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

[Sibirsky]

Tell me more about what I think. I'm very curious.

You didn't say that?

And if we're being pedantic, and we always are, he told you what you DON'T think.

I claimed that I see some of the potential reasons for him to not comply with the fees.

That's cute. In that case, I want to know more about what I don't think.

[Jocabia]

You didn't say that?

And if we're being pedantic, and we always are, he told you what you DON'T think.

I claimed that I see some of the potential reasons for him to not comply with the fees.

That's cute. In that case, I want to know more about what I don't think.

So do you think he should be required to pay the fees and the government should have the right to enforce those fees in the ways agreed upon by the court?

[Sibirsky]

I claimed that I see some of the potential reasons for him to not comply with the fees.

That's cute. In that case, I want to know more about what I don't think.

So do you think he should be required to pay the fees and the government should have the right to enforce those fees in the ways agreed upon by the court?

He is required. That decision was not up to me. The government has no choice, but to demand payment in some way. What are they supposed to do, let him slide? They may as well announce that they will no longer enforce laws.

Which is why I do not see this ending without bloodshed.

As far as the court rulings, my problem with that, is that they ruled according to the rules made by the BLM itself.

[Geilinor]

So do you think he should be required to pay the fees and the government should have the right to enforce those fees in the ways agreed upon by the court?

As far as the court rulings, my problem with that, is that they ruled according to the rules made by the BLM itself.

Ruling according to the law is generally what courts do. The Department of the Interior and the BLM aren't completely unaccountable agencies.

[Gig em Aggies]

So do you think he should be required to pay the fees and the government should have the right to enforce those fees in the ways agreed upon by the court?

He is required. That decision was not up to me. The government has no choice, but to demand payment in some way. What are they supposed to do, let him slide? They may as well announce that they will no longer enforce laws.

Which is why I do not see this ending without bloodshed.

As far as the court rulings, my problem with that, is that they ruled according to the rules made by the BLM itself.

And what rules would you have the court go by huh. If the BLM owns the land and is the one who set the rules in the first place then that's what the court is gonna go by. So stop being stupid.

[AiliailiA]

You WANT market forces driving the fees?

Say there were 53 ranchers in Clark County (hypothetically: there's no source for this than the deluded and often untruthful Cliven Bundy).
Say the BLM announced that grazing permits for 150 cattle were available for 2015 (again, hypothetically: the 150 limit wasn't for all of Clark, only for the Bunkerville allotment)
Now the market takes over, and the price of a permit is set by an auction.

1. How many ranchers do you think would get permits and remain in business?
2. Do you imagine the fees as set by competition between ranchers would be less than $1.50 a month per cow/calf pair?

That's the thing, the 150-head limitation isn't a market force. It's a regulatory one.

It's what the vendor is offering. If the vendor was anyone but a government agency, would you expect the purchaser to be able to demand more than is offered because "my business isn't viable with only that many" ..?

The vendor would say "that's what I'm offering, if you need more then buy from someone else".

Well Sibirsky says there is no other vendor, which would be the fourth time in as many pages that Sibirsky has been wrong. The state government owns no land around there: all the land which isn't Federal land is privately owned. Bundy can run 150 head on the BLM land and run more on private land if he can find a price like $1.50 AUM on private land.

Obviously he can't. Because "the market" simply doesn't offer a price that low.

As I said here, the fee Bundy is being asked to pay is ONE FIFTH of what he would have payed in 1966. His fees in real dollars were cut in half by the 70's inflation then cut in half again by subsequent inflation. Imagine if any other government charge avoided indexation like that! You could send a letter for 5¢ or ride right across town on the bus for 10¢.

Hard luck on the private sector competitors though. And hard luck on the taxpayers who would have to subsidize such cheap services.

I'll show you calculations when I've finished them, but my first estimate is that paying all the fees asked by BLM would amount to 4% of the income Bundy gets by selling steers for slaughter. If he can't stay in business with such cheap feed (when feedlotters pay over 50% of their income on feed) then he deserves to go out of business.

Businesses sometimes fail.

If the government provided whatever generous treatment necessary to allow people to stay in "business" doing what their grandparents did, there would be no IT industry, no movie or music industries, virtually no insurance industry, and teachers would be church volunteers. The country would have no shortage of farriers, night-soil men and seamstresses though. Wouldn't that be great?

The problem is its a fucked-up bass-ackwards regulatory one, seeing as how it works contrary to its instituted purpose of conserving and easing pressures on the desert tortoise.

Oh that again. The BLM has a much wider conservation agenda than protecting the desert tortoise (as well as considering commercial land use, recreational use, Native American land use and sacred land claims, and historical significance claims). The damn tortoise is just the lever conservationists used to legally FORCE the BLM to act on overgrazing.

Perhaps the endangered species act is too sharp a weapon, in that it allows citizens to distort the spending priorities of the BLM in a probably futile attempt to save just a few listed species instead of considering whole ecosystems. The BLM itself would surely prefer to be able to weigh the value of the listed endangered species against all the other factors it is supposed to consider, and the desert tortoise probably wouldn't weigh heavily. But the BLM can only advise what species are listed as endangered. What species are listed is actually decided by other government agencies: FWS and NOAA.

It would not be appropriate to transfer endangered species listing to the BLM, because the private sector is also bound not to contribute to extinctions on their land. That's none of BLM's business. I'm not sure what to do about this, but Congress should consider weakening the "no matter what" strength of the ESA so that individual listed species do not so much distort the wider conservation agenda. And perhaps make de-listing species easier as it seems to be a mostly one-way process despite a strong record of listed species actually recoving in numbers.

One final thing on the desert tortoise: it's actually bad for the ecosystem the tortoise is a part of to have them doing fine on a human-introduced food source (cow poo). Because when they're eating that they're not eating the smaller scats of native animals, or eating plants. That is, they're no longer filling their niche and contributing to what remains of the original ecosystem. Such tortoises are no more a part of nature than the rats and mice we encourage with grain farming and storage.

[Sibirsky]

He is required. That decision was not up to me. The government has no choice, but to demand payment in some way. What are they supposed to do, let him slide? They may as well announce that they will no longer enforce laws.

Which is why I do not see this ending without bloodshed.

As far as the court rulings, my problem with that, is that they ruled according to the rules made by the BLM itself.

And what rules would you have the court go by huh. If the BLM owns the land and is the one who set the rules in the first place then that's what the court is gonna go by. So stop being stupid.

The BLM does not own the land. The point remains, that this is analogous to me suing you, and my argument in court being the law.

Good luck in that case against me.

[Tekania]

So do you think he should be required to pay the fees and the government should have the right to enforce those fees in the ways agreed upon by the court?

He is required. That decision was not up to me. The government has no choice, but to demand payment in some way. What are they supposed to do, let him slide? They may as well announce that they will no longer enforce laws.

Which is why I do not see this ending without bloodshed.

As far as the court rulings, my problem with that, is that they ruled according to the rules made by the BLM itself.

The judgement is based upon federal rules, not BLM ones. The judgement includes trespass fees starting from November 30, 1998 at the start of his first failure to cease trespass by order of the court to the present, as well as any pending contract costs to BLM in undertaking cattle removal from the lands in question (which is also normal, as when you have power to act to satisfy an order of the court and you fail to do so on your own you are responsible for the costs of the undertaking by the other party to satisfy that order).

[Jocabia]

And what rules would you have the court go by huh. If the BLM owns the land and is the one who set the rules in the first place then that's what the court is gonna go by. So stop being stupid.

The BLM does not own the land. The point remains, that this is analogous to me suing you, and my argument in court being the law.

Good luck in that case against me.

No, it really isn't. Your argument was that it was the law. This would be the equivalent of me suing you and your argument in court being, "how am I supposed to get a fair trial when what I'm doing is illegal?"

[Geilinor]

And what rules would you have the court go by huh. If the BLM owns the land and is the one who set the rules in the first place then that's what the court is gonna go by. So stop being stupid.

The BLM does not own the land.

That's what the OP's source says.

He doesn't own the land his cattle is grazing on. Other ranchers around the area pay a grazing fee to the government to use the land

They wouldn't be trespass fines if it was his land.

[Tekania]

And what rules would you have the court go by huh. If the BLM owns the land and is the one who set the rules in the first place then that's what the court is gonna go by. So stop being stupid.

The BLM does not own the land. The point remains, that this is analogous to me suing you, and my argument in court being the law.

Good luck in that case against me.

Correct, the BLM, itself, does not own the land. The Federal Government does..... the BLM being the agency assigned management of the land by the owner of it. As such the relationship here is more like Owner -> Property Manager -> Trespasser. The Property Manager (BLM) is acting under its authority in management of the land by the owner (US Government) upon the person in Trespass (Bundy).

[AiliailiA]

I think its time the BLM suck a dick and draw up fair agreements.

I think it's time for Bundy to be locking in jail till such time as he follows the order of the court. I only feel sorry they can only do that in 18 month stretches now, rather than just keeping him confined till he is dead, if necessary. I'd even be happier with the NM way of just locking up and having hearings every once in awhile over the ability to carry out the order.

He's in contempt of court. He certainly can be jailed.

But if he hangs tough and doesn't order his cowhands to bring the cattle out of the Federal lands, then the cattle stay there.

There is one more option to deal directly with the cattle, without risking confrontation on the ground.

Bundy probably has 900 branded cattle. He claims 550 (and also, bizarrely, that cattle bearing his brand may not actually be his). The remainder are either ferals or they belong to someone else (perhaps from across the nearby state line?) but it makes no difference. They're trespass cattle in either case.

It's a shame to waste meat, but perhaps it's the best way. Rounding up 300 odd cattle apparently cost $3 million. Bundy claims his cattle are worth $1000 a head, and even at that rate the government would only get 10% of the roundup cost back by selling the cattle. They are probably worth less, since not all are slaughter weight.

Rather than wasting more money on trying to round up and sell the cattle, or jailing Bundy but leaving the cattle trespasssing: just shoot the cattle. Rangers in helicopters, with hunting rifles.

[Gig em Aggies]

I think it's time for Bundy to be locking in jail till such time as he follows the order of the court. I only feel sorry they can only do that in 18 month stretches now, rather than just keeping him confined till he is dead, if necessary. I'd even be happier with the NM way of just locking up and having hearings every once in awhile over the ability to carry out the order.

He's in contempt of court. He certainly can be jailed.

But if he hangs tough and doesn't order his cowhands to bring the cattle out of the Federal lands, then the cattle stay there.

There is one more option to deal directly with the cattle, without risking confrontation on the ground.

Bundy probably has 900 branded cattle. He claims 550 (and also, bizarrely, that cattle bearing his brand may not actually be his). The remainder are either ferals or they belong to someone else (perhaps from across the nearby state line?) but it makes no difference. They're trespass cattle in either case.

It's a shame to waste meat, but perhaps it's the best way. Rounding up 300 odd cattle apparently cost $3 million. Bundy claims his cattle are worth $1000 a head, and even at that rate the government would only get 10% of the roundup cost back by selling the cattle. They are probably worth less, since not all are slaughter weight.

Rather than wasting more money on trying to round up and sell the cattle, or jailing Bundy but leaving the cattle trespasssing: just shoot the cattle. Rangers in helicopters, with hunting rifles.

Or the Feds can just take ownership of the cattle and then they could save money by taking that helicopter and shoot Bundy instead

[Geilinor]

He's in contempt of court. He certainly can be jailed.

But if he hangs tough and doesn't order his cowhands to bring the cattle out of the Federal lands, then the cattle stay there.

There is one more option to deal directly with the cattle, without risking confrontation on the ground.

Bundy probably has 900 branded cattle. He claims 550 (and also, bizarrely, that cattle bearing his brand may not actually be his). The remainder are either ferals or they belong to someone else (perhaps from across the nearby state line?) but it makes no difference. They're trespass cattle in either case.

It's a shame to waste meat, but perhaps it's the best way. Rounding up 300 odd cattle apparently cost $3 million. Bundy claims his cattle are worth $1000 a head, and even at that rate the government would only get 10% of the roundup cost back by selling the cattle. They are probably worth less, since not all are slaughter weight.

Rather than wasting more money on trying to round up and sell the cattle, or jailing Bundy but leaving the cattle trespasssing: just shoot the cattle. Rangers in helicopters, with hunting rifles.

Or the Feds can just take ownership of the cattle and then they could save money by taking that helicopter and shoot Bundy instead

Why would they shoot Bundy? Bundy belongs in court for trespass and contempt of court.

[Sibirsky]

He is required. That decision was not up to me. The government has no choice, but to demand payment in some way. What are they supposed to do, let him slide? They may as well announce that they will no longer enforce laws.

Which is why I do not see this ending without bloodshed.

As far as the court rulings, my problem with that, is that they ruled according to the rules made by the BLM itself.

The judgement is based upon federal rules, not BLM ones. The judgement includes trespass fees starting from November 30, 1998 at the start of his first failure to cease trespass by order of the court to the present, as well as any pending contract costs to BLM in undertaking cattle removal from the lands in question (which is also normal, as when you have power to act to satisfy an order of the court and you fail to do so on your own you are responsible for the costs of the undertaking by the other party to satisfy that order).

The BLM is a federal agency. And it has discretion in setting certain rules. Like the DEA has discretion of classifying drugs.

[Tekania]

He's in contempt of court. He certainly can be jailed.

But if he hangs tough and doesn't order his cowhands to bring the cattle out of the Federal lands, then the cattle stay there.

There is one more option to deal directly with the cattle, without risking confrontation on the ground.

Bundy probably has 900 branded cattle. He claims 550 (and also, bizarrely, that cattle bearing his brand may not actually be his). The remainder are either ferals or they belong to someone else (perhaps from across the nearby state line?) but it makes no difference. They're trespass cattle in either case.

It's a shame to waste meat, but perhaps it's the best way. Rounding up 300 odd cattle apparently cost $3 million. Bundy claims his cattle are worth $1000 a head, and even at that rate the government would only get 10% of the roundup cost back by selling the cattle. They are probably worth less, since not all are slaughter weight.

Rather than wasting more money on trying to round up and sell the cattle, or jailing Bundy but leaving the cattle trespasssing: just shoot the cattle. Rangers in helicopters, with hunting rifles.

Or the Feds can just take ownership of the cattle and then they could save money by taking that helicopter and shoot Bundy instead

As much as some small corner of my person would find some modicum of satisfaction in just eliminating Bundy and/or his supporters...... no. No matter how much he owes that would not be a justification for an assassination.

[Sibirsky]

He's in contempt of court. He certainly can be jailed.

But if he hangs tough and doesn't order his cowhands to bring the cattle out of the Federal lands, then the cattle stay there.

There is one more option to deal directly with the cattle, without risking confrontation on the ground.

Bundy probably has 900 branded cattle. He claims 550 (and also, bizarrely, that cattle bearing his brand may not actually be his). The remainder are either ferals or they belong to someone else (perhaps from across the nearby state line?) but it makes no difference. They're trespass cattle in either case.

It's a shame to waste meat, but perhaps it's the best way. Rounding up 300 odd cattle apparently cost $3 million. Bundy claims his cattle are worth $1000 a head, and even at that rate the government would only get 10% of the roundup cost back by selling the cattle. They are probably worth less, since not all are slaughter weight.

Rather than wasting more money on trying to round up and sell the cattle, or jailing Bundy but leaving the cattle trespasssing: just shoot the cattle. Rangers in helicopters, with hunting rifles.

Or the Feds can just take ownership of the cattle and then they could save money by taking that helicopter and shoot Bundy instead

Extrajudicial murder. That's just dandy.

[Gig em Aggies]

Or the Feds can just take ownership of the cattle and then they could save money by taking that helicopter and shoot Bundy instead

Why would they shoot Bundy? Bundy belongs in court for trespass and contempt of court.

He's a waste of taxpayer money

[Geilinor]

Why would they shoot Bundy? Bundy belongs in court for trespass and contempt of court.

He's a waste of taxpayer money

So he should be shot?

[Aden Protectorate]

He has to pay like everyone else.

[Gig em Aggies]

He's a waste of taxpayer money

So he should be shot?

We'll he wouldn't have to pay that 1.1 million dollars now would he?

[Tekania]

The judgement is based upon federal rules, not BLM ones. The judgement includes trespass fees starting from November 30, 1998 at the start of his first failure to cease trespass by order of the court to the present, as well as any pending contract costs to BLM in undertaking cattle removal from the lands in question (which is also normal, as when you have power to act to satisfy an order of the court and you fail to do so on your own you are responsible for the costs of the undertaking by the other party to satisfy that order).

The BLM is a federal agency. And it has discretion in setting certain rules. Like the DEA has discretion of classifying drugs.

Yes, BLM has discretion with certain rules, sure..... however, none of that is relevant to the judgement. SourceThe judgement is about him engaging in trespass without a permit as under the law, not permit fees.

[The Lone Alliance]

Or the Feds can just take ownership of the cattle and then they could save money by taking that helicopter and shoot Bundy instead

As much as some small corner of my person would find some modicum of satisfaction in just eliminating Bundy and/or his supporters...... no. No matter how much he owes that would not be a justification for an assassination.

Plus that would be giving him what he wants, to be a martyr for another "Waco" to rally anti-government extremists.

[Viritica]

Why the hell are the Reids involved in this?

Do they hate Tea Party activists that much?

[Tekania]

Why the hell are the Reids involved in this?

Do they hate Tea Party activists that much?

I'd imagine it may be, and I know this is a stretch and all, but that Harry Reid is one of the Nevada Senators.