masterrig

Happens in the inner-cities all the time. I don't see any militias standing up to protect them. Library books too late, swat team entry. Couple of plants in your house, swat team knocks in the front door. Etc. But those inner city folk don't really look American, so they are probably illegal anyways. No, because they either run like hell away or fall on the floor with their hands behind their head... they know the drill! Chuck

Isn't that pretty much what's actually happening? I have neither heard on the news or read in the press any mention of a warrant being served... ever! References to court appearances, yes. Warrants... No. Chuck

According to people who can not possibly know! Not in any way, shape or form. Well... who do you think would know? I'll be more than happy to check with them. Chuck

Sorry, I low-balled the figure. If you would, check Normiss' post in this thread. The cost to the BLM was closer to 3-mill. That was some return they got for their buck. Rather our tax payer dollars! No one has handed Bundy a bill and besides, he didn't tell them to take his cattle... the BLM just took them. How do you figure that 'we' are paying his grazing fees... you lost me with that one. Chuck

Where the hell did you find that? Thanks, Bud! I was having a heckuva time searching for that and got nowhere. Chuck

Anything like this? http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/wind-farms-can-kill-eagles-without-penalty-f2D11702834 I guess, it's ok because it's 'green'? Chuck Here is a great explanation with sources to back up claims http://freedominfonet.net/truth-blm-bundy-ranch-dispute-explained/ eta: Hard to trust any government agency whose only oversight is the POTUS. Well, that was truly informative! I appreciate your posting that. Chuck

I heard there are UFOs in Area 51. Doesn't mean it's true. Gotta source for that, because that doesn't pass the sniff test by a fairly wide margin unless them boys over at the BLM are getting paid a whole heaping lot more than I am. Fair enough... I heard it on the news on the radio. I'll find it in print and get back to you... how's that? Chuck

What about those Bostonians who didn't want to pay that tea tax? I heard today, that little soiree to take his cattle, thrown by the BLM cost in excess of $900,000.00 paid for by us taxpayers. Chuck

The message it sends that if you just ignore the BLM or the EPA or some other government agency and then make a fess in the press, you can avoid spending over a million dollars. What could possibly be the second order consequence of this? Then they need to get a warrant for 'failure to pay' or 'theft of service' or something and throw his ass in jail and throw away the key. Something they probably should've done 20 yrs. ago and the BLM could've saved a lot of face. Chuck

Anything like this? http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/wind-farms-can-kill-eagles-without-penalty-f2D11702834 I guess, it's ok because it's 'green'? Chuck

Like I said, it was just a thought! What's the difference in 'forgiving' him his debt and 'forgiving' MILLIONS' of illegal aliens for 'stealing' citizenship in this country? Hmmmmmm...? Chuck Perhaps you could do a séance... and ask Saint Ronald the RayGun.... Chuck

Just the one's they catch. Those already here are home free. Chuck

Then why, are they pickin' on him? Could it be.... there's just one of him? Chuck

The USA has been doing it for years. Does the word 'amnesty' ring a bell? You didn't 'fix it for' me you flat-out re-wrote it and it failed to reflect my true feelings. Savvy? Chuck

Knowing this government, I can just guess who they'd pick first! It wouldn't be that rancher! Chuck

Like I said, it was just a thought! What's the difference in 'forgiving' him his debt and 'forgiving' MILLIONS' of illegal aliens for 'stealing' citizenship in this country? Hmmmmmm...? Chuck

I think, I may have come to a solution to the rancher's and BLM's problem. Since he is the only one grazing cattle on a portion of BLM land and his family has grazed cattle on that land for way long before the existence of the BLM, why couldn't the BLM reach-out an olive branch and 'grandfather' the ranch (rancher). In the grand scheme of things, it isn't that big of a piece of land and it would show the BLM really does have a heart. That would be a 'peaceful' conclusion to the mess and the BLM would come-out looking like good guys. I know, there's some of you out there who only see the money side of things or the fact that is one little piece of earth you can't hike on hike on or run four-wheelers on or whatever but this type of thing has been done before. Maybe not with the BLM but what would it hurt. Sometimes you have to give-up a little pride for a 'peaceful' end to a problem. The rancher could have the BLM folks out for a barbecue say, once a year. Just a thought. Chuck

Where'd you get that from? You're the one who has been saying they shouldn't have let it go 20 years in the courts. If it's publicly owned land I do have a right access. I always had current land ownership maps. I knew where the boundary was between privately owned tracts and BLM or National Forest land. When I talked to the ranchers (as I always did, to let them know what I was up to) I made it clear that I would stay well clear of any livestock (don't want to mess with them anyway) and close any gates behind me etc. One fellow told me "if you cross that gate nobody will ever find your body". Just to be clear, most of the time ranchers were friendly and cooperative, and appreciated that I stopped to let them know who I was and what I would be doing. There were just a few that had the bad attitude. So what? That argument was considered and rejected by both Federal and Nevada courts. The guy may believe whatever he wants to, but the courts say he is wrong. He is also a liar: he claims he will follow Nevada law, but then he rejects the authority of the Nevada court as well. He's just determined to do whatever the hell he wants. The problem with that is that it assumes both sides want to fix it. What do you do when one side (the rancher in this case) has no interest in solving the problem, because they are profiting by allowing it to continue? Don I was simply asking a question. Good! You did the right thin... you're an exception. You understand the rules of gates and so-on. That's great! To reiterate, BOTH SIDES screwed-up, both sides are being hard headed. The rancher believes he is right, the government believes they are right. Both sides have a problem. I wish them good luck. I'd just like to see no blood-shed. Chuck

My understanding of Federal lands like the BLM or USFS or god forbid the F#$%@# PARK service( do not mess with the NPS pet rocks or you are in huge trouble) watches over for ALL Americans is it may exist within state boundries but make no mistake.. it was never sold off to individuals or turned over to the states nor was it put into private handsand was homesteaded or deeded.. it is not yours. If it is federal land that holds minerals... you can make a claim on a few acres but there is a whole bunch of regs and hoops you have to jump thru and "produce" and pay royalties on. ( Been there and done that) alot of those laws were changed back in the 1970's which made it even more restrictive and then Saint Ronald came along and made the executive order with the Pay to Play on federal lands to graze there. Slick Willie then upped the game and got even more into that game on park lands... with user fees there for those who wanted to even take a peek and those public lands. Thank you for posting that. Enlightening! I knew that when it came to the govt. and federal lands and all, there were hoops to jump through. I have also been of the understanding that federal lands were 'leased' for grazing by ranchers. I get the distinct impression, when dealing with the government in these regards, it is confusing, frustrating and complicated. They just won't make things easy, will they? Chuck

After 20 years, at some point you have to enforce the law. Do I think they needed to show up with an Army? Absolutely not. But nice letters didn't seem to be doing the trick. A site visit was in order. Earlier in this thread, I suggested a visit from the feds... not an army but a couple agents but that was ruled out as being too costly. ChuckWhat do you think a "nice little face-to-face" would have accomplished that 20 years of litigation didn't? It's not as if this guy had no idea anything was amiss until the BLM started to remove his cattle. He's been in "fuck you" mode for 20 years. Bundy is now claiming effective ownership of a huge swath of public land. His cattle are grazing through a large part of Lake Mead National Recreational Area and the Valley of Fire State Park. The situation is not much different from a mining company claiming that they don't recognize the United States Government, and then opening an open pit mine in the middle of Big Bend National Park. I'll admit that this case has a certain resonance with me. When I lived in Arizona, I was very frustrated with ranchers who closed off BLM land and denied everyone else their legal right to access that public land for hiking and camping. I ran into this at a number of places in both Arizona and southern New Mexico. For the price of a grazing permit, these ranchers got (well, took) what amounted to personal ownership of huge tracts of land, including in some cases entire mountain ranges. BLM officials just referred me to local law enforcement. Appeals to local law enforcement went nowhere, as they either were friendly with the rancher or decided it wasn't something they wanted to get mixed up in. Don What would you suggest... they should've sent troops in the same day they mailed the first letter? Also, Ranchers here have had problems with 'hikers' breaking down fences and trespassing just because they felt they had a right to. A lot depends on the reading of the lease. In this case, the rancher states that the grazing land in question is owned by the State of Nevada and that is who he answers to. Both sides have screwed-up in the handling of this matter. Now, just how do you suppose they fix it? Shoot the rancher? They already tried to steal his cattle and sent armed troops. This whole thing has gotten way out of line. Both sides need to fix it... shit or get off the pot. Chuck

As I mentioned in my last post, they could've sent a couple agents to make their point but as I said, that was shot down as 'costly'. I think that would make a better impression than letters. With all the 'scams' in the world today, letters don't mean much. Send a couple badges and you make your point... you don't need an army for one man. edit to add: The feds could've gotten a warrant on him for 'trespass', let him cool his heels in County for 10-days. If, that didn't work, make it twenty days. Maybe something like that. The feds just dragged their feet on this one and wound-up looking foolish. Chuck

After 20 years, at some point you have to enforce the law. Do I think they needed to show up with an Army? Absolutely not. But nice letters didn't seem to be doing the trick. A site visit was in order. Earlier in this thread, I suggested a visit from the feds... not an army but a couple agents but that was ruled out as being too costly. Chuck

This has already been debunked several times in this thread, yet you continue to repeat it as if it were true. I'd thought better of you. Don I went back through all the posts I made in this thread and found where I made mention of any politician 'profiting' from this twice. Once before it was debunked and once after. I don't think that counts as 'continuing' to repeat it!! Chuck

This has already been debunked several times in this thread, yet you continue to repeat it as if it were true. I'd thought better of you. Don Maybe it isn't oil/gas but I feel there's something behind this other than just evicting a tenant. There seems to be more than enough tortoises to not be endangered. Like Billy asked...Why did it take the BLM 20 yrs. to suddenly act on this? I know, the wheels of government turn slowly but 20-yrs.? Chuck Not sure I udnerstand this argument. Many have been saying that the government should use diplomacy in stead of force. Now you are questioning why they didn't use force earlier? No, I'm not questioning why they didn't use force. I'm thinking they could've used the courts a little more than they did. Chuck

This has already been debunked several times in this thread, yet you continue to repeat it as if it were true. I'd thought better of you. Don Maybe it isn't oil/gas but I feel there's something behind this other than just evicting a tenant. There seems to be more than enough tortoises to not be endangered. Like Billy asked...Why did it take the BLM 20 yrs. to suddenly act on this? I know, the wheels of government turn slowly but 20-yrs.? Chuck