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.
They tried to collect his assets to apply against the huge debt he owed. And yeah, it "didn't work as planned" because Bundy organized a band of armed thugs to prevent them from doing so. And that's why the old man is going to die in prison. You don't point weapons at federal agents and threaten their lives and just walk away.
I bet old Cliven, as he rots in prison, is going to think a whole lot about how this "didn't work as he had planned." On the plus side, he'll probably have the rest of his life to contemplate that.
I believe Greg called those assets, cattle.
They tried to steal his property. It didn't go as planned.
Are you denying that event happened where the Federal Government literally purchased a chunk of land to own? They figured out how to do it then, read up on your history to figure out how that worked with the Constitution....you seem to know nothing about that purchase. It is also the single biggest purchase that the Federal government has done.
So whine all you want, the federal government has been owning land in this country for a long, long time. That isn't going to change because some right wing extremists are whining about it.
The people purchased the land. The people there already owned it and homesteaded it. The peoples government, just bought their rights under the US Constitution, using the peoples treasury.
The people purchased the land. The people there already owned it and homesteaded it. The peoples government, just bought their rights under the US Constitution, using the peoples treasury.
The people? You mean the federal government purchased the land from the French, get your history straight. The federal government has owned land in this country long before you were whining about it.
The people? You mean the federal government purchased the land from the French, get your history straight. The federal government has owned land in this country long before you were whining about it.
The people that lived there already owned the land. The federal government bought them the US. Constitution. So the people could create their own states constitution.
Actually, this land was given to the NA and at the time they rejected it.......so anything that is there is recently established in the last 50 years or so. There are articles out there if you choose to read them. Plus, many of the so called artifacts were in a dusty basement, being covered by cobwebs, dust and broken. What the government is doing to the rancher the is same thing they did to the Native American. Yet, one tribal leader was quoted as "the government is our protector!" This is ironic for a tribal leader to say, when they also stand and tell us the government wiped them out!
They can't have their cake and eat it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
I believe Greg called those assets, cattle.
They tried to steal his property. It didn't go as planned.
They murdered the cattle and ran the babies to death. This is inhumane. Yet, animal activist stood silent and PETA was no where insight!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
The people that lived there already owned the land. The federal government bought them the US. Constitution. So the people could create their own states constitution.
Read a book.
Its easier to make stuff up! Many of them only go by government word and not laws of the land.
IMHO - the Federal government should have rounded up all the cattle and sent the bill to Bundy.
They tried. Bundy sent out for his idiot armed hoodlums who thought they'd finally, finally get their day of glory/ (In their minds, they did.) The Feds decided that living with a deadbeat was preferable to escalating a situation that could end with bunch of dead people. Good move. The idea being that time was in their favor and Bundy would do something stupid eventually.
Well, they were right on both counts. Solid cases have been built against most of the posse and Bundy decided that a quick flight to sonnyboy's campsite in Malheur would be an intelligent thing to do.
Quote:
If he did not pay they should have taken is ranch in lieu of rental payments like any private sector landlord. He cheated the government (aka the rest of us) for decades and should pay the price.
The ranch is gone once the court case is over.
I do feel for the rest of the family - wives and kids are going to suffer for the male Bundys' idiocy, and looking at the apparent family dynamic, I think it's safe to say they didn't have much of a vote.
"3~Shepherds:
Yet, the area at one time had 52 ranchers and when Bundy took his stand he was the last one remaining. Here is an article that explains what Bundy had to agree with before he could pay his fees. One way it is explained in the article, permit rights were reduced by 90%, this is like agreeing to working a 40 hour week and only receiving 10% of your paycheck. https://issuu.com/kynize/docs/why_th...s_support_cliv
Strange you would assume the melons were more important than his ranching, rather than supplemental income. Certainly, sounds like you have a personal opinion and issue with the man. Many ranchers do side business, along with raising cattle, this is certainly not uncommon."
You're right about that!
I come from a family who has ranched ever since they immigrated in the late 1800s. While we have never leased any federal lands, we have always leased some state land, and we have always paid those leases every year for 6 generations. No one hates a deadbeat rancher than ranchers who faithfully pay their obligations, even when it really hurts sometimes.
Of course ranchers have side businesses. Farming and ranching is seasonal, so there's a lot of spare time in the winter to work in other ventures. During the other 3 seasons, there's always a lot of time to grow crops or other work while tending livestock.
The fact is; for the past 40 years, raising cattle as an occupation has been nothing better than a break even proposition at best for the ranchers in the west. Bundy may have begun raising melons as a supplementary income, but over time, his melons made more money for them than his cattle did.
Do you think the other 51 ranchers were all incompetent? Nevada is hot alkali desert. In good times, when enough rain falls, cows can do OK. But the entire west has now been in continual drought for over 20 years, and even longer in Nevada. The other 51 quit because it raising livestock became a losing proposition.
Just like the Oklahoma wheat farmers quit in the Dust Bowl. A 20 year drought is next to nothing; the west has undergone 100 year droughts often in the past, and 200 year droughts a few times.
Some people try to hang on. Some hang on too long. Others give up right away and go to another occupation or another area that is more promising.
That's part of the reason why the BLM was so tolerant with Cliven. That land wasn't exactly being fought over by other ranchers who wanted the lease.
Western ranching is more a hardscrabble way of life than anything else, and as a lifestyle, it's damned hard to give up.
I don't fault the Bundys for wanting to hang on to it, but Cliven simply should have done the right thing. Keep a few cows when his conditions change, cut down his lease, and live happily.
Ammon, after all, moved to Idaho, and Ryan moved to town, off the ranch. Cliven's older girls are off living with their own families. that should have been enough for Cliven to make some changes to the way he lives.
But that's what a smart person does. Cliven isn't the brightest bulb in the box.
" I don't know where you are getting your information, because his daughter certainly has a different story and it has nothing to do with leaving her dad on his own. The whole family was still there for him, along with many ranch hands who have nothing, but praise for the man, including a black ranch hand."
Sure. The family is always there for an aging rancher, but, as I said, when the kids are adults with their own families and responsibilities, help becomes a negotiation. The kids simply can't drop everything and show up every time their father needs them any more, or can't come in the number that is needed for the sudden job.
Cattle do what they do. They tear down a fence when they get hungry, and go searching for more grass. A herd can scatter overnight, and in Nevada, finding 100 strays could become a month's work for one person. Teenage children are great for a rancher while they're still living at home, but once they're gone, sudden emergencies like stray cattle often don't get the quick response needed because there's not enough quick help available.
How manny ranch hands is "many"? Do you know anything about the personnel needs of the Bundy operation? Or for how long more people are needed for some work? I don't think so.
I do know a little about the subject. A large ranch these days only has a couple of full-time cowboy employees; mechanization has done away with most of the big labor requirements of the past.
Like any business, ranchers don't hire people they don't need for full time help in numbers more than the need. Open range doesn't require a lot of cowboys full time.
And it's not a job for amateurs. Competent part-time help isn't like a convenience store job.
When it comes to moving a big bunches of cows and handling them, ranchers most often just call each other up and cooperatively pitch in with no pay involved. Everyone gets the folks who know the most when it's their turn for needed help. Like I keep saying, a ranch life is full of negotiations in almost everything.
The guys who can't get along with others are always all on their own.
Farming requires more people than ranching. But good farmers aren't always good ranchers when it comes to the temporary help.
"While living in a Free roaming area here in Idaho, I can testify BLM could care less if cattle destroyed my property. I had 20 cows on my property one time. I called Fish & Game told them cattle were loose and harming my landscape, along with me not feeling safe going outside. Their reply was, "I lived in a Free Range area and there was nothing I could do until the cattle left on their own." That means I could not run them off, I could not use any tactic that would scare them off, so my answer I got 3 dogs. That ended those cattle coming onto my property, but others had to enjoy them at certain times of the year, sheep were the same problematic issue. Also, pictures of Bundy's cows are shown as healthy and far from being panther-wild! He took no money from the feds to fix waterways, fencing and making sure the water flowed, not only for his cattle, but the wildlife that live in the area. Plus, if the government had done their part in fixing fences, the cattle would not have wandered onto federal land, something you and the government fail to speak about."
Spoken like a transplant who never assimilated. Idaho has ALWAYS been a free range state. That means range land doesn't have to be fenced to keep stay any livestock in.
It's a landowner's responsibility to fence his property to keep them out. I'm glad your dogs worked for you, but if you don't want livestock on your place, the best way to secure your property from them is to build a fence. Period. Ranchers build miles of fences to keep their neighbor's livestock out.
But That's nothing but more of your deflection anyway, because Nevada's laws may be different.
And fencing federal lands is up to the feds, so those lands have different regulations altogether. Some federal lands are fenced, others are not. I doubt you are familiar with the BLM regs on what they are required to fence. I know I'm not, but I'm sure a trip to the local extension agent would clear the matter up for both of us.
Did you see all of Bundy's cattle? I don't think so. Do you know how many he owns? Nope.
Cliven doesn't even know how many he has. Supposedly, the herd is now above 1,000. Not all of them are going to be skinny, and no one knows when Cliven was turning a few out, or how long some cows have been on the range.
For all you know, those cows could have been put out a week earlier, or a few months earlier. Cattle don't starve down fast.
The BLM is more than happy to foot most of the bill when it comes to water improvement on their lands. All it takes is following their plans, which are created to benefit the wildlife as much as the tenant's livestock. In fact, if a private property owner can show enough wildlife will benefit from water improvement on his own property, the BLM will pay almost all the expenses if their watering plans are followed.
My own family has put such improvements in on our own land. Our out of pocket costs were about two thousand dollars, but the feds paid $31,000 to make it happen.
It's a good deal for us, but we don't use the land year-round. The wild creatures do, and the investment pays off for hunters, fishermen, bird watchers, and outdoor enthusiasts of all kinds who love our wild life. Our labor was the bulk of our contribution to the project. The upkeep cost is jointly shared.
Cliven could have done the same thing. Any rancher who leases federal land can, anywhere in the nation. Don't try to make him noble. If he was stupid enough to become hostile to the agency that was helping him make a living, that's all his own doing.
"The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy's family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle. A tortoise isn't the reason why BLM is harassing Bundy. They want his land. The tortoise wasn't of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise's habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore......something about Wind & Solar, which many Democrats, those supporting government and Reid choose to ignore."
More conspiracy theories. You love them. You've already tried two that failed. Your third attempt won't help you out any more than the first two did.
Alex Jones is not your friend, Shepherds. Conpiracy theories are how he makes his living, and he will always find a new one. So, apparently, will you.
Sure, urbanization is a threat to any rural way of life. But the bitter fact is a single family will never be able to stop urbanization. When the needs of thousands of people are pitted against a very few, the big number always wins in the end.
"Reid is accused of using the BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land, even the Governor and the Senator are questioning the overreach of BLM. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor. BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It's easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn't make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws."
A herd of 150 cattle is not tiny. An average cattle herd in the west is somewhere between 200 to 500. A 1,000 head or larger herd is enormous.
Herds that size are now owned by only the very few huge ranches that are left, like the King ranch in Texas. Most are owned by corporations whose members never actually walk among the cattle they own. The Carghill family owns more cattle than any other entity in the United States as a privately owned corporation.
Bundy had full legal redress to ever issue you mentioned. Like everything else, rules change periodically in all endeavors for all kinds of reasons, and the new rule always supersedes the old rule. Cliven was notified every time a new rule was made. He always had options to respond properly and legally. If he chose to ignore them, that's no one's problem but his own, just as the consequences are for his ignoring them.
Calling it overreach is an overreach. We all live with changing rules in our workplace, the place we live in, and in our nation everywhere.
Turning a 2-way street into a 1-way street is nothing but a change of rules as how we must drive on the street. Rules = regulations.
Cliven may think he's a special snowflake, but he is not special in any way you and I are not.
Reid is in cahoots? All that secret squirrel stuff is right up your alley. I'm sure you will pull a new one out of your pocket next week.
If it's for real, it will be legally exposed in time. Americans are crappy conspiracists.
Many assume Bundy is a Republican, the man is a registered Libertarian.
More deflection again. You must have a bushel of red herrings to throw.
What difference does Bundy's personal politics have to do with the facts of the matter? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. .
"While living in a Free roaming area here in Idaho, I can testify BLM could care less if cattle destroyed my property. I had 20 cows on my property one time. I called Fish & Game told them cattle were loose and harming my landscape, along with me not feeling safe going outside. Their reply was, "I lived in a Free Range area and there was nothing I could do until the cattle left on their own." That means I could not run them off, I could not use any tactic that would scare them off, so my answer I got 3 dogs. That ended those cattle coming onto my property, but others had to enjoy them at certain times of the year, sheep were the same problematic issue. Also, pictures of Bundy's cows are shown as healthy and far from being panther-wild! He took no money from the feds to fix waterways, fencing and making sure the water flowed, not only for his cattle, but the wildlife that live in the area. Plus, if the government had done their part in fixing fences, the cattle would not have wandered onto federal land, something you and the government fail to speak about."
Spoken like a transplant who never assimilated. Idaho has ALWAYS been a free range state. That means range land doesn't have to be fenced to keep stay any livestock in.
It's a landowner's responsibility to fence his property to keep them out. I'm glad your dogs worked for you, but if you don't want livestock on your place, the best way to secure your property from them is to build a fence. Period. Ranchers build miles of fences to keep their neighbor's livestock out.
But That's nothing but more of your deflection anyway, because Nevada's laws may be different.
I would have gladly fenced the area, if it wasn't a sub-division, that didn't allow fencing. I was within 500 yards of BLM public land, assimilating has NOT been my problem or issue. I also could not afford the damage they were doing to my land.....so barking dogs did the job for me. The area had 3-5 acre parcels and it was cheaper to own the dogs......since there was little else I could do about it. My dogs were not vicious toward the cattle.
I have lived here for over 25 yrs......I only offered this information, because I have had dealings with F&G on several issues, and they are not as helpful as you lead us to believe. They can be helpful if they want to, and they can make things uncomfortable if they want to. To throw in transplant, just shows the level of respect you have for others who move here and certainly if their view is not like yours! I have had relationships with ranchers, some were leveled head and others not so much. I was always willing to work with the ranchers when I could.
Quote:
Did you see all of Bundy's cattle? I don't think so. Do you know how many he owns? Nope.
Quote:
Cliven doesn't even know how many he has. Supposedly, the herd is now above 1,000. Not all of them are going to be skinny, and no one knows when Cliven was turning a few out, or how long some cows have been on the range.
For all you know, those cows could have been put out a week earlier, or a few months earlier. Cattle don't starve down fast.
I followed what the family has put up and friends of the family who visited the ranch and provided pictures of the cattle 3 months before with dates and pics during the raid. None of the cows looked hungry.
Quote:
"The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy's family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle. A tortoise isn't the reason why BLM is harassing Bundy. They want his land. The tortoise wasn't of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise's habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore......something about Wind & Solar, which many Democrats, those supporting government and Reid choose to ignore."
More conspiracy theories. You love them. You've already tried two that failed. Your third attempt won't help you out any more than the first two did.
Alex Jones is not your friend, Shepherds. Conpiracy theories are how he makes his living, and he will always find a new one. So, apparently, will you.
Sure, urbanization is a threat to any rural way of life. But the bitter fact is a single family will never be able to stop urbanization. When the needs of thousands of people are pitted against a very few, the big number always wins in the end.
This to was provided by Ammon's wife and Bundy's daughter. I don't follow Alex Jones, so I have NO IDEA what you are talking about! Plus, you are wrong the Sierra Club was also involved and they had articles in that area wanting to protect the tortoise.
You are a typical end the conversation person. If anyone challenges your word you throw out "conspiracy theory" hoping to shut down the conversation......bully for you! Also, nice way to cover up the actions of Reid and the Sierra Club. Just saying, we all have to deal with their antics, we don't if we fight for our rights and the right for government to not be using land for their own use and not that of the American citizen.
Quote:
"Reid is accused of using the BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land, even the Governor and the Senator are questioning the overreach of BLM. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor. BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It's easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn't make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws."
A herd of 150 cattle is not tiny. An average cattle herd in the west is somewhere between 200 to 500. A 1,000 head or larger herd is enormous.
Herds that size are now owned by only the very few huge ranches that are left, like the King ranch in Texas. Most are owned by corporations whose members never actually walk among the cattle they own. The Carghill family owns more cattle than any other entity in the United States as a privately owned corporation.
Bundy had full legal redress to ever issue you mentioned. Like everything else, rules change periodically in all endeavors for all kinds of reasons, and the new rule always supersedes the old rule. Cliven was notified every time a new rule was made. He always had options to respond properly and legally. If he chose to ignore them, that's no one's problem but his own, just as the consequences are for his ignoring them.
Calling it overreach is an overreach. We all live with changing rules in our workplace, the place we live in, and in our nation everywhere.
Turning a 2-way street into a 1-way street is nothing but a change of rules as how we must drive on the street. Rules = regulations.
Cliven may think he's a special snowflake, but he is not special in any way you and I are not.
Reid is in cahoots? All that secret squirrel stuff is right up your alley. I'm sure you will pull a new one out of your pocket next week.
If it's for real, it will be legally exposed in time. Americans are crappy conspiracists.
So you are saying the family is lying? This information was also provided by Cliven, in an interview. Cliven that I know of, is not suggesting he is special. He just wants to own his land and was providing the tortoise with a safe place, along with his cattle, until the Sierra Club suggested, otherwise. Most likely a suggestion by Reid and used by Reid. I like how you say "if" while accusing me of conspiracy. Yeah right, the government is always one we can take to court and prove wrong, not much of a chance.
Quote:
Many assume Bundy is a Republican, the man is a registered Libertarian.
More deflection again. You must have a bushel of red herrings to throw.
What difference does Bundy's personal politics have to do with the facts of the matter? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. .
This may not matter to you, but many on here and other places accuse him of being a Republican. Now days political affiliation is everything......you of all people should know this. Many say, Bundy is a Republican welfare rancher, I was just adding he is not a Republican. Funny how you accuse others of having no facts, conspiracy theory's and they have no place in a discussion......yet you find your own opinion none of these.
Last edited by wildflower82; 08-06-2016 at 07:46 PM..
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.
how you accuse others of having no facts, conspiracy theory's and they have no place in a discussion......yet you find your own opinion none of these.
