his income by as much as 85%.
Well, that doesn’t bode well for a peaceful outcome. Ever hear of a government that resolves things peacefully after the cameras are shut off?
Yeah... Me neither. Got a bad feeling about this.
Hannity said Cliven Bundy will be live on the air for the entire next hour, starting at the top of the next hour..
In S. CA AM 1150 on the dial, at 1pm Pacific.
Or where ever Hannity stations are covered.
(Bundy family reports that the feds have shut off cell towers preventing communication and photo & video uploads.)
Thanks...
Well then he’s fighting a loosing battle...simple. But I would question if the BKM should have been the “collector” of this fee. Some rules it seems were changed in that respect.
Obvious Bundy has issue with paying the Gov. .....and that’s his beef. A highly charged emotional event now....we’ll be seeing “unfinished” past business fueling this.
The Constition says the govt can own land to build forts, armories, magazines, and other needful buildings. They are not supposed to be holding millions of acres of land to be kept empty because of endangered species or so it can be a wilderness area.
I think there is going to be something coming out shortly that links Harry Reid directly to kicking Mr. Bundy off the land because Reid wants to lease the land to the Chi Coms for a solar farm. Real constitutional.
This is all about states rights and also Agenda 21.
Personally I believe that no matter how this ends the genie is out of the bottle and you are going to see it flaring up in other places. Taking back rights that have either been given away or allowed to be taken away is a messy job. Its going to be controversial.
I cannot believe you assume the BLM is acting in a manner that is IAW the Constitution. I am certain even if the rancher did everything you said, the BLM would "change the rules" or find some excuse to end this Rancher's livelihood.
Long gone are the days of a proper and respectful Federal government. Many in the government are true enemies of Freedom.
Are you sure you are in the right neighborhood?
The endangered species act.
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.