Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Scoutmaster
"Do you hold the same opinion about changing the terms of a new ten-year lease after the expiration of a previous ten-year lease?"

Yes, raising the price no problem but to change the usage terms is a no-no. If the property supported 900 cattle on December 31st it will do so on January 1st.

You and I both know the BLM was playing games. And its been proven in spades. Did you see where the Government was euthanizing the Tortoises they were collecting from the very same land in question? Hard to make a case that the Cows endanger the Tortoises when the Government are killing them in droves and on purpose.

126 posted on 04/12/2014 6:49:50 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]


To: Mad Dawgg
Yes, raising the price no problem but to change the usage terms is a no-no.

That's not true. The same rules of BLM grazing permits/leases that require the BLM to offer a new permit/lease on the same property to the rancher if all terms and conditions of the previous grazing permit/lease were met also specifically permit the new contract to reduce the limits on the number of livestock grazed in a number of circumstances, including the presence of Endangered Species habitats.

At the time of Cliven Bundy's previous grazing lease/permit, desert tortoises were not an Endangered Species. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service didn't declare the desert tortoise an Endangered Species until 1989.

The BMS didn't place a grazing limit on the Bunkerton allotment in 1989, it waited until Cliven Bundy's next grazing permit renewal.

You and I both know much of what the federal government does to protect "Endangered Species' is nonsense. Changing usage terms may have been irrational, but it wasn't a no-no. Changing usage terms in a new contract was part of the BLM grazing program rules.

135 posted on 04/13/2014 5:18:17 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]

To: Mad Dawgg
Yes, raising the price no problem but to change the usage terms is a no-no.

That's not true. The same rules of BLM grazing permits/leases that require the BLM to offer a new permit/lease on the same property to the rancher if all terms and conditions of the previous grazing permit/lease were met also specifically permit the new contract to reduce the limits on the number of livestock grazed in a number of circumstances, including the presence of Endangered Species habitats.

At the time of Cliven Bundy's previous grazing lease/permit, desert tortoises were not an Endangered Species. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service didn't declare the desert tortoise an Endangered Species until 1989.

The BMS didn't place a grazing limit on the Bunkerton allotment in 1989, it waited until Cliven Bundy's next grazing permit renewal.

You and I both know much of what the federal government does to protect "Endangered Species' is nonsense. Changing usage terms may have been irrational, but it wasn't a no-no. Changing usage terms in a new contract was part of the BLM grazing program rules.

136 posted on 04/13/2014 5:18:17 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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