This is all about protecting the desert tortoise.
http://i0.wp.com/klas.images.worldnow.com/images/25168654_BG1.jpg?w=598
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 ...
I agree 100%. In fact, I would support a constitutional amendment that limits land ownership by the federal government to a maximum of 20% of the state’s land area.
Is there a fee for grazing on Federal land?
This is all about protecting the desert tortoise.
http://i0.wp.com/klas.images.worldnow.com/images/25168654_BG1.jpg?w=598
They do not own the land. The land is owned by the federal government.
This is private land owned by the Fed’s, as the landowner they make the rules just like I do. I lease out about 30 square miles to cattle operations and I have my rules written in contract, break them and you will be removed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3142500/posts?page=23#23
The rancher isn’t the problem. An out of control Fedgov is the problem.
Yes and has been in place for many years. It is one of the ways that the federal government allows use of the land for the public good. The money collected goes to offset the cost of maintaining the land (such as wild fire suppression costs).
Apparently, the federal government owns EVERYTHING, including the rights to free speech. This is the fenced area that the ranchers can protest in. (Source KLAS TV)
http://i0.wp.com/klas.images.worldnow.com/images/25168654_BG2.jpg?zoom=1.5&resize=392%2C294
Hey I agree with that, they closed it off for a damn tortoise but he stopped paying years before that.
If he’s paying the fee, the government is in the wrong and he can sue. If the government decided to stop allowing grazing, then he’s claiming “squatter’s rights” and the rancher is in the wrong.
He stopped paying the leasing fee many years ago but he kept running cows on it.
In other words, stealing from taxpayers. I have no sympathy for this guy.
I always CRINGE when I see the interior department signs using the indian arrowhead. My GGGrandmother hid from the Trail of Tears (the gubmint). Makes my skin crawl.
1. per the article “Just before the round-up began, Bundy claims armed federal agents surrounded his 150-acre ranch. “
Note - 150 acre ranch. That is what Bundy OWNES. Trust me, you can not raise 500 head on 150 acres. Even with good grazing and grass, the most you can load an acre is about .75 head. In scrub grass area like this local terrain, you may have to have 5 acres per head.
2. The land that the article incorrectly reports as Bundy’s ranch where the 500 head are being raised belongs to the US government. While Bundy’s family may have grazed their cattle on this federal land for a long time, it is still federal land. That is why there is a grazing fee in the first place. Trust me, NO ONE pays grazing fees for land that they own. The whole reason for having the land in the first place is so that you dont have to pay fees and can use your own land as you see fit. The fact that Bundy admits that they have paid grazing fees and are still willing to pay grazing fees is defacto proof that the land belongs to the federal government.
3. Since the federal government is the owner of the land in question, they have the right to say how that land is going to be used. In this case, the government has decided to set aside that land for some tortoise habitat. As such, they have told the rancher that in addition to the grazing fees that he owes, he is no longer able to graze on federal lands as that has been set aside.
4. Bundy has decided to violate private property rights (federal government land) and squat on federal lands without paying the fees or recognizing the right of the land owner to determine the use of the land.
The problem here is no different from a landlord and a renter. If the renter does not pay rent, and continues to use the house, the landlord gets a letter of eviction and has the Sheriff evict that person off the landlords property.
Some thing you are missing... Bundy had more land until the BLM took it away from him....
All he has to do is show a deed for this land and it’s over. But since he’s been paying lease fee’s proving he doesn’t own it we have a none story.
Yes.
The fee doesn’t actually cover the full cost of land management, but it isn’t clear that it is supposed to. Right now, it is $1.35 per head per month, which is the minimum it can be, due to a 1986 executive order (would have been President Reagan).
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22704766/federal-grazing-fee-stays-same-rekindles-debate
We have folks here in west Texas paying 10.00 a head.
[ The problem here is no different from a landlord and a renter. If the renter does not pay rent, and continues to use the house, the landlord gets a letter of eviction and has the Sheriff evict that person off the landlords property. ]
I see it as an analogy of the welfare state, the state gives for a long time and then when they taketh away you see people get really angry...
Of course they will never take an EBT card from a thug who wont work, but they will take away the cattle from some rancher...
The politicians are great at playing “Most bang for the buck” with their lever pulling idiots...
No, Bundy did NOT have more (as in own) land.
He USED more land. The more land was federal land. This is a common condition with ranching in the west. Some land you own, and some land you lease (range fees) but what you call your ranch is the sum of the two.
The fact is that the federal land he was using before the creation of the BLM to
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.