# Cliven Bundy complaint



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I've obtained a complete copy of the 32-page complaint against Cliven Bundy.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22059150/cliven-bundy-complaint.pdf

Man, he's in a lot of trouble. He may never see the outside of a prison again, even if he's only convicted of a small fraction of the allegations.

Heck, just this part of count 2 is enough for a long sentence. It's not like he can deny it. We all saw him doing it on the evening news.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

Let's hope so!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Despite Bundy's defiance of the law, his age makes this a very sad case. I have no idea where he got the idea that he could get away with an armed rebellion against federal officers. I don't think he's evil -- only misguided.

I hope he and his sons can make a plea deal that will allow him to see the light of day before he dies.


----------



## tamarackreg (Mar 13, 2006)

It's sad to see a good man go out like this.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I have no idea where he got the idea that he could get away with an armed rebellion against federal officers. I don't think he's evil -- only misguided..



Maybe from the old laws on cattle rustling that are making a comeback?.......

http://oklahomawatch.org/2015/02/25/house-committee-mulls-new-fine-sentence-for-cattle-rustling/

https://netposse.com/newsviewer.asp?id=469


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tamarackreg said:


> It's sad to see a good man go out like this.


What disturbs be the most is that he's not much older than I am. He & I would have watched the same TV shows, studied from the same textbooks, and shared similar experiences. Our generation was known for protesting and civil disobedience, but not armed rebellion.

I can't imagine where he got the idea he was living in the old west where problems could be settled with guns. I sense that the feds want to make an example out of him, demonstrating that pointing a gun at a federal officer is a severe mistake. He may spend the rest of his life paying for that mistake.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Maybe from the old laws on cattle rustling that are making a comeback?.......
> 
> http://oklahomawatch.org/2015/02/25/house-committee-mulls-new-fine-sentence-for-cattle-rustling/
> 
> https://netposse.com/newsviewer.asp?id=469


Really? Are they wanting to hang rustlers again? Most western states have strict brand inspection laws which are a hassle but have greatly reduced theft of cattle and horses. Nevada does too. No need for armed insurrection against federal officers.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Take a look for yourself.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cattle+rustling+in+nevada&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Maybe from the old laws on cattle rustling that are making a comeback?.......
> 
> http://oklahomawatch.org/2015/02/25/house-committee-mulls-new-fine-sentence-for-cattle-rustling/
> 
> https://netposse.com/newsviewer.asp?id=469


You'll have to tell me how cattle theft laws apply to the Bundy standoff. Those laws don't give ranchers any enforcement authority. Thieves still get due process from the state. Regardless of stiffer cattle theft laws, Bundy had no authority to point guns at those agents.

Those cattle rustling links are a red herring and have nothing to do with the Bundy standoff.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> You'll have to tell me how cattle theft laws apply to the Bundy standoff. Those laws don't give ranchers any enforcement authority. Thieves still get due process from the state. Regardless of stiffer cattle theft laws, Bundy had no authority to point guns at those agents.
> 
> Those cattle rustling links are a red herring and have nothing to do with the Bundy standoff.


Sorry, but I disagree.
Setting aside whether someone has the right to stop the taking of their property when caught in the act and regaining it, you DID make the statement, "I have no idea where he got the idea."
That was the answer.
If you read some of what the ranchers have been writing about for years, stealing land and cattle has everything to do with it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Sorry, but I disagree.
> Setting aside whether someone has the right to stop the taking of their property when caught in the act and regaining it, you DID make the statement, "I have no idea where he got the idea."
> That was the answer.
> If you read some of what the ranchers have been writing about for years, *stealing land and cattle* has everything to do with it.


His "property" was trespassing on Govt property since Cliven didn't pay his grazing fees.

No one was "stealing" anything but him.
He could have avoided the entire incident by paying his bills and following the laws.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> His "property" was trespassing on Govt property since Cliven didn't pay his grazing fees.
> 
> No one was "stealing" anything but him.
> He could have avoided the entire incident by paying his bills and following the laws.


Yes, I am aware of the case brought against them by the gov't.
I'm also aware of the laws that were broken by the gov't agents in the Bundy's case and several others.
One of the links from Oklahoma's recent laws on cattle rustling puts the penalty for it above the crime of aggravated assault.

A million dollar fine for some cows trespassing?
That may not be "stealing" where you come from, it sure sounds like it to me.

I also realize that some people believe it's impossible to be a thief if you wear a badge and a gun or work for the gov't.
Having first hand experience with them, I'm not one of those people.
:cowboy:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> One of the *links from Oklahoma's recent laws* on cattle rustling puts the penalty for it above the crime of aggravated assault.


As always, you love to post links to *unrelated* events as if they have some bearing on the thread's topic.

This is about Bundy breaking the law, and not about "theft" by the Govt, no matter how much rhetoric you use to imply they were "stealing" his cattle.



> A million dollar *fine* for some cows trespassing?
> That may not be "stealing" where you come from, it sure sounds like it to me.


Fines are penalties, not theft.

If you have to redefine words to make your point, I'll just stop now so the thread will survive.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

He fought and tried to get away with something, and the law won, simple as that. You can only go around LAWS so much and so often, before it catches up to you in the end.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> As always, you love to post links to *unrelated* events as if they have some bearing on the thread's topic.
> 
> This is about Bundy breaking the law, and not about "theft" by the Govt, no matter how much rhetoric you use to imply they were "stealing" his cattle.
> 
> ...



I wasn't aware that you were the new moderator of relevancy on topics now.
If I am only allowed to post Nevada laws though on this thread, I think I can comply. It's not that hard to read the links, follow the others contained within them and show the relevancy.

I also reserve the right to "define" the words that I read, if I disagree with how they are being used in specific circumstances.
You have the same right, as does the gov't.

You also have the right to cease communicating about those definitions as does the gov't does as well.
However, when all the talking is done, that doesn't leave the individual much redress in opposing his/her complaint does it?

The next post sums it up nicely, I think..........



arabian knight said:


> He fought and tried to get away with something, and the law won, simple as that. You can only go around LAWS so much and so often, before it catches up to you in the end.


The same can be said of the BLM, and more than one judge agreed in the years leading up to this. The only difference was the decision to shed blood and use force against the opposition.
It's a dangerous game when playing with such high stakes, to be sure.
It's always a good thing to know whether the other player is bluffing........or not.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I am aware of the case brought against them by the gov't.
> I'm also aware of the laws that were broken by the gov't agents in the Bundy's case and several others.
> One of the links from Oklahoma's recent laws on cattle rustling puts the penalty for it above the crime of aggravated assault.
> 
> ...


He had $1M in grazing fees. Where's this other $1M coming from? The grazing fees are just fine.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Sorry, but I disagree.
> Setting aside whether someone has the right to stop the taking of their property when caught in the act and regaining it, you DID make the statement, "I have no idea where he got the idea."
> That was the answer.
> If you read some of what the ranchers have been writing about for years, stealing land and cattle has everything to do with it.


Those laws don't authorize ranchers to take the law into their own hands, and certainly don't suggest that taking up arms against federal officers is OK.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> He had $1M in grazing fees. Where's this other $1M coming from? The grazing fees are just fine.



This article explains some of it, there are more details in the gov't documents.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ween-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

In 1995 the fees owed amounted to $31,000. 
Even if you agree that those fees were reasonable under the conditions the BLM put on the grazing and water rights, which is the crux of the dispute, at that rate it would only be half of what the gov't now says he owes, $1.2 million.
The rest is "associated costs" such as paying private individuals to round up and contain the cattle, assessed damages, punitive fines and interest, etc. outlined in the court documents.
One of the Bundy's neighbors is still having his SS check garnished to pay almost $200,000 they say he still owes - AFTER seizing and selling his 50 cows.
That's correct, for a herd of 50 cattle.

If you've ever dealt with the IRS or state Dept. of Revenue or even your local gov't, you'll find their idea of assessing "fair costs" doesn't match what the average person thinks of it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Those laws don't authorize ranchers to take the law into their own hands, and certainly don't suggest that taking up arms against federal officers is OK.



No, they certainly don't.
That's a far deeper subject, Natural Law.
You'll find a very fine discussion of it in the Declaration of independence.
Remember wondering where Bundy got the idea from?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> No, they certainly don't.
> That's a far deeper subject, Natural Law.
> You'll find a very fine discussion of it in the Declaration of independence.
> Remember wondering where Bundy got the idea from?


That's the thing about a declaration of war, you have to win. Otherwise you can expect to face the consequences of an armed rebellion. In Bundy's case there was no way he could follow through. He got his cattle out of impound, at least temporarily, but that's about it.

But this isn't a political issue, it's a legal issue. Bundy doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. His legal claims were debunked years ago so he has no realistic defense. That's what makes this case so sad.

What we have here is a man who ran his business into the ground because he failed to adapt to changing conditions. His biggest business debtor was the BLM. He can't logically blame the BLM for his business failure, but that's exactly what he's doing. He has to accept that business conditions changed and he lost his business.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> That's the thing about a declaration of war, you have to win. Otherwise you can expect to face the consequences of an armed rebellion. In Bundy's case there was no way he could follow through. He got his cattle out of impound, at least temporarily, but that's about it.
> 
> But this isn't a political issue, it's a legal issue. Bundy doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. His legal claims were debunked years ago so he has no realistic defense. That's what makes this case so sad.
> 
> What we have here is a man who ran his business into the ground because he failed to adapt to changing conditions. His biggest business debtor was the BLM. He can't logically blame the BLM for his business failure, but that's exactly what he's doing. He has to accept that business conditions changed and he lost his business.



I agree with most of that. You DO have to "win" the war, not only the battles.
And it IS a legal issue, I just disagree with the "law".

What I disagree with is that,

1) * He can't logically blame the BLM for his business failure*

If they are the entity that changed the rules, it is logical to me that they at least share the blame.

2) *He has to accept that business conditions changed and he lost his business.*

That's a matter of personal opinion.
There are things I'm willing to accept, and some I don't.
It all comes down to, what are you willing to fight for?



Times like this, I'm reminded of the old Irish proverb.
"Certain defeat is still no reason not fro fight".

Now, you *could* call the Irish a bunch of losers.............but I wouldn't necessarily advise it. 
eep:


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

I'm not sure how you can call yourself a farmer and not understand changing rules...

As far as the Irish which war did they win again???


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> What I disagree with is that,
> 
> 1) * He can't logically blame the BLM for his business failure*
> 
> ...


While I'm not going to tell a rancher how to run his business, conditions around here are not good for free-range cattle. This is a desert. Free-range cattle are better suited for northern Nevada. The better opportunity is his proximity to Las Vegas. His ranch would be better suited for a feed lot, fattening-up cattle for market. That's especially true after losing grazing privileges. As I said, a business owner has to either adapt or admit that it's over.

As it happens, I've been in the position of losing a business because of a change in regulations. But I didn't take up arms against government agents. Conditions change, and when it's over it's over. I moved on to other things.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

coolrunnin said:


> I'm not sure how you can call yourself a farmer and not understand changing rules...
> 
> As far as the Irish which war did they win again???


Thanks for making my point, even if my advice wasn't heeded.

Now, I'll take my Scotch-Irish butt over to pick up my mom this afternoon.
We have a few minor battles to take care of.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm also aware of the laws that were broken by the gov't agents in the Bundy's case and several others.


Could you elaborate? What laws were broken by government agents?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> This article explains some of it, there are more details in the gov't documents.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ween-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/
> 
> In 1995 the fees owed amounted to $31,000.
> ...


Bundy owed money. Bundy refused to pay. BLM turned a blind eye for decades. BLM finally gets fed up and wants their money. Bundy refuses to pay. This is all about some cattle guy's money. It has nothing to do with rights or grazing or anything else.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Bundy owed money. Bundy refused to pay. BLM turned a blind eye for decades. BLM finally gets fed up and wants their money. Bundy refuses to pay. This is all about some cattle guy's money. It has nothing to do with rights or grazing or anything else.


I have sympathy for Bundy's position, but I can't support his cause. Simply put, he had no case.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Could you elaborate? What laws were broken by government agents?


Sure, I can probably give you names, dates and statute numbers in more than one case. 
It might take some time, because I want to verify from multiple sources, particularly court transcripts, so please be patient while I find them.
But before I do, I have one question......

You seemed to have made up your mind about this long ago, although you've expressed sympathy for the old man at the same time.
But if you see for yourself misconduct, law breaking and statements by federal officials in court stating that they aren't obliged to obey those laws - will that have any effect on how you view this or change your mind at all?
IOW, am I wasting my time?




Heritagefarm said:


> Bundy owed money. Bundy refused to pay. BLM turned a blind eye for decades. BLM finally gets fed up and wants their money. Bundy refuses to pay. This is all about some cattle guy's money. It has nothing to do with rights or grazing or anything else.


Yep, that's the short version of it.
As far as whose money, and what claims are made against it, what rules are followed in collecting it and which ones aren't, and most importantly are the judges deciding what is right or wrong fair and impartial - NONE of that is important, right?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> But if you see for yourself misconduct, law breaking and statements by federal officials in court stating that they aren't obliged to obey those laws - will that have any effect on how you view this or change your mind at all?


Sure it would. If he was protecting himself from federal agents who were acting outside of their authority or against the law then he has an excellent defense. But you have to wonder why he never asserted that defense before.


----------



## WatchRyder (Feb 22, 2016)

What's with the big-government supporters on here? Isn't this supposed to be a 'homestead' forum where we support one another, even the misguided folks. I swear some of you actually like the federal over-reach and regulations creeping in.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

WatchRyder said:


> What's with the big-government supporters on here? Isn't this supposed to be a 'homestead' forum where we support one another, even the misguided folks. I swear some of you actually like the federal over-reach and regulations creeping in.


I'm no fan of big government. Why do homesteaders have to be libertarians?


----------



## WatchRyder (Feb 22, 2016)

Well I just read the charges and I can tell you most of it then what are known as 'scatter charges' they throw as many charges on the slimmest grounds and hope it gets through the armor of truth.

However, what is going to be tough for Cliven B. is that he will have to prove grazing rights which could be a sticking point. The rest of the charges are half-spurious imho. The weapons charges are 2nd Amendment and can be considered self-defense. The incitement charge stems from him saying 'whatever it takes' which can be widely interpreted. Plus 1st Amendment protection too.

This is pure and simple the Fed saying 'We run the show, now we have you in our grip and want to make an example out of you, all the while more laws will follow to scare other ranchers into complying etc'

The hidden story here is Senator Reid's land grab bid. There's a lot of mineral resources on Bundy's land and he is wanting it. What better way than to destroy a family and get the land off them?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm no fan of big government. Why do homesteaders have to be libertarians?


What is wrong with libertarians?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm no fan of big government. Why do homesteaders have to be libertarians?


Once a Ron Paul backer always a Ron Paul backer I guess. Once is enough too. This country is far beyond any L thinking these days. That is for sure Way out in the Left field is those 7% that will never chance I guess. 5% to 7% and it will never get any higher.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

WatchRyder said:


> However, what is going to be tough for Cliven B. is that he will have to prove grazing rights which could be a sticking point.


This isn't about why the federal agents were there, it's about Bundy pointing guns at them. Bundy's grazing rights aren't really relevant to these charges.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

WatchRyder said:


> What's with the big-government supporters on here? Isn't this supposed to be a 'homestead' forum where we support one another, even the misguided folks. I swear some of you actually like the federal over-reach and regulations creeping in.


There's another way of looking at this. Bundy wasn't standing on his own two feet, and his ranching operation wasn't sustainable (it hasn't been for over 20 years).


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

no really said:


> What is wrong with libertarians?


Nothing. But his/her post seemed to imply that all homesteaders were in favor of small government. This is overall true, but it seems to further imply libertarian. 



arabian knight said:


> Once a Ron Paul backer always a Ron Paul backer I guess. Once is enough too. This country is far beyond any L thinking these days. That is for sure Way out in the Left field is those 7% that will never chance I guess. 5% to 7% and it will never get any higher.


I donated to Ron Paul.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Nevada said:


> This isn't about why the federal agents were there, it's about Bundy pointing guns at them. Bundy's grazing rights aren't really relevant to these charges.


I think he made a huge mistake....you cannot switch to guns and get the outcome you want.
You have to go through the courts
It may not be the best system but if you are in the right it will work out.
BTDTM.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Sure it would. If he was protecting himself from federal agents who were acting outside of their authority or against the law then he has an excellent defense. But you have to wonder why he never asserted that defense before.



Well, Cliven Bundy is a rancher, not a lawyer. He did act pro se in at least one of his court cases, but I suspect it was due to a combination of a lack of money to hire an attorney and finding one willing to bear the wrath of the federal government for taking the case.:shrug:

In any event at least one Congressman has asked for BLM to be investigated for just that - acting outside their authority.
http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/congressman-blm-broke-law-in-bundy-ranch-raid/
I'll quote the U.S. statute and the BLM handbook in a moment or two......

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/1733

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/b...how.Par.34499.File.dat/BLM_Laws_Regs_2005.pdf




WatchRyder said:


> Well I just read the charges and I can tell you most of it then what are known as 'scatter charges' they throw as many charges on the slimmest grounds and hope it gets through the armor of truth.
> 
> However, what is going to be tough for Cliven B. is that he will have to prove grazing rights which could be a sticking point. The rest of the charges are half-spurious imho. The weapons charges are 2nd Amendment and can be considered self-defense. The incitement charge stems from him saying 'whatever it takes' which can be widely interpreted. Plus 1st Amendment protection too.



That's one of the many things I've been looking into for the last hour or two.
There is, or I should say WAS a precedent for just that........until January of 2016.
Coincidence?
This is a very similar case that was ruled in favor of the rancher and just overturned. In it, there were charges by the Nevada judge of federal misconduct and criminal acts.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dc62...sides-us-agency-decades-old-land-grazing-case

This has the Hage case in it at the end.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grazing_rights_in_Nevada

*"Elko County commissioner, Nevada rancher, and conservative Republican political activist Demar Dahl "notes that Bundy might benefit from following Nye County rancher Wayne Hage, who won a protracted battle with the federal government by successfully arguing that he had the right to graze his cows within two miles of water sources he developed." [26]In a similar case to Bundy's, ranchers in 2007 were sued by the Justice Department for trespassing on public domain lands in Nevada.[26][27] The ranchers were alleged to have repeatedly grazed livestock without federal permits, despite repeated trespass notices from the BLM and the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service.[27] In 2013, the court found in favor of the ranchers for all other charges, including water rights,[26] grazing rights, and all but two livestock trespass charges in United States v. Wayne Hage. In the ruling, the judge said, "government officials ... entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order."[28]

*





Nevada said:


> This isn't about why the federal agents were there, it's about Bundy pointing guns at them. Bundy's grazing rights aren't really relevant to these charges.


Again, I have to disagree.
If the BLM had no legal right to deny the ranchers grazing rights in 1993, agreed to and authorized by existing federal law from 1984 and before that (even though the feds claimed the right to eliminate grazing to "save" the desert tortoise) and they had no legal right to fence out water rights legally paid for, and no right to block roads on federal land (per U.S. statutes) then the act of taking their cattle for a public auction was the culmination of a criminal enterprise and if necessary, should have been stopped at gunpoint.



***I haven't even gotten to the court transcripts where the feds say they don't have to obey the law - the people do.
:bash:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

It still comes back to Bundy not paying his "rent" and he got evicted.

Cases from decades ago on different circumstances have no meaning.
If they did, I'm sure Bundy's lawyers would have used them to stop this long ago.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Sure, I mean they wouldn't go after their lawyers, for Pete's sake, right?

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/02/clatsop_county_da_josh_marquis.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/02/ammon_bundys_lawyers_deny_brea.html

Those links look similar, but are two different bar complaints filed against their latest attorneys.


(Slightly off topic, but has anyone seen the recent Tom Hanks movie, "Spies like us"?)


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

And about that million dollars owed.............?

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2014/07/blm_wont_back_up_claim_rancher.html

*"BLM officials, however, have repeatedly refused to document the basis for their $1.1 million claim and initially wouldn't say a word about its attempts to collect the debt. The agency's stature earned another black eye last week from the Nevada sheriff who initially agreed to help BLM gather up Bundy's cattle.

DougGillespie.jpg
View full size
Sheriff Doug Gillespie
LVMPD

Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie said in interviews with Las Vegas newspapers last week that the BLM lied to him about circumstances of the cattle roundup. He said agency officials told him Bundy's sons weren't in the area when in fact they were. He said he was told the agency had a place to store the cattle when it didn't. His office this week said it didn't dispute the published accounts of the interviews.

Gillespie's comments raise fresh questions about how the BLM has handled the Bundy affair."*


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

That so called news is nearly 2 Years Old~! 
*on July 10, 2014 at 2:30 PM, updated July 11, 2014 at 2:40 PM*


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I'm aware of the date, it referenced the cattle roundup and subsequent confrontation.
Given the fact that two years have passed since then, it doesn't say much for those who still repeat the charge that the Bundy's legitimately owe over $1million for "grazing fees", does it?
And the viewpoint that the feds did everything by the book, and the Bundy's were clearly wrong on all counts?
Multiple plaintiffs, at least 2 judges and 1 sheriff - all their claims are false too?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm aware of the date, it referenced the cattle roundup and subsequent confrontation.
> Given the fact that two years have passed since then, it doesn't say much for those who still repeat the charge that the Bundy's legitimately owe over $1million for "grazing fees", does it?
> And the viewpoint that the feds did everything by the book, and the Bundy's were clearly wrong on all counts?
> Multiple plaintiffs, at least 2 judges and 1 sheriff - *all their claims are false too?*


They are *opinions* being presented as fact.
The fees and fines are still true, and the fact Bundy is guilty remains true also.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Sure, I mean they wouldn't go after their lawyers, for Pete's sake, right?
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/02/clatsop_county_da_josh_marquis.html
> 
> ...


Is it any surprise a crooked rancher hired crooked lawyers?
It's certainly no surprise you assume it's some Govt conspiracy


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I'm not surprised by your assumptions either.
I guess the judges, sheriff, and other ranchers that all have the same stories dating back to same time periods are all lying and crooked too?
Either way, not every conspiracy theory is truth, not every one is false.
Knowing the truth isn't always easy, time will tell.

But since you brought up crooked lawyers, maybe a reminder of the U.S. atty who was involved in the recent Oregon case might be worth another look......

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/07/u...l-time-was-investigated-for-erratic-behavior/


*Sources told The Oregonian in March the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general was looking into Marshall&#8217;s &#8220;erratic behavior involving a subordinate.&#8221; Sources said Marshall constantly texted and emailed Scott Kerin, an assistant U.S. Attorney. The Oregonian reported Marshall even admonished Kerin &#8220;for spending too much time with a woman who was not his wife.&#8221;


Marshall went on indefinite leave as news of the investigation broke, but didn&#8217;t formally resign from office until May 15, 2015. The Oregonian reported Marshall left because health issues were affecting her work, but reports of a federal probe into her behavior may have played a role.



Marshall&#8217;s lawyer tried to claim Kerin was in fact the subject of the inspector general&#8217;s probe, but the IG&#8217;s office, in a rare move, put out a statement rebutting Marshall&#8217;s attorney &#8212; though the IG did not confirm or deny the existence of a probe.

The IG&#8217;s office still won&#8217;t confirm or deny the existence of a probe into Marshall&#8217;s stalking of her colleague. An IG spokesman told The Daily Caller News Foundation that &#8220;we can&#8217;t confirm or deny the existence of an ongoing investigation.&#8221; The Oregonian relied on unnamed sources who informed them of the federal probe of Marshall.
*


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are *opinions* being presented as fact.
> The fees and fines are still true, and the fact Bundy is guilty remains true also.


The fact that the fines, fees and convictions are in existence, I don't dispute, if that is what you mean by "true".
Their *validity* is what is questioned, which is another, deeper meaning of the the word "true".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> In any event at least one Congressman has asked for BLM to be investigated for just that - acting outside their authority.
> http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/congressman-blm-broke-law-in-bundy-ranch-raid/
> I'll quote the U.S. statute and the BLM handbook in a moment or two......
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/1733


You need to look at section 2 of that same statute.

_The Secretary may authorize Federal personnel or appropriate local officials to carry out his law enforcement responsibilities with respect to the public lands and their resources._

So that law doesn't restrict the BLM to only use local law enforcement.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> You need to look at section 2 of that same statute.
> 
> _The Secretary may authorize Federal personnel or appropriate local officials to carry out his law enforcement responsibilities with respect to the public lands and their resources._
> 
> So that law doesn't restrict the BLM to only use local law enforcement.


I did.
I am keenly aware of the difference between "may" and "shall" in statutory language.
I'm also aware how often that difference can be used and manipulated.
The ENTIRE statute and corresponding instructions from the BLM handbook I linked make it clear that standard procedure is to have local law enforcement handle this unless it is an immediate emergency.
That is what is known in legal terms as "legislative intent".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I did.
> I am keenly aware of the difference between "may" and "shall" in statutory language.
> I'm also aware how often that difference can be used and manipulated.
> The ENTIRE statute and corresponding instructions from the BLM handbook I linked make it clear that standard procedure is to have local law enforcement handle this unless it is an immediate emergency.


Has a court ever declared that the BLM has no law enforcement authority? 

Honestly, that logic is pretty weak. It's a stretch to say that the BLM broke the law by enforcing court orders. As I read the law, the BLM is specifically authorized in law enforcement.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Has a court ever declared that the BLM has no law enforcement authority?


No, not that I'm aware of.
The question of HOW MUCH authority on WHICH lands is another matter entirely. It depends on the official designation in the link below.




> Honestly, that logic is pretty weak. It's a stretch to say that the BLM broke the law by enforcing court orders. As I read the law, the BLM is specifically authorized in law enforcement.


Yes it is, and the restrictions on that authority are only as weak as the Constitution, itself, or better said, only as weak as the people charged with upholding it.



BTW, if this link is deemed "unacceptable", the same gov't report can be found in many other sources.


http://agenda21news.com/2014/06/blm-usfs-lack-enforcement-authority-federally-managed-lands/



*Most federally managed lands however fall under the definition of a &#8220;proprietorial interest only&#8221; jurisdiction, defined below. They include, &#8220;&#8230;the vast areas of land which constitute the Federal public domain generally [which] are held by the United States in a proprietorial status only.&#8221;[1] Included among these lands are most military bases, and lands managed by the the USFS. BLM, Bureau of Reclamation and USFWS.

The type of legislative jurisdiction the Federal government retains over lands it manages determines which sovereign, the State or Federal government, has civil and criminal jurisdiction, authority for levying various taxes, certain regulatory jurisdiction such as licensing rights, control over public utility rates, and control over wild game and livestock. The definitions for the various categories of legislative jurisdiction are as follows:

&#8220;Exclusive Jurisdiction refers to the power to &#8220;exercise exclusive legislation&#8221; granted to Congress by article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, and to like power which may be acquired by the United States through cession by a State, or by a reservation made by the United States in connection with the admission of the State into the Union&#8230;The Federal Government theoretically displaces the State in which the area is contained of all its sovereign authority, executive and judicial as well as legislative.&#8221; [2]

Concurrent Legislative Jurisdiction&#8212;This term is applied to those instances wherein in granting the United States authority which would otherwise amount to exclusive legislative jurisdiction over an area the State concerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise, concurrently with the United States, all of the same authority.

Partial Legislative Jurisdiction&#8212;This term is applied to those instances wherein the Federal Government has been granted for exercise by it over an area in a State certain of the State&#8217;s authority, but where the State concerned has reserved the right to exercise, by itself or concurrently with the United States, other authority constituting more than merely the right to serve civil or criminal process in the area.

Proprietorial Interest only&#8212;This term is applied to those instances wherein the Federal Government has acquired some right or title to an area in a State but has not obtained any measure of the State&#8217;s authority over the area. In applying this definition recognition should be given to the fact that the United States, by virtue of its functions and authority under various provisions of the Constitution, has many powers and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders with respect to areas in which it acquires an interest, and of the further fact that all its properties and functions are held or performed in a governmental rather than a proprietary capacity.

Proprietorial interest only was further clarified by the Report, &#8220;Where the Federal Government has no legislative jurisdiction over its land, it holds such land in a proprietorial interest only and has the same rights in the land as does any other landowner. In addition, however, there exists a right of the Federal Government to perform the limited functions or enumerated powers delegated to it by the Constitution without interference from any source. The Congress has special authority, vested in it by article IV, section 3, clause 2, of the Constitution to enact laws for the protection of property belonging to the United States.&#8221;[3] Within the scope of those limitations, the State retains all legislative jurisdiction making all State civil and criminal laws fully applicable on federally managed lands. Other lands included in the proprietorial interest only status are Bureau of Reclamation lands including dams, flood control works, power stations, etc.[4]

Congress has consistently and expressly reserved civil and criminal jurisdiction to the states. For example, the Weeks Forestry Act[5], which relates to the acquisition of land for national forest purposes, provides that the State shall not, by reason of establishment of the national forest, &#8220;&#8230;lose its jurisdiction, or the inhabitants thereof their rights and privileges as citizens.&#8221;

In fact, every federal land law passed by Congress contains protections for both preexisting property rights and the states&#8217; civil and criminal jurisdiction. For example, the Savings Clause of the omnibus Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 provides:*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But since you brought up crooked lawyers, maybe a reminder of the U.S. atty who was involved in the recent Oregon case might be worth another look....


You brought up the lawyers, and now you're talking about yet another *unrelated* case in another state. 

Too many rabbit trails as usual.
You claim the Govt always lies until you want to use them as a source



> The ENTIRE statute and corresponding instructions from the BLM handbook I linked make it clear that standard procedure is to have local law enforcement handle this unless it is an immediate emergency.
> That is what is known in legal terms as "legislative intent".


The clear "legislative intent" was to have the BLM manage the land, which is what they do. 

How they do it is still up to them, not the local Govts.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Sure it would. If he was protecting himself from federal agents who were acting outside of their authority or against the law then he has an excellent defense. But you have to wonder why he never asserted that defense before.





Bearfootfarm said:


> It still comes back to Bundy not paying his "rent" and he got evicted.
> 
> Cases from decades ago on different circumstances have no meaning.
> If they did, I'm sure Bundy's lawyers would have used them to stop this long ago.





Bearfootfarm said:


> You brought up the lawyers, and now you're talking about yet another *unrelated* case in another state.
> 
> Too many rabbit trails as usual.
> You claim the Govt always lies until you want to use them as a source


If you are having trouble keeping up, oh well.
The relationship is perfectly clear to me.

But if you go back to the posts above, you'll see that I only responded to the comments about his lawyers, not initiated it.




> The clear "legislative intent" was to have the BLM manage the land, which is what they do.
> 
> How they do it is still up to them, not the local Govts.



THAT is a very troubling commentary on how we are losing our freedoms in this country today. They are being given up voluntarily and many are willing to do so.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> If you are having trouble keeping up, oh well.
> 
> But if you go back to the posts above, you'll see that I only responded to the comments about his lawyers, not initiated it.


So far as I can tell all of the legitimate issues in this case have already been settled by the court. He can't argue about the BLM's land ownership, whether they have the right to manage the land, or that they have the right to enforce management. Those issues are already settled.

It appears that his defense is going to be that he doesn't recognize the authority of the federal government. I don't expect that position to do him any good at all.

I have sympathy for Bundy, but not because he might be right. I have sympathy because he's probably just misguided. I don't think he's evil or a criminal. He's no danger to the public and he's certainly no gangster.

Evidently Bundy's prosecution is about the BLM sending a message that you don't point a gun at a federal officer. That's a fair message, but they don't have to bury Bundy's body under a penitentiary to make that point. In fact if the punishment is too severe Bundy could become a martyr that could start some kind of movement. That will do the BLM more harm than good.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

I have an almost weekly conversation with the west Mojave manager. He's a completely usless tool for the environmental groups. We call the blm here...the bureau of liers and maniacs, it fits them perfectly. I presented video testimony of blm rangers hitting motorcycle riders with 2X4's as they were coming out of a tunnel underneath the 15 freeway on a protest ride. The ride was to protest extremely poor and biased management of the west Mojave. The organization I was a director of sued them and they lost a good pile of money, but no one went to jail, even though charges were brought. Rangers were just transferred which is typical. Federal judge tossed the charges....go figure.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> So far as I can tell all of the legitimate issues in this case have already been settled by the court. He can't argue about the BLM's land ownership, whether they have the right to manage the land, or that they have the right to enforce management. Those issues are already settled.
> 
> It appears that his defense is going to be that he doesn't recognize the authority of the federal government. I don't expect that position to do him any good at all.


That's true, the issue of authority HAS been settled by the courts. I guess it's time for the SCOTUS to step in and correct the federal courts decisions before this gets out of control. The precedents are established, hopefully this will happen soon.






> I have sympathy for Bundy, but not because he might be right. I have sympathy because he's probably just misguided. I don't think he's evil or a criminal. He's no danger to the public and he's certainly no gangster.
> 
> Evidently Bundy's prosecution is about the BLM sending a message that you don't point a gun at a federal officer. That's a fair message, but they don't have to bury Bundy's body under a penitentiary to make that point. In fact if the punishment is too severe Bundy could become a martyr that could start some kind of movement. That will do the BLM more harm than good.


:thumb:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> So far as I can tell all of the legitimate issues in this case have already been settled by the court. He can't argue about the BLM's land ownership, whether they have the right to manage the land, or that they have the right to enforce management. Those issues are already settled.
> 
> It appears that his defense is going to be that he doesn't recognize the authority of the federal government. I don't expect that position to do him any good at all.
> 
> ...


I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've had blm rangers draw their guns on folks that are absolutely no threat. We video tape their actions now and are getting our ducks in a row for the up coming lawsuit! Again, the taxpayer will lose, promises will be broken...again. This time, jail for these rangers is the only solution. We have video of rangers going into restricted areas and blaming the off roaders. They were shocked to see it was really some of their own. They feel they are above the law. Folks are getting real hostile towards them these days. Civil disobedience they call it!!

How much interaction do you have with the blm?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've had blm rangers draw their guns on folks that are absolutely no threat. We video tape their actions now and are getting our ducks in a row for the up coming lawsuit! Again, the taxpayer will lose, promises will be broken...again. This time, jail for these rangers is the only solution. We have video of rangers going into restricted areas and blaming the off roaders. They were shocked to see it was really some of their own. They feel they are above the law. Folks are getting real hostile towards them these days. Civil disobedience they call it!!
> 
> How much interaction do you have with the blm?


Just be careful.
One of the few areas that they WERE given more authority for law enforcement was in the California desert.

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd/cdd_supplementary.html


You may already know about this. The lawyer in this case is one who you may want on your "friends" list. 
http://www.gao.gov/products/A92934


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Just be careful.
> One of the few areas that they WERE given more authority for law enforcement was in the California desert.


Yup....painfully aware of that. Our organization is very well known and the blm backs off when they see our logo, after the fact!! Love that. CORVA....California Off Road Vehicle Association. We use safety orange as our identifying symbol. When the Rangers see the hats or jackets come out, they run away, we force them to follow the law, and they don't. I am not on the board at this time, but I'm still very active in this arena.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Just be careful.
> One of the few areas that they WERE given more authority for law enforcement was in the California desert.
> 
> http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd/cdd_supplementary.html
> ...


Interesting read for sure. We have a couple that are very good. We even have our own lobbyists. But, things are changing. We've always promoted responsible land usage by the users. But in the last 15 years or so, with constant closers(that's not management, it's the exact opposite) were having a hard time convincing the public to be cool and avoid connotations with the rangers. And confrontations are definitely on the rise. Most all of the Rangers now carry weapons and aren't afraid to pull them out.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> Yup....painfully aware of that. Our organization is very well known and the blm backs off when they see our logo, after the fact!! Love that. CORVA....California Off Road Vehicle Association. We use safety orange as our identifying symbol. When the Rangers see the hats or jackets come out, they run away, we force them to follow the law, and they don't. I am not on the board at this time, but I'm still very active in this arena.


http://www.corva.org

Your organization appears to be at odds with the government on a variety of issues, using peaceful rebellion tactics such as lawsuits. Kudos to you and yours, however, for participating in the "active market" of making your voice or opinions heard. I am curious - what is CORVA's mission statement, or end game?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Interesting read for sure. We have a couple that are very good. We even have our own lobbyists. But, things are changing. We've always promoted responsible land usage by the users. But in the last 15 years or so, with constant closers(that's not management, it's the exact opposite) were having a hard time convincing the public to be cool and avoid connotations with the rangers. And confrontations are definitely on the rise. Most all of the Rangers now carry weapons and aren't afraid to pull them out.


I still have contacts in Elko, where our regional BLM office is, and I'm told that the new regional BLM manager is a young guy in his 30s who isn't a particularly hands-on person. I've never met him myself, but it seems that they need someone more experienced in dealing with confrontations.

As misguided as Cliven Bundy might be, the BLM still didn't handle the Bunkerville standoff very well.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

No, they didn't.
As far as I can tell, the BLM has still not filed a lien against Bundy in Clark county Nevada, on his property, including the cattle.
That's the correct legal procedure if they want to claim they are acting in accordance with the law and not stealing cattle or committing other criminal acts.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I guess it's time for the SCOTUS to step in and correct the federal courts decisions before this gets out of control. The precedents are established, hopefully this will happen soon.


The Supreme Court isn't going to hear this case.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> The Supreme Court isn't going to hear this case.


And you know that......how?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> No, they didn't.
> As far as I can tell, the BLM has still not filed a lien against Bundy in Clark county Nevada, on his property, including the cattle.
> That's the correct legal procedure if they want to claim they are acting in accordance with the law and not stealing cattle or committing other criminal acts.


As I understand it, the cattle were removed from the wildlife preserve by federal court order. Once removed, they were held to be sold for grazing fees owed by Bundy. However, I read that during negotiations that the BLM offered to return proceeds from selling cattle to Bundy. Instead, Bundy and his protestors took the cattle back by force.

The authorization to remove cattle from the wildlife preserve was by federal court order.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.corva.org
> 
> Your organization appears to be at odds with the government on a variety of issues, using peaceful rebellion tactics such as lawsuits. Kudos to you and yours, however, for participating in the "active market" of making your voice or opinions heard. I am curious - what is CORVA's mission statement, or end game?


To protect our rights to access public land. It does, after all, belong to the people. You do know that wheelchairs were not permitted in wilderness areas up until recently, or chain saws, bicycles. Any mechanized form of travel was prohibited. We fight for that access.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> No, they certainly don't.
> That's a far deeper subject, Natural Law.
> You'll find a very fine discussion of it in the Declaration of independence.
> Remember wondering where Bundy got the idea from?


 Maybe he should have read the sections in the Constitution that deal with insurrection and the legitimate authority of the feds to act on that.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

greg273 said:


> Maybe he should have read the sections in the Constitution that deal with insurrection and the legitimate authority of the feds to act on that.


I'm sure he has, as have I.

I'll tell you what I say to that..........Molon Labe.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm sure he has, as have I.
> 
> I'll tell you what I say to that..........Molon Labe.


 Worked out real well for him.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> > The Supreme Court isn't going to hear this case.
> 
> 
> And you know that......how?


If anyone wants federal authority to be respected it's the Supreme Court. Besides, this case doesn't involve any controversial constitutional issues. This case is about resisting federal agents who were enforcing a court order.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> To protect our rights to access public land. It does, after all, belong to the people. You do know that wheelchairs were not permitted in wilderness areas up until recently, or chain saws, bicycles. Any mechanized form of travel was prohibited. We fight for that access.


I can also support that cause. I also realize that at times, there are endangered species or other concerns that warrant closing an area from public access. I seek also to allow farmers and ranchers fair access to using public lands, and also allowing bikers and hikers other areas where motorists are not allowed. I seek to, in other words, allow for the fullest utilization of public lands while at once preserving them.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

Your precious "federal officers" have done a lot more than steal folks' cattle and land - they have systematically stolen your rights and lives as well. I wish Bundy had plinked at a couple of them just for the spirit of it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oh that is cute, have him given LIFE in a Federal Prison. Nice guy~!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> THAT is a very troubling commentary on how *we are losing our freedoms* in this country today. They are being given up voluntarily and many are willing to do so.


And there's the empty rhetoric, right on cue.
Bundy should have paid his fees or moved his cattle.

Blaming the Govt for *his* problems is disingenuous


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm sure he has, as have I.
> 
> I'll tell you what I say to that..........*Molon Labe*.


That's exactly what they did isn't it?
Careful what you ask for
You just might get it


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Your precious "federal officers" have done a lot more than steal folks' cattle and land - *they* have systematically stolen your rights and lives as well. I wish Bundy had plinked at a couple of them just for the spirit of it.


Aren't you a retired "Govt officer"?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> As I understand it, the cattle were removed from the wildlife preserve by federal court order. Once removed, they were held to be sold for grazing fees owed by Bundy. However, I read that during negotiations that the BLM offered to return proceeds from selling cattle to Bundy. Instead, Bundy and his protestors took the cattle back by force.
> 
> The authorization to remove cattle from the wildlife preserve was by federal court order.


Well, I did some more digging.
I found some interesting admissions by the judge in the court orders of 2012/2013.
While the BLM was granted the authority to impound the cattle, they had to have a certificate of inspection from the Nevada state cattle inspector before any sale is made. And that also required branded cattle to be returned to the owner and unbranded cattle sold under state guidelines.
They never did have the authority to sell them to pay off the fees, which explains why there has never been a lien filed.

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/b... Order Granting Motion to Enforce 10-9-13.pdf




farmrbrown said:


> The fact that the fines, fees and convictions are in existence, I don't dispute, if that is what you mean by "true".
> Their *validity* is what is questioned, which is another, deeper meaning of the the word "true".



And about those fees...........
I haven't gone thru every line of the original disputed bill yet, but I did find it.


https://www.hcn.org/articles/1994.2...veandDemandforPaymentBunkervilleAllotment.pdf


Remember when he "only" owed $31,000?
At the bottom of the link above is the breakdown of that bill.
It's worth looking at for anyone who hasn't absolutely concluded that Bundy is off his nut, a deadbeat and completely on the wrong side of the law.

Like I said, I'll have to break out a calculator to confirm what it appears to be, but if I read those figures correctly and the federal regulations that appear all over the BLM website for grazing fees, they tried to stick him for about 15 times what is legally mandated to charge.

That amounted to $25K.
The other $6K was a $4,000 plane ride and per diem expenses to count his cows, which numbered about 100.



And now I found out where those inflated numbers came from, they were charging him the cost of a *private* land lease......
http://agecon.unl.edu/cornhusker-economics/2012/federal-grazing-fees.pdf


He SHOULD have been charged $1.82 per AUM, not 10 or 15 times that amount.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

None of us here know what is the "all in all" of this situation but I do see someone on here doing some heavy lifting and I appreciate that. I seem to have trouble sifting through all the minutia and making sense of it...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Like I said, I'll have to break out a calculator to confirm what it appears to be, but if I read those figures correctly and the federal regulations that appear all over the BLM website for grazing fees, they tried to stick him for about 15 times what is legally mandated to charge.


There was a time and place to dispute the bill. It would be different if Bundy paid a fair price and withheld the rest, at least showing good faith. He paid nothing. But that's water under the bridge. The issue now is pointing guns at federal officers.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> None of us here know what is the "all in all" of this situation but I do see someone on here doing some heavy lifting and I appreciate that. I seem to have trouble sifting through all the minutia and making sense of it...


It's simple now. Most of the issues have been resolved by the court. The only remaining issue is charges related to the armed standoff.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> There was a time and place to dispute the bill. It would be different if Bundy paid a fair price and withheld the rest, at least showing good faith. He paid nothing. But that's water under the bridge. The issue now is pointing guns at federal officers.


He DID dispute the bill, the conversation was referenced in the link.
BLM gave him a "take it or leave it" offer and he told them where to take it, lol.
They also denied him future grazing permits, presumably forever. Which means they were illegally charging 10-15 times what was signed into law by Reagan in 1986, and that was to be their final transaction with him. That is referenced in later BLM letters and court orders.
No dice fellas, you can stick it.


https://www.hcn.org/articles/1994.2...veandDemandforPaymentBunkervilleAllotment.pdf

I guess I have a different perspective, having prior disputes with government entities.
Sometimes they are friendly and reasonable. Other times you can get an arrogant jerk who thinks he/she has the right to demand your hard earned money any way they please and have the stupidity to accompany it with a threat of gov't force if you don't fork over the amount they want, and do it with a smile.


They may indeed be able to show me a piece of paper that says they can do it - legally.
But showing up in person on my doorstep and being able to take it from my hands is a whole nuther ball game.
I usually get that kind of talk on the phone, but when I send a certified letter, come down to their office, or a public meeting, they have a different attitude about it.
More than once, I've had to get the point across that they were threatening my life with that kind of trash talking.
Why?
Because I intended to fight them to the death, with mine being the likely result, therefore to say you're gonna come out and take my stuff, take my money with the assistance of armed personnel means that blood will spill when you hit that property line, boys. Come git some, if ya want some.
Now, if you want to sit down and talk to me about it, be reasonable in your prices and payments, then maybe we can work something out.
But if you think you're gonna just TELL me and TAKE it - better pack a lunch, it's gonna be a loooooonnnnngggggg day.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> It's simple now. Most of the issues have been resolved by the court. The only remaining issue is charges related to the armed standoff.


So, that's all you see?
No amount of proof that the BLM illegally overcharged him, no matter that the same thing happened to other ranchers when they were fairly treated in state courts only to be overruled and shafted by the federal courts, none of the "we're above the law" actions that were done..........the only "crime" you're concerned about is how a man resisted a theft?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> None of us here know what is the "all in all" of this situation but I do see someone on here doing some heavy lifting and I appreciate that. I seem to have trouble sifting through all the minutia and making sense of it...


There's nothing to "sift through"

Bundy didn't pay his fees and lost all his court cases.
That's all well documented.
The court case dragged on for* 2 decades*

What he "should have been charged" is an *opinion* from someone who has chosen a side *before *looking for any information

Anything posted that doesn't *directly relate to his specific case *is a diversion, and doesn't necessarily apply to Bundy's situation at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> So, that's all you see?
> *No amount of proof that the BLM illegally overcharged him*, no matter that the same thing happened to other ranchers when they were fairly treated in state courts only to be overruled and shafted by the federal courts, none of the "we're above the law" actions that were done..........the only "crime" you're concerned about is how a man resisted a theft?


If there was "proof" he was "illegally overcharged", he would have won in court.

The fact he lost shows your "proof" is lacking.

I know you will now reply with some "macho" BS about how you won't take it, and you will "fight to the death", but it's simply the facts, and all the BS won't change that.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> So, that's all you see?
> No amount of proof that the BLM illegally overcharged him, no matter that the same thing happened to other ranchers when they were fairly treated in state courts only to be overruled and shafted by the federal courts, none of the "we're above the law" actions that were done..........the only "crime" you're concerned about is how a man resisted a theft?


Umm, excuse me, he refused to pay his grazing fees. None of this would have happened if he wasn't a cheapskate.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> Umm, excuse me, he refused to pay his grazing fees. None of this would have happened if he wasn't a cheapskate.


One more time, if that's what it takes.
The legal grazing fees by federal law were $1.81 per AUM, that's a unit of one cow and a calf, per month.
The bill they sent him was $18-$28 per AUM.
Not just illegal, but I would consider it felony extortion.
In any case it was a legal or valid.
Of course you have a *federal* court that said it was ok, ignoring their own law.
And y'all wonder why we tell Uncle Sam to shove it and leave us alone?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's nothing to "sift through"
> 
> Bundy didn't pay his fees and lost all his court cases.
> That's all well documented.
> ...



Whatever.
If you can't read the link that was directly related, a bill for grazing from the BLM that resulted in Bundy having to retrieve his cattle by force (the charge y'all are talking about) get someone to read it for you.
See my reply to the feds in "quotes".



Bearfootfarm said:


> If there was "proof" he was "illegally overcharged", he would have won in court.
> 
> The fact he lost shows your "proof" is lacking.
> 
> I know you will now reply with some "macho" BS about how you won't take it, and you will "fight to the death", but it's simply the facts, and all the BS won't change that.


You can do the same, too.
If you think you can take something from me, plug in your GPS and start steppin'.
And no, it won't change anything. I'll probably be here all day, but pack a lunch.
Molon Labe.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

He was a Squatter, when are some going to own up to that.. You don't pay fees you live on the land for nothing that is nothing but squatting. Period.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> He was a Squatter, when are some going to own up to that.. You don't pay fees you live on the land for nothing that is nothing but squatting. Period.


Wrong.
He paid until he was illegally charged over 10 times the legal amount.
Read it or don't, but don't spread lies about it.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Whatever.
> If you can't read the link that was directly related, a bill for grazing from the BLM that resulted in Bundy having to retrieve his cattle by force (the charge y'all are talking about) get someone to read it for you.
> See my reply to the feds in "quotes".
> 
> ...




When you can be anything you want on the internet and you choose to be a tough guy over and over. You're entertaining in a funny kinda way.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Wrong.
> He paid until he was illegally charged over 10 times the legal amount.
> Read it or don't, but don't spread lies about it.


Actually, he paid until the BLM refused to renew the lease to some of the land he was grazing on.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> He was a Squatter, when are some going to own up to that.. You don't pay fees you live on the land for nothing that is nothing but squatting. Period.


The cattle were removed from land that the BLM refused to lease to Bundy. That was land that was set aside as a desert tortoise habitat. The court order that authorized the removal of cattle was specific to removing cattle only from the desert tortoise habitat. While he was behind on grazing fees, that wasn't why the cattle were removed.

It's interesting to note that while 90% of the cattle removed from the habitat bore Bundy's brand, other cattle were found there. So the roundup wasn't aimed at Bundy specifically, but was aimed at removing cattle from the habitat.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Whatever.
> If you can't read the link that was directly related, a bill for grazing from the BLM that resulted in Bundy having to retrieve his cattle by force (the charge y'all are talking about) get someone to read it for you.
> See my reply to the feds in "quotes".
> 
> ...


Just as I predicted.
Lots of macho rhetoric, and still ignoring the fact he couldn't prove his case in court.
It really makes no difference if *you* think what they did was "illegal".

The judges didn't think so, and their opinions are the only ones that matter


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> One more time, if that's what it takes.
> The legal grazing fees by federal law were $1.81 per AUM, that's a unit of one cow and a calf, per month.
> The bill they sent him was $18-$28 per AUM.
> Not just illegal, but I would consider it felony extortion.
> ...


I'm not sure where that much money came from, but he did owe at least $28k in grazing fees initially.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> One more time, if that's what it takes.
> The legal grazing fees by federal law were $1.81 per AUM, that's a unit of one cow and a calf, per month.
> The bill they sent him was $18-$28 per AUM.
> Not just illegal, but I would consider it felony extortion.
> ...


Grazing leases are based on legal documents that both parties signed. I'd be very interested in seeing a few more details on the document. Perhaps the increase in grazing fees related to a newly signed document or perhaps the original document allowed for increases in specific intervals. 

It's impossible to say that one side of the disagreement is dishonest or crooks if you don't know the terms of the agreement.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wr said:


> Grazing leases are based on legal documents that both parties signed. I'd be very interested in seeing a few more details on the document. Perhaps the increase in grazing fees related to a newly signed document or perhaps the original document allowed for increases in specific intervals.
> 
> It's impossible to say that one side of the disagreement is dishonest or crooks if you don't know the terms of the agreement.


I haven't seen a complete accounting on Bundy's delinquent fees, but I'm sure it includes various penalties and interest, if not outright bogus charges. That's common with delinquent federal debts.

But grazing fees is not what the 2014 standoff was about. The 2014 standoff was about a 2013 order forcing Bundy to remove his cattle from a BLM wildlife habitat, and authorizing federal agents to remove the cattle if Bundy refused. Here's the order.

http://www.factandmyth.com/bundy-nevada/bundy-court.pdf

Notice that grazing fees weren't an issue in that order, only the presence of Bundy's cattle at the wildlife preserve. Instead, Bundy argued in court (unsuccessfully) that the BLM didn't own the property. If you look at the last page of that order you'll see these July 2013 instructions listed.

_IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy is permanently enjoined from trespassing on __the New Trespass Lands._
_IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to protect the New __Trespass Lands against this trespass, and all future trespasses by Bundy._
_IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the New __Trespass Lands within 45 days of the date hereof, and that *the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy&#8217;s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.*_
_IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to __impound any of Bundy&#8217;s cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has provided notice to Bundy under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the Interior._

From the above it's clear that after the 45 day grace period the BLM had the authority to remove and impound any of Bundy's cattle remaining at the wildlife preserve. Bundy was given more than 45 days, then served with proper notice, yet Bundy still did not remove the cattle.

So to be clear on this; the grazing fees weren't the issue in impounding the cattle. Furthermore, neither the grazing fees nor the cattle remaining at the wildlife preserve are the issue with the new criminal charges. The only issues in the criminal charge are the guns used to threaten and intimidate federal officers.

I suspect that the judge will silence any attempt to make grazing fees or impounding cattle part of the criminal trial, because those issues have already been heard in court and resolved. Disagreeing with a federal court decision is not justification to intimidate federal officers with guns.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

There were several legitimate questions raised in the previous posts, and most of the answers are contained within the links I posted or other links within them.

While it's true to say he lost in court(s), it's apparent that ruling justly and fairly were never a priority for those judges. The exercise of power without equitable justice will have only two results. A subservient population or a rebellious one.

*Nevada's post (#94) about why the cattle were ordered to be removed is an obvious one, yet the judge denied one of Bundy's motions for summary judgement claiming exactly the opposite. Why lie about it? Is that what we're going to call justice?
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2016/02/26/document_gw_01.pdf

* that the United States
18 is basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the
19 Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass, see Compl. at Â¶Â¶ 1,3, 26-39; and that
20 Nevada&#8217;s &#8220;Open Range&#8221; statute excuses Bundy&#8217;s trespass.*





*wr's post (#97) on grazing fees, I had a link at the bottom from University of Nebraska showing a BLM study in 1992 discussing how little they were charging compared to private land leases. The numbers on Bundy's 1993 bill from BLM reflected similar amounts $20+ per AUM vs. the federally fixed price at the time of $1.81.
My guess is, they charged him the higher price since he didn't sign a new 10 year lease and they were in the process already of closing areas, blocking access roads and water supplies. He said at the time, he "fired them".
They didn't like his attitude, he didn't like theirs and so they sent him an outrageous bill to screw him.

*And post #98 from Nevada, much like before.


> *I haven't seen a complete accounting on Bundy's delinquent fees, but I'm sure it includes various penalties and interest, if not outright bogus charges. That common with delinquent federal debts.*



And then........."That has nothing to do with the rest of it."

But it absolutely does.
They went on to charge him $200 a day per head for "trespassing".
That likely was a threat sent long ago when he told them to shove off.

Would it have been far better had he just removed his cattle and fought the one outrageous bill?
Yep.
Then he'd only be out 30 grand instead of a million.
Seeing how everything has gone with this case and others, can you really support this abuse of power?

I've never went as far as bring a firearm into the conflict with gov't abuse of power, but only because they backed down and came to their senses.
City councils with $500 a day fines for petty ordinances that stick their nose in someone else's business, weeds in the yard, a truck in the driveway.
If more people refused to take that stuff, there would be less of it to take.

But to condone abuse of power, to encourage it by dismissing the government's criminal acts and only wanting Bundy to be punished for his, is just plain wrong.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Seeing how everything has gone with this case and others, can you really support this abuse of power?


The BLM did what it did with a court order. I understand that Bundy didn't agree with the court, but Bundy is going to be looking for justification to point rifles at federal officers. Disagreeing with fees & fines won't do it, and disagreeing with in impound of his cattle won't do it.

If you were Bundy how would you justify brandishing firearms in front of federal officers?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> The BLM did what it did with a court order. I understand that Bundy didn't agree with the court, but Bundy is going to be looking for justification to point rifles at federal officers. Disagreeing with fees & fines won't do it, and disagreeing with in impound of his cattle won't do it.
> 
> If you were Bundy how would you justify brandishing firearms in front of federal officers?


There's only one that I know of that's accepted and has precedent.
Difficult to prove but not impossible, defense of life or property against an illegal act.
Given the circumstances and location (not at his home) that's a tall mountain to climb.
As I said, he'd have been better off if his cattle were on his land and they came THERE to take them, which may never have happened had he done it that way.

The BLM's original assessment in 1994 for $31,000 was illegal, therefore the court order to pay it was illegal.
Was his trespassing illegal? 
Yes.
Of course none of that would have happened had they not tried to extort 10 times what they had a legal right to charge.
He got ticked and gave them a taste of how it feels to have someone pee on your back and tell you it's raining.
You accept the idea that what was done by the government was legal because they said so.
There's been a whole lot of land and possessions taken on this continent that was never legal. It was taken by force.
You can take that all the way back to 1776 and before.
Saying it's legal, saying it was our right doesn't alter the truth.
The truth is, in the end, it was only taken with violence and force, not by being "legal".

There are some people in this world that are serious when they tell you not to fool with them and leave them be.
And there are some that think it's cool to poke at bear in a cage.
You can't fix stupid.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> There's only one that I know of that's accepted and has precedent.
> Difficult to prove but not impossible, defense of life or property against an illegal act.
> Given the circumstances and location (not at his home) that's a tall mountain to climb.


The problem with that is he has to convince a federal judge that a federal judge was wrong. I doubt that's going to happen. But even if it did happen he would still have to convince a judge that it was enough to justify brandishing firearms in front of federal officers. Try these out:

1. The grazing fees were unfair, so he was justified in intimidating federal officers with rifles.
--or--
2. Making his leased grazing land a wildlife preserve was unfair, so he was justified in intimidating federal officers with rifles.
--or--
3. Removing his cattle from the wildlife preserve was unfair, so he was justified in intimidating federal officers with rifles.

Which one do you think he's most likely to prevail on?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> There are some people in this world that are serious when they tell you not to fool with them and leave them be.
> .


 And some are just fools who pick fights they cannot win.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

3, followed by 1.

You may never have gotten one of those "love letters" from Uncle Sam or any of his relatives before, but it doesn't say, "This is unfair".
That isn't what ticks people off.
It's the part where they say they have the right to send armed people to your house and start taking whatever they think is valuable, sell it, keep the money and IF you're lucky, they might not be back for more.
I've gotten a few of those over the years, and so have friends and relatives.
Not many, not often.
But one of the worst mistakes you could ever make is to threaten a man's family.
And if you are in the wrong when you do it, I think you should consider yourself lucky if he pulls a weapon on you and decides you can leave with your life.
If so, you should go home, kiss your wife and kids, thank God, and never do it again.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

greg273 said:


> And some are just fools who pick fights they cannot win.


I wouldn't know.
My policy is never to start one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The BLM's original assessment in 1994 for $31,000 was *illegal*, therefore the court order to pay it was illegal.


You keep repeating that as if it's true when reality tends to prove it's not.
If it were true, Bundy would have won in court.

I realize you want to believe it's an evil Govt conspiracy, but that routine is getting worn thin


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by greg273 View Post
> And some are *just fools* who pick fights they cannot win.


That hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> It's the part where they say they have the right to send armed people to your house and start taking whatever they think is valuable, sell it, keep the money and IF you're lucky, they might not be back for more.


But that's not what happened. Bundy was trespassing on government land with his cattle, so they removed the cattle. During negotiations they even offered to give Bundy the proceeds from the cattle sale.

They did not send federal officers to his house, or even to his ranch property. They went to THEIR wildlife preserve and removed his cattle.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> The problem with that is he has to convince a federal judge that a federal judge was wrong.


 
And that, my friend, is the fatal flaw in "the system". The founders knew the danger of that inherent problem, which is why they put so many limitations and restrictions on the Federal Government, most of which, have been removed by those Federal judges over the years.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> And that, my friend, is the fatal flaw in "the system". The founders knew the danger of that inherent problem, which is why they put so many limitations and restrictions on the Federal Government, most of which, have been removed by those Federal judges over the years.


The bottom line is that Bundy lost in court and then tried to reverse it at gunpoint. He had to know that wasn't going to end well for him.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> The bottom line is that Bundy lost in court and then tried to reverse it at gunpoint. He had to know that wasn't going to end well for him.


Oh, no doubt that Bundy jumped the gun. (no pun intended). There are many steps between "being wronged" and "start shooting". He skipped a bunch of them.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> It's the part where they say they have the right to send armed people to your house and start taking whatever they think is valuable, sell it, keep the money and IF you're lucky, they might not be back for more.





Nevada said:


> But that's not what happened.


And you know this...........how?


I know where and when the cattle roundup happened, I even stated so in my posts, so let's keep the posts' wording exactly as they were written, ok?

I've read the court orders and the letters from BLM addressed to Bundy.
They are typical of gov't collection letters, starting out with heavy handed tactics and threats from the beginning and NOT, "Mr. Bundy, would you please sit down and talk about this nicely with us."

As I've said, I've gotten the same threats and extortion letters and phone calls from revenue collectors before. When you go to the top of the agency, you can sometimes find a reasonable person to talk to, but the lower ranks are often drunk on power.
You can't reason with a drunk.
If they are gonna run their mouths about how much power they have and what they can do to you, your family and property, they shouldn't be that surprised when someone gets ticked off and tells them to bugger off.

If y'all allow people to make threats like that and get away with it, that's your decision.
Some people don't tolerate it from their employees.




PS
Some of y'all thinks it's funny and cute to call those who stand up to abusive power "fools".
I don't share that opinion, nor do I think it cute or funny.
It reminds me of the same type of provocation used by the BLM.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Some of y'all thinks it's funny and cute to call those who stand up to abusive power "fools".
> I don't share that opinion, nor do I think it cute or funny.
> It reminds me of the same type of provocation used by the BLM.


They *are *fools if Bundy and his clan is any example.
It makes little difference if you think something is "funny" or "cute"

It's just factual, and no amount of childish macho rhetoric will change reality


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> And you know this...........how?


This was covered in post #98. The order to evict cattle included the reasoning for doing it.

http://www.factandmyth.com/bundy-nevada/bundy-court.pdf

Grazing fees weren't mentioned. It was all about removing cattle from the tortoise habitat.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This was covered in post #98. The order to evict cattle included the reasoning for doing it.
> 
> http://www.factandmyth.com/bundy-nevada/bundy-court.pdf
> 
> Grazing fees weren't mentioned. It was all about removing cattle from the tortoise habitat.


I didn't see anything there about the desert tortoise, just talk about habitat destruction.

There is this though:

https://www.rt.com/usa/desert-tortoises-euthanize-nevada-024/
Government plans to euthanize hundreds of threatened desert tortoises it was supposed to protect.

officials plan to euthanize about half of the 1,400 tortoises.

were once classified as &#8220;endangered&#8221; and are currently considered &#8220;threatened.&#8221;

Endangered and threatened are completely different. I remember when the Center for Biodiversity sued the government about them. i was surprised to find out that they were listed here in California, but not in Nevada. I made comments to my wife about how it was a shame they couldn't read, so they would know they were fair game in Clark County. Hundreds were rounded up and killed for a new development that went in their.

The main reasons for the tortoise decline are: Ravens(cant kill them), coyotes, lung infection brought on by taking one to a humid environment, then bringing it back to the desert. Vehicles and cattle are not a threat to them. Then, there's the government, their the biggest threat to them. Expanding military bases!!

So, why would they go after Bundy? China solar with Reid and sons?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I didn't see anything there about the desert tortoise, just talk about habitat destruction.
> 
> There is this though:
> 
> ...



The best source about this you could find was "Russia Today"?

Seriously?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I didn't see anything there about the desert tortoise, just talk about habitat destruction.


But it was a desert tortoise habitat.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

basketti said:


> The best source about this you could find was "Russia Today"?
> 
> Seriously?


Just a source, there are others you can look up for yourself! They just said it in less words for some folks to understand better. Did you?

I was there for a lot of these hearings too! Were you? What did you find false in that article?

Seriously?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But it was a desert tortoise habitat.


When did it become so? How many of Bundys cattle killed or hurt them? I know the answer. Look up "incidental take".


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Just a source, there are others you can look up for yourself! They just said it in less words for some folks to understand better. Did you?
> 
> I was there for a lot of these hearings too! Were you? What did you find false in that article?
> 
> Seriously?


http://www.fws.gov/cno/press/release.cfm?rid=526


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

basketti said:


> http://www.fws.gov/cno/press/release.cfm?rid=526


Like i asked, what was false? Nothing different there. What about "incidental takes"?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Like i asked, what was false? Nothing different there. What about "incidental takes"?


Seriously? Your article (written in poor English) claimed that all tortoises were being euthanized rather than just the sick tortoises. Then it claimed that "enfeebled" tortoises were being set free. So it contradicted itself. 

Not what was happening. They only euthanized sick tortoises. Do you have a problem with euthanizing sick animals? I know you are very sensitive and kindhearted but that seems an extreme position to take. I would rather see a sick animal euthanized than allow it to suffer.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> When did it become so? How many of Bundys cattle killed or hurt them? I know the answer. Look up "incidental take".


It became so sometime in March 1993. At that time the BLM designated some of the land that Bundy grazed on to eliminate grazing and restrict off-road vehicle use. That land was set aside as a protected tortoise habitat. Any ranchers who leased grazing acreage on those lands were offered settlements to purchase back those grazing rights.

_*March 1993*: The Washington Post publishes a story about the federal government's efforts to protect the desert tortoise in Nevada. Near Las Vegas, the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts. "Among the conservation measures required," according to the Post's coverage, "are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land."_
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ween-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

I don't know exactly what it is about cattle grazing that's incompatible with the desert tortoise, but the court order stated that harm would have resulted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Like i asked, *what was false?* Nothing different there. What about "incidental takes"?


That was answered once already


----------

