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.
You still haven't shown any evidence that the BLM performed any maintenance on the land in question. If they haven't, then Bundy's grazing cattle haven't cost us a cent.
First of all, your link is from a vegetarian organization. I find it difficult to accept their views on the effects of grazing cattle, considering that they don't agree with the purpose of those cattle in the first place.
Secondly, this statement:
...talks about a possibility, not a probability. Yes, cattle can denude land of vegetation, assuming that the herd is large enough and is poorly managed. However, a rancher whose livelihood depends on those cattle and their forage - especially a rancher whose family has been running cattle in that area for over a century - is highly unlikely to either put too large of a herd on the land in question or to overgraze it.
This one, however, is my favorite:
..assuming that this statement has any validity at all, the entire middle section of the North American continent should have been a complete wasteland, devoid of life, when the early European explorers showed up. Why? Because there were literally millions of buffalo that urinated and defecated in streams for centuries. If urine and feces in running water causes a threat to the local flora and fauna, the entire food chain would have gone belly up and the middle of the continent would have resembled the Sahara.
Perhaps you might consider looking at references cited in this paper.
It wouldn't surprise me. Besides you are arguing for things the court never granted......the stealing of the cattle. The cattle were allowed to be there, they just weren't being paid for. That is a lien issue.
No the cattle were not allowed to be there. There were court orders requiring that the cattle be removed.
And much of the cattle was grazing on areas where they were never allowed.
And the right of a landlord to remove the possessions of a tenant no longer leasing is basic common law....Even for cattle.
No the cattle were not allowed to be there. There were court orders requiring that the cattle be removed.
And much of the cattle was grazing on areas where they were never allowed.
And the right of a landlord to remove the possessions of a tenant no longer leasing is basic common law....Even for cattle.
If it was such a problem they would of tried to take the cattle away years ago. Since Bundy has gone to court numerous times and BLM stopped getting payment why wasn't this taken care of then ? Why all of a sudden now ?
There are reasonable ways to determine what the ability to ranch a cow is worth.
There is no requirement that BLM actually spent a dime on the acreage. But the overall operation of BLM was overhead there as well as anywhere else BLM operated.
That dog don't hunt. Your argument is that because the BLM exists, Bundy should pay them. There is nothing resembling logic in that. Further, the fact that the BLM can't manage their budget is a problem within the BLM, not a problem that Bundy should be forced to contribute to.
The claim has been made that Bundy has explicitly cost the taxpayers money by grazing cattle on land that is then repaired and maintained by the BLM. I'm asking for that claim to be validated by evidence that the BLM has performed maintenance and repairs on the land in question. Again, if they haven't performed any maintenance then Bundy's cattle haven't resulted in any loss to the taxpayers.
It wouldn't surprise me. Besides you are arguing for things the court never granted......the stealing of the cattle. The cattle were allowed to be there, they just weren't being paid for. That is a lien issue.
Do you even know what a court injunction is? Google it.
Show me where in the court ruling is says, " The cattle were allowed to be there, they just weren't being paid for. That is a lien issue."
This is what I read in the court order:
Quote:
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’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of
the date hereof.
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.
