Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In case anyone on here want's a good read, here's the best overview article I've read about this saga (note that it's from a right-wing source: Breitbart)
I agree, it is a good summary of the situation. I must confess, I had my doubts about it being unbiased coming from a Breitbart site but is seems to stick strictly to the facts.
While it might explain the circumstances I believe nearly everyone understand and agrees........
The BLM began restricting ranchers’ usage of federal lands to protect various species, and the BLM decided to restrict the Bundy family’s usage of the federal land they historically grazed.
This has nothing to do with any stupid turtle.
Sure it did. The BLM did not volunteer to protect the turtle. They were sued by the environmentalist and basically lost in court. The decision to protect the tortoises resulted from those court actions. I think the Tortoise thing borders on the absurd...the tortoise is wildly happy and gladly lives and reproduces in backyards and golf courses. But what we needed is legislation to fix the endangered species act and that is likely more than the system can deliver.
So yeah the tortoises did in Bundy and his neighbors and it should not have. But that is not the fault of BLM...it goes back to the Congress and the effects of legislation.
This coming from someone who believes that the BLM and therefore the federal government acted correctly in this case. Get real.
Look, I don't wholeheartedly agree with Cliven Bundy. I think he handled the matter less than adroitly. However, the BLM sending in their thugs to handle the situation, leading to the tazing and assault of Bundy's family members and the senseless slaughter (either intentionally or unintentionally) of over a hundred head of cattle, was just about the worst possible way for the government to handle this. What would have been wrong with simply arresting Bundy? After all, according to the government he was in contempt of numerous court orders, which is justification for imprisonment.
The simple fact of the matter is, whether Bundy was all wrong, all right, or somewhere in the middle, the government was all wrong in their handling of this situation. There was absolutely no reason for the BLM to pretend that we are living in a police state and that they have the power to not only strongarm an American citizen and his family without legal justification, but also to dictate to American citizens where and when they are allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights. As I said before, what is really sad - and what frightens me more than the government's actions - is that there are people who support this type of behavior from the federal government and are actually defending the actions of the BLM. I knew that Americans were losing touch with reality, but I didn't realize that quite so many were willing to accept a government which takes what it wants from American citizens, via force and illegal methods.
"The government" has been trying to get Bundy to remove his cattle for 20 years! For 20 years, the courts sided with the government but Bundy refused to comply with the court orders. After 20 years of Bundy out right refusing to obey the law, you accuse the government of being heavy handed? I don't understand why Bundy is not in a Federal prison.
This is a good argument as to why the federal government has no business owning land like this......though it's still sort of unclear who does own and control what. The federal government has no business picking and choosing who should be able to use "public" lands.
No, it is not unclear who owns and controls what land! The government purchased it from Mexico. Bundy could have used it if he only paid the grazing fees but Bundy refused. Perhaps the companies that plan to frack on government land will pay to lease it. Or do you think these companies should get the same deal that Bundy wants?
While it might explain the circumstances I believe nearly everyone understand and agrees........
The BLM began restricting ranchers’ usage of federal lands to protect various species, and the BLM decided to restrict the Bundy family’s usage of the federal land they historically grazed.
This has nothing to do with any stupid turtle.
It has everything to do with Bundy allowing his cattle to crap on, and pollute the waters, on land Bundy does not own.
No, it is not unclear who owns and controls what land! The government purchased it from Mexico. Bundy could have used it if he only paid the grazing fees but Bundy refused. Perhaps the companies that plan to frack on government land will pay to lease it. Or do you think these companies should get the same deal that Bundy wants?
That is really not true. Bundy could have paid his fees but he would have had to reduce the cattle on the range to a level that would have been cost prohibitive. He really was put out of business by the tortoises.
Fracking is a none issue. It has virtually no surface effects other than small drilling sites. It does pollute to any particullar degree done properly.
They are an endangered species on federal land, damage to habitat has been an ongoing complaint by environmental groups. Reading through the article you can see support for this rancher is ill conceived.
The Chinese power plant or those using the land for fracking aren't going to bother the turtles in a bigger way than cattle?
That is really not true. Bundy could have paid his fees but he would have had to reduce the cattle on the range to a level that would have been cost prohibitive. He really was put out of business by the tortoises.
Fracking is a none issue. It has virtually no surface effects other than small drilling sites. It does pollute to any particullar degree done properly.
I have to assume that you have never been to a fracking site.
No, it is not unclear who owns and controls what land! The government purchased it from Mexico. Bundy could have used it if he only paid the grazing fees but Bundy refused. Perhaps the companies that plan to frack on government land will pay to lease it. Or do you think these companies should get the same deal that Bundy wants?
Sure it did. The BLM did not volunteer to protect the turtle. They were sued by the environmentalist and basically lost in court. The decision to protect the tortoises resulted from those court actions. I think the Tortoise thing borders on the absurd...the tortoise is wildly happy and gladly lives and reproduces in backyards and golf courses. But what we needed is legislation to fix the endangered species act and that is likely more than the system can deliver.
So yeah the tortoises did in Bundy and his neighbors and it should not have. But that is not the fault of BLM...it goes back to the Congress and the effects of legislation.
Right, it has nothing to do with turtles.....so you have to go back further and see who it was that wanted the small ranchers ran out of business.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
