Bundy is the only rancher that BLM hasn't driven out of business in the area. I think 53 other ranchers had go under because of the feds. I hope that makes you feel better.
Get those other 53 ranchers to form a coalition and get the news media to carry the story and then you have something. Let them tell their stories of harassment and show a pattern of the feds abusing law abiding ranchers. That’s good and compelling because they’re not breaking the law based on a kook theory.
In the end Bundy’s argument for not paying the fees is a lie. It’s dead wrong, so on all the other counts where he’s right he’ll actually undermine the movement.
Are the feds out of control, do they abuse their authority in the sparsely populated west against ranchers, and do they need to be reined in big time? Yes, but Bundy’s the wrong guy to make a last stand on.
1010RD wrote
“Get those other 53 ranchers to form a coalition and get the news media to carry the story and then you have something”.
Proof, this is troll. Don’t feed the troll!
It’s Clark County. You say the government has driven 53 ranchers out of business? Really? Don’t you think some of those ranchers sold their family properties to cash out? Much easier than ranching and far more lucrative. It’s the way of the world - I know more than a few rich “former” farmers who sold the land. Cattle ranching is still profitable despite the growing amount of regulation on the business - the price of beef reflects this.
My neighbor pays his grazing fees and also pays to use my pasture for his cows. That is business. He does not have a right to graze his cattle on my property because his father or grandfather did. He does not own the property anymore. Any claims he once held to the land should have been settled years ago in court by his father or grandfather. That is how it works out here no matter how flawed BLM may be.
This story has taken on a narrative all it’s own and it’s become a wildfire of spin, but the one fact that is not in dispute is that Bundy made a decision not to pay for his grazing rights. If he really believed that reasoning he should have stopped paying taxes.
While I sympathize with the larger sentiments, we should be very cautious because there are major ramifications for property rights. Using his logic, I should go to our our old family homestead (also federal land) and cut some firewood because my grandpa and his father did it? Let’s see where that gets me. I can’t because we don’t own the land anymore!
Count me as the second kook on the thread. Maybe a bunch of you would come pick up guns to defend my neighbor if the County came to evict his cows after he refused to pay me for using it without my permission? Is there a difference? He used to own this land - probably a better claim that Bundy’s father or grandfather.
FWIW though - I really hope Reid had something to do with this because of Rory. I am tired of the blatant corruption from Reid. Politicians have no right benefitting directly or indirectly from permissions granted for public land.
I don’t always agree with how public lands are used or regulated, but it is public land that belongs to the nation and we can set the terms at the ballot box. Private land = mine. The same property rights apply to both in this situation.
Reading some of the comments makes me shake my head. 1010RD is right - this is not the place to make a stand.
Those of you who compare this to the real Boston Tea Party fail to understand - we have representation. Bundy made an informed decision and most of his supporters seem blind to the fact that thousands of Westerners have paid land use rights to the BLM without a problem. Why is Bundy worth our blood when he is the only one who did not follow the law?
Reading some of the comments to this story make me shake my head.... should I just gun down the next officer who pulls me over for speeding because I don’t like his agency or the law? Is that the way to change the speed limit laws?