Reply With Quote
I completely agree with your analysis. It does not warrant a headshot.
Get the Governor involved. Defuse the situation first?
If the sheriff gets an order to evict people from homes they lose the sheriff comes armed. Why would they not come armed?
I completely agree with your analysis. It does not warrant a headshot.
Get the Governor involved. Defuse the situation first?
Do you believe this is all about protecting a ing tortoise?
Does the sheriff come with a couple hundred deputies and snipers?
That's s apples vs parachute pants.
I will just say you need to look at where the ENN project is being built outside Laughlin south of Lake Mead. Now look where Bunkersville is relative to Lake Mead.
I also would point that the issue with Bunker being told to vacate his cattle off federal land started back in 1993.
Maybe he exerted some influence and he certainly is guilty of nepotism overall but in this case I think your dumb ass needs to stop reading infowars and their proxies.
I think there are multiple federal court orders and that is what it is about. I think this has to do with some country bumpkin thinking he can just ignore federal court as part of a much larger sovereign citizen movement.
I still don't get your solution. They're supposed to seize property against a hostile family unarmed? Or the BLM should cede the rights to the cattle to the state or county since those are the only governments he'd turn them over to? I wish I could tell SAPD I only recognize Federal Authority.
Infowars alright
BLM doesnt have to cede jack . Just let the state step in and intervene before the inevitable headshot.
This is not your run of the mill seizure scenario no matter how hard you try to make it seem as mundane as an eviction.
If BLM guns this guy down, nobody wins.
We really have no idea of what the Feds have tried during the 20 year warning. One Fed may have shown up numerous times asking politely for the Bundy family to remove the cattle. Again and again. Maybe the Feds have been threatened by the Bundys before to leave or the Feds would be thrown off...
This is what strikes me as nuts:
"I would pay my grazing fees to the proper government, which I would say is Clark County, Nevada,"
?Feds with lots of guns seems excessive unless the threat of violence from the people who believe they are their own government was thought to be a real concern. These nutty militias joined in, not good.
So please point me to the part that links Bunkersville land seizure and the project they talk about in the article. Want to know who first started the link between the two? I will help:Infowars alright
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen...f-bundy-ranch/
As I said before you need to quit getting your takes from infowars and their proxies. Your critical thinking skills are weak as .Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch
Again
1) Where is Laughlin?
2) Where is Bunkersville?
It's a tactical response. You threaten feds and you are asking for a storm. Nice dissemble though.
I get what you are saying especially in light of how standdowns like this has gone in the past.
The issue is that the federal agency is not going to capitulate to the state. They are going to assert the authority which the antagonizer repeatedly denies. The sovereign citizen movement cannot be allowed to deny the authority of the federal government. It's not a precedent they can allow if they do not want others to try the same thing.
www.blm.gov/ nv/ st/ en/ fo/ lvfo/ blm_programs/ more/ trespass_cattle/ history_of_trepass.print.html
Retrieved from Google cache
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Nevada
Northeast Clark County Cattle Trespass
History of Cattle Trespass
In 1993, some of the terms of Mr. Bundy’s grazing permit for the Bunkerville allotment were modified to protect the desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy did not accept the offered grazing permit and subsequently stopped paying grazing fees. The BLM then cancelled Mr. Bundy’s grazing permit but Mr. Bundy continued to graze his cattle in the Bunkerville Allotment. A portion of the Bunkerville Allotment is National Park Service (NPS) lands which BLM managed by agreement with NPS.
In 1997, in accordance with the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan and the Biological Opinion released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, active grazing permits in tortoise habitat were purchased by Clark County under the Clark County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Program. Mr. Bundy rejected a tentative proposal to compensate him for any stockwater rights or range improvements he might have in his former allotment.
In 1998, the United States filed a civil complaint against Mr. Bundy for his continued trespass grazing in the Bunkerville Allotment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued an order permanently enjoining Mr. Bundy from grazing cattle on the Bunkerville allotment, ordered him to remove all trespass cattle and set a penalty of $200 per day per animal remaining on the federal range.
In 1999, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s permanent injunction. When Mr. Bundy failed to remove his livestock as directed by the District Court, the United States filed a motion to enforce the permanent injunction and the District Court ordered Mr. Bundy to pay $1,377 as willful repeated trespass damages and adjusted fines to be consistent with regulatory rates of $45.90 per day for each day Mr. Bundy’s cattle remained on the allotment based on a herd size of 51 cows BLM had do ented as still remaining on the federal range.
In 1999, the Las Vegas Field Office Resource Management Plan designated the Bunkerville allotment as “Closed to Grazing” to protect desert tortoise habitat.
In 2008, BLM issued a decision to cancel Mr. Bundy’s range improvement authorizations (one range improvement permit and ten cooperative agreements). Mr. Bundy submitted a letter objecting to the action which BLM forwarded to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as an appeal. The IBLA issued a decision affirming the BLM’s cancellation decision on December 22, 2008.
In March 2011, BLM counted 903 cattle from a helicopter spread out over approximately 90 miles in northeast Clark County within the Gold Butte area, including Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Of the 564 cattle that were in locations that could be accessed by ground teams, 43 percent had no identifying marks, 41 percent had either brands or earmarks registered to Cliven Bundy and 16 percent could not be viewed from all sides to determine ownership information.
In 2011, BLM [has] issued Mr. Bundy a Trespass Notice and Order to Cease and Desist; a Trespass Decision and Order to Remove; and a Notice of Intent to Impound. None of these communications resulted in Mr. Bundy’s voluntary removal of the trespass cattle from the public lands.
In August 2011, cattle were counted by helicopter in the Gold Butte Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), Mormon Mesa ACEC and Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Of the 729 cattle counted, only 278 cattle were in locations that could be accessed by the ground teams.
In February 2012, approximately 600 cattle were spotted by helicopter including Gold Butte Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), Mormon Mesa ACEC and Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Approximately 50 cattle were counted in Lake Mead National Recreation Area and 550 were counted on BLM managed public lands.
In April 2012, 750 cattle were identified by helicopter on the federal lands. An impoundment operation scheduled to take place in April 2012 was cancelled a day before operations were set to begin.
In May 2012, the United States filed a Complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for Cliven Bundy’s trespass grazing within the Gold Butte area outside the Bunkerville Allotment, including within Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
In April 2013, the United States filed a Motion to Enforce the 1998 Permanent Injunction against Cliven Bundy for the Bunkerville Allotment.
In May 2013, 795 cattle were counted by helicopter on the federal lands.
On July 9, 2013, U.S. District Court of Nevada Judge Lloyd George permanently enjoined Cliven Bundy’s trespass grazing and ordered Cliven Bundy to remove his trespass cattle from public land outside the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days, stating that the United States is authorized to seize and impound any cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days.
On October 9, 2013, U.S. District Court of Nevada Judge Larry Hicks reiterated that Cliven Bundy is permanently enjoined from grazing the Bunkerville Allotment and has no legal right to graze the federal lands, directed him to remove his trespass cattle from the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days, authorized the United States to impound his cattle if he fails to remove them within 45 days or continues to trespass at a future date and directed Mr. Bundy not to physically interfere with an impoundment action.
In December 2013, BLM counted 568 cattle by helicopter that remain on the federal lands that are subject to the permanent injunctions.
This was not started on infowars. You would have figured that out on your own had you read your own infowars article.
Did he threaten the Feds like Koresh abused children?
Fuzzy since you linked infowars I'm going to have to one up you.
http://teapartyradical.squarespace.c...-ranch-f.html/
I live in SW Utah. I grew up on a ranch less than 100 miles from the Bundy's ranch. My father knows Cliven Bundy. I know Cliven's son Ryan. This is not a hoax, it is an action of force by the BLM.
The BLM was going to sell the cattle at one of the smallest cattle markets in Utah. No cattle markets in Nevada would take the cattle without a properly signed brand inspection (which the BLM cannot obtain without Cliven Bundy's signature). The BLM paid the owner of the Utah cattle market $300,000 to do the sale ('R' Livestock Connection in Monroe, Utah, owned by one Scott G. Robbins, according to the Utah Business En y Search). Utah Governor Herbert stepped in and forbid them from bringing the cattle into Utah without the legally required health and brand inspections (which again, require Bundy's signature) and that no feral cattle are allowed to be imported at all (per Utah statute). Because Bundy claims ownership over maybe 350-500 head of branded cattle, the other 500-700 estimated head of cattle would all be considered feral. BLM officially backed off, but we suspect they are still secretly shipping them through Utah without any permission to do so, to "private" buyers in Colorado. The contract cowboys that the BLM hired to do the roundup are from Sampson Livestock in Meadow, Utah (traitors one and all).
From what I understand, Cliven Bundy owns both the Water Rights and Grazing Rights to all of the land where his cattle run. If Bundy failed to use them, the Grazing Rights would revert to the BLM and would be retired, while the Water Rights would revert to the State of Nevada, likely to be sold to the highest bidder (which would probably be a bidding war between mineral companies that are behind this action with the BLM and the City of Las Vegas which is thirsty for water and has had multiple attempts to buy water--through eminent domain from Utah farmers and ranchers--from Utah, which were all blocked by the Utah Legislature and Utah Governor Herbert). Chances are, the BLM has already filed a claim on the water rights so that they can sell to the highest bidder (instead of the state) and are trying to get the cattle off to show that Bundy cannot use the water beneficially (much like what the US Forest Service and BLM both tried to do to Wayne Hage).
Now, for Cliven Bundy, he's not fighting this for his cattle or his own livelihood. He recognizes that he will probably die before this fight is over. He has said multiple times that he is fighting this to wake people up about the tyranny of the Federal Government and also to help wake up the western states about getting the rights to their own land back from the federal government, which has repeatedly shut down ranchers and closed off land. (MO = 1st, get all the ranchers, farmers, Native Americans, and foresters that use the land for positive, sustainable production off of the land; 2nd, grab up all the resources; 3rd, close off the lands to public access including camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, boating, shooting, etc; 4th, sell off the resources to the highest bidder regardless of what that will do to the land, the local environment, or the economy; 5th, collect royalties on the resources in perpetuity; 6th, reduce and eliminate all SLS and PILT payments to the states, impoverishing them beyond belief.)
The BLM tried buying Bundy out and he didn't want to sell. So next they changed the rules to make it harder and harder for him to graze his cattle so that he would forfeit the grazing rights he had already paid for. When he tried to continue to pay the state and county, they refused to take his money. The BLM isn't interested in turtles. They just want the land (including land he DOES own) for their own purposes.
BLM is following a court order. You just showed where he has been ordered off by federal court first in 1998 which was upheld on appeal.
Environmentalists from the local universities are the ones that got the protection order. Go tin foil that .
Bunker can make whatever claim he wants but prior to 1993, he had a leasing agreement to manage the land with the park service. It's per se admission on his part that he did not own the land. How else could he agree to such a thing?
He just didn't want to pay so he did not. A federal court ordered and an appeals court upheld a decision that he was to remove his cows from federal land. Your blogger who supposedly knows them doesn't 'understand' . The Bunker family had agreements with the park service and when the business relationship ended because they could not agree to terms he just wanted to keep on anyway.
Sorry but that is not how life works. At no point in the past 100+ years did his family own that land and his family has had legal agreements that indicate he understands that. A management contract is what it is.
He's a squatter and this is very much so like an eviction. He needs to get his off of land not his own and quit threatening people. He has other land out there. It's not like they are stealing his home. It's not his land.
That's what courts are for. If he didn't like it, then he should've sued, gone to court and fight the "battle" where it needs to be fought.
You don't need to be a genius to realize this was going to escalate when he has multiple verdicts against him, and on top of that he's not been paying what he owes to who he owes (the federal government).
The actual shocking news here is that it took the government 20 years to act on this.
Last edited by ElNono; 04-12-2014 at 12:51 AM.
The governor won't touch this. They're not owed the money and it's bad politics for them. Plus there's a few federal court orders in place, the state has dubious, if any, standing to get in the way.
No they wanted him to start having to pay to help fund the park service because of an environmental order on the lands that he was using. There is a clear cause and effect. Local scientists get protection for a species and fees go up. He stops paying.
You are speaking to intent. I know you have created this scenario in your head where Reid is pulling strings in Washington so he can get this land for his sons solar project but that is stupid. His son bought the land out by Laughlin.
There are several scientists from local universities who are still pressing the claim for the environmental protection order first enforced in 1993. Bunker was not the target here. Most of the state is federal land and anyone in the region has to pay. He decided he did not want to pay. him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
