I have the right to use government land (now with slavery!)

[Ainin]

w00t!

A victory for property rights everywhere.

How the hell is this a victory for property rights?

[The Rich Port]

A victory for property rights everywhere.

How the hell is this a victory for property rights?

Not to mention... I thought this was about him violating the property rights of the United States government, not the government taking his cattle away from him.

[Llamalandia]

A victory for property rights everywhere.

I'm confused, how is this a victory for property rights? I wasn't aware that people had the right to use land they do not personally own for any reason they like. But if that is the case, I'll be over on your land next week for some camping, and don't you try to take away my property rights by denying me access or charging me, you communist.

True, although as has often been pointed out in most threads on here about the ussr and "communism" people don't like state capitalism either. The government as a large property owner could theoretically compete unfairly with private entities and therefor arguably shouldn't be able to own such large tracts of land.

But yea, unless the conspiracy theorists are correct and the BLM is really only after his ranch then no I'm not sure this is really a major victory for property rights.

[Sefard]

Ideally, pastureland would have no owner and would be used in common without compensation.

[Tekania]

I'm confused, how is this a victory for property rights? I wasn't aware that people had the right to use land they do not personally own for any reason they like. But if that is the case, I'll be over on your land next week for some camping, and don't you try to take away my property rights by denying me access or charging me, you communist.

True, although as has often been pointed out in most threads on here about the ussr and "communism" people don't like state capitalism either. The government as a large property owner could theoretically compete unfairly with private entities and therefor arguably shouldn't be able to own such large tracts of land.

But yea, unless the conspiracy theorists are correct and the BLM is really only after his ranch then no I'm not sure this is really a major victory for property rights.

Yes, but the whole BLM-Reid-Chinese-Solarplant theory contains more cow manure than the Bundy Ranch. The plant's proposed location is in Laughlin, NV.... nearly 115 miles SOUTH of where all this is going down. It has absolutely ZERO to do with this. It's just convenient because they can point to this stuff happening in Clark County.. when the most people aren't realizing Clark County is massive (over 8000 square miles) and merely being in the same county does not mean things are really connected. But GOTeaParty types will believe anything they are told as long as it's packaged anti-government.

[Gig em Aggies]

Great, now every violent (???) selfish asshole with a beef (see what I did there) with the feds is going to think they can get their own way.

Yeah, only the Feds should be able to do that.

Yeah they won't last for long.

What's that even supposed to mean? They won.

No they didn't the Feds backs off a bit because of a concern for their officers safety and the safety of innocent bystanders from jack asses who think their fighting for freedom.

[Pope Joan]

This guy is probably mad as hell about taxes and balancing the budget, yet he's just making it worse. I realize this is an old old debate. The ranchers are still wrong. It's not their land, it's ours. We should get a little something for its use.

[Llamalandia]

True, although as has often been pointed out in most threads on here about the ussr and "communism" people don't like state capitalism either. The government as a large property owner could theoretically compete unfairly with private entities and therefor arguably shouldn't be able to own such large tracts of land.

But yea, unless the conspiracy theorists are correct and the BLM is really only after his ranch then no I'm not sure this is really a major victory for property rights.

Yes, but the whole BLM-Reid-Chinese-Solarplant theory contains more cow manure than the Bundy Ranch. The plant's proposed location is in Laughlin, NV.... nearly 115 miles SOUTH of where all this is going down. It has absolutely ZERO to do with this. It's just convenient because they can point to this stuff happening in Clark County.. when the most people aren't realizing Clark County is massive (over 8000 square miles) and merely being in the same county does not mean things are really connected. But GOTeaParty types will believe anything they are told as long as it's packaged anti-government.

Well i'd self identify as a tea party type and I don't by into this conspiracy theory so... maybe try not to paint with such a broad brush all the time?

[Occupied Deutschland]

True, although as has often been pointed out in most threads on here about the ussr and "communism" people don't like state capitalism either. The government as a large property owner could theoretically compete unfairly with private entities and therefor arguably shouldn't be able to own such large tracts of land.

But yea, unless the conspiracy theorists are correct and the BLM is really only after his ranch then no I'm not sure this is really a major victory for property rights.

Yes, but the whole BLM-Reid-Chinese-Solarplant theory contains more cow manure than the Bundy Ranch. The plant's proposed location is in Laughlin, NV.... nearly 115 miles SOUTH of where all this is going down. It has absolutely ZERO to do with this. It's just convenient because they can point to this stuff happening in Clark County.. when the most people aren't realizing Clark County is massive (over 8000 square miles) and merely being in the same county does not mean things are really connected. But GOTeaParty types will believe anything they are told as long as it's packaged anti-government.

According to the conspiracy though, the "Non-Governmental Organizations" expressed concern over the cattle being where they were and did so loud and convincingly enough to get the BLM to list such concerns on their site. For comparison this is the site those supposedly came from.

Of course, it would be simple for someone in infowars (where this was first brought up to my knowledge) to whip into photoshop and make that.

There's also this from the BLM themselves (Adobe warning), which classifies wide swathes of the land Bundy is on as available for application (see the map on pg. 13 in Adobe, page 7 of the report itself).

I'm not endorsing the conspiracy, merely putting up what the supposed 'proof' of it is. I'm not going to read through the BLM report to see where Infowars got it wrong, but it is very likely if not almost certain they did. But, I don't know for certain.

[Tekania]

Yes, but the whole BLM-Reid-Chinese-Solarplant theory contains more cow manure than the Bundy Ranch. The plant's proposed location is in Laughlin, NV.... nearly 115 miles SOUTH of where all this is going down. It has absolutely ZERO to do with this. It's just convenient because they can point to this stuff happening in Clark County.. when the most people aren't realizing Clark County is massive (over 8000 square miles) and merely being in the same county does not mean things are really connected. But GOTeaParty types will believe anything they are told as long as it's packaged anti-government.

According to the conspiracy though, the "Non-Governmental Organizations" expressed concern over the cattle being where they were and did so loud and convincingly enough to get the BLM to list such concerns on their site. For comparison this is the site those supposedly came from.

Of course, it would be simple for someone in infowars (where this was first brought up to my knowledge) to whip into photoshop and make that.

There's also this from the BLM themselves (Adobe warning), which classifies wide swathes of the land Bundy is on as available for application (see the map on pg. 13 in Adobe, page 7 of the report itself).

I'm not endorsing the conspiracy, merely putting up what the supposed 'proof' of it is. I'm not going to read through the BLM report to see where Infowars got it wrong, but it is very likely if not almost certain they did. But, I don't know for certain.

Yeah, really doesn't pan out there either. The Gold Butte area plan is a restorative area in the plan where they want to cease existing environmental impacts (Aka, the overgrazing) so they engage in environmental restoration measures... nothing to do with the plant directly. More to do with the concern of existing environmental impacts in the area and basically the tieing up of loose ends so as to mitigate impact by engaging in restoration.

[Geilinor]

How the hell is this a victory for property rights?

Not to mention... I thought this was about him violating the property rights of the United States government, not the government taking his cattle away from him.

Didn't you know? According to libertarians, governments don't have property rights.

[The Rich Port]

Not to mention... I thought this was about him violating the property rights of the United States government, not the government taking his cattle away from him.

Didn't you know? According to libertarians, governments don't have property rights.

To be fair, the realm of how big the disconnect is between the U.S. government and We The People is 90% opinion.

But, to be "unfair"... If everyone else who is also a tax-payer, just like that rancher, have no problem paying the fee... What the fuck?

[Greed and Death]

This guy is probably mad as hell about taxes and balancing the budget, yet he's just making it worse. I realize this is an old old debate. The ranchers are still wrong. It's not their land, it's ours. We should get a little something for its use.

Some of the sites I am reading are claiming he tried pay the fee but BLM opted to seize the cattle instead.

[Tekania]

This guy is probably mad as hell about taxes and balancing the budget, yet he's just making it worse. I realize this is an old old debate. The ranchers are still wrong. It's not their land, it's ours. We should get a little something for its use.

Some of the sites I am reading are claiming he tried pay the fee but BLM opted to seize the cattle instead.

The only thing I've read is that he offered to pay the fee to Clark County..... which of course they did not accept.... since management of the land is not theirs and the BLM has management oversight of it being the successor of the US Grazing Service once it was merged with the General Land Office (in the mid 1940's) of grazing permits since the 1930's.

It's akin to saying you have a deal with my neighbor to use their pool because you offered to pay the fees to me and I refused them.

[Greed and Death]

A victory for property rights everywhere.

How the hell is this a victory for property rights?

Well because as I am reading this the government did not actually prove in civil court that he owed the fees, before seizing the cattle. It does seem odd that the BLM can seize cattle before proving the fees are owed.

[Greed and Death]

Some of the sites I am reading are claiming he tried pay the fee but BLM opted to seize the cattle instead.

The only thing I've read is that he offered to pay the fee to Clark County..... which of course they did not accept.... since management of the land is not theirs and the BLM has management oversight of it being the successor of the US Grazing Service once it was merged with the General Land Office (in the mid 1940's) of grazing permits since the 1930's.

It's akin to saying you have a deal with my neighbor to use their pool because you offered to pay the fees to me and I refused them.

I have not fully read into it.

[Tekania]

How the hell is this a victory for property rights?

Well because as I am reading this the government did not actually prove in civil court that he owed the fees, before seizing the cattle. It does seem odd that the BLM can seize cattle before proving the fees are owed.

addendum related to the 1998 case

2013 case

It's a little late to posit that the government has no proof of him owing the fees, when the court granted imposition of penalties and fees for trespass starting in November of 1998 on a per head/ per day basis and Mr. Bundy has provided effectively sworn testimony to the proceedings admitting to the material facts of his trespass in his attempt to challenge the jurisdiction of the BLM and courts (Which he lost, BTW).

Mr. Bundy owes the money, Mr Bundy is in clear violation of order IMHO the next stage should be to place a liens on his account(s) to recover the judgement if not (or even in addition) cite him for contempt of court.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

w00t!

A victory for property rights everywhere.

So are you implying that we can 'own' federal property? If so I call dibs on Area 51 cuuuuuz reasons.

[AiliailiA]

Well because as I am reading this the government did not actually prove in civil court that he owed the fees, before seizing the cattle. It does seem odd that the BLM can seize cattle before proving the fees are owed.

addendum related to the 1998 case

From that:

Specifically, if Bundy fails to comply with theCourt’s Orders, the Court has the explicit authority to direct that compliance be achieved—at Bundy’s expense—by the BLM and/or NPS. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 70(a) (“[i]f a judgment requires a party to . . . perform [a] specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may order the act to be done—at the disobedient party’s expense—by another person appointed by the court”).

If that still applies, Bundy's debt may have quadrupled to FOUR million dollars thanks to his vigilante supporters.

I almost feel sorry for the addled old coot.

However, there is also this provision which wasn't enforced:

ordering him to remove his livestock from the Allotment by no later than November 30, 1998, and pay damages to the United States in the amount of $200 per day per head for any remaining livestock on the Allotment after November 30, 1998

By that rate he'd owe a million dollars PER HEAD by now.

2013 case

It's a little late to posit that the government has no proof of him owing the fees, when the court granted imposition of penalties and fees for trespass starting in November of 1998 on a per head/ per day basis and Mr. Bundy has provided effectively sworn testimony to the proceedings admitting to the material facts of his trespass in his attempt to challenge the jurisdiction of the BLM and courts (Which he lost, BTW).

Mr. Bundy owes the money, Mr Bundy is in clear violation of order IMHO the next stage should be to place a liens on his account(s) to recover the judgement if not (or even in addition) cite him for contempt of court.

Removing and selling the cattle would have been ideal if it could have been achieved without employing so many rangers for security. Because the cattle would have to be removed anyway, at least from the Gold Butte ACEC.

[AiliailiA]

This guy is probably mad as hell about taxes and balancing the budget, yet he's just making it worse. I realize this is an old old debate. The ranchers are still wrong. It's not their land, it's ours. We should get a little something for its use.

Some of the sites I am reading are claiming he tried pay the fee but BLM opted to seize the cattle instead.

He must have paid rates to the council for the land he actually owns. Perhaps also for water. He puts it as "they have my money in their coffers now". His smoky-eared supporters read whatever they want into that.

Here's his property: Google maps. It's apparently 160 acres, so probably all the way back to the kidney-shaped dam. You can see that he irrigates, and in any case cattle drink a lot of water.

[Tekania]

Yes, I don't think we have gotten any precise figures on how much he owes..... but given the numerical reports and time frame we are talking about he would owe millions at this point..... over 5 million alone in trespass fees from the judgement and about another million in recovery costs. They already have a judgement, at this point they should just get liens issues, start seizing all his accounts, cars, houses, land property.... whatever real assets he has so as to recover the funds of the judgement. IMHO they have been way too lenient on this guy.

[AiliailiA]

Yes I don't think people understand what the grazing fee is. The grazing fee is an aggregate computed by animals per unit month (AUM) a measurement of forage per month to sustain a cow and her foal, and such the fee varies by the number of cattle grazing on a particular tract. The AUM itself does not change much, and in 1966 it was 1.23 per AUM and in 2013 was 1.35 per AUM.

For real?

$ 1.23 in 1966 dollars is equivalent to $6.81 in 2013 dollars (using the GDP deflator)

So grazing fees have fallen in real terms to A FIFTH of what they were. And that's the "big government over-reach" we're hearing so much about??

Btw, even if he'd had 900 head for all the 20 years (which seems unlikely) at that monthly rate he should owe under $300,000. The rest of the "million" must be interest and fines, both of which are standard practice in the private sector as well as government, for unpaid debts.

I'm posting this again (with minor additions). Wondering where you got the 1966 rate from, and was it maybe a typo for 1996 ..?

[Norstal]

How the hell is this a victory for property rights?

Not to mention... I thought this was about him violating the property rights of the United States government, not the government taking his cattle away from him.

Naw it's okay to violate other people's property rights but mine.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The guy had to pay $1.35 per month per cow. Even if he had thousands of cows, he's basically paying the average rent of a (nice) downtown city apartment. It's not that big a deal.

But he made it a big deal. And now he's going to suffer for it.

In b4 IRS audit.

[Tekania]

For real?

$ 1.23 in 1966 dollars is equivalent to $6.81 in 2013 dollars (using the GDP deflator)

So grazing fees have fallen in real terms to A FIFTH of what they were. And that's the "big government over-reach" we're hearing so much about??

Btw, even if he'd had 900 head for all the 20 years (which seems unlikely) at that monthly rate he should owe under $300,000. The rest of the "million" must be interest and fines, both of which are standard practice in the private sector as well as government, for unpaid debts.

I'm posting this again (with minor additions). Wondering where you got the 1966 rate from, and was it maybe a typo for 1996 ..?

No, it was meant 1966 source it's the base rate they compute from