Defending his rights or avoiding taxes?

[Elmo]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-stops-fight-nevada-rancher-grazing-land-article-1.1754457

 

Private militias won over the government but the guy was having his cattle graze on public land.

[Nomad]

I'm pleased with the way it turned out for now anyway,it's not over. Bottom line though he lost in court over and over.

But he stood his ground so,to speak, was willing to risk it all I seems.

Most upset about the First Amendment zones and well the 100s of fed.agents sent to guard the contract cowboys.a fixed position like this is easier for the Feds. To make a stand though.

Boston bombings and Donner in Calf. Was telling ,took thousands of cops to catch one cubby ex cop and a couple of basically kids with a kitchen pot and one handgun.

Something to take note of.mobile vs fixed position.

[sidewinder]

so many things in the above artical are wrong.

point number one is that the rancher is expected to pay(tax) a grazing fee and he chose not to. i am not a rancher nor do i claim to know about any laws in Nevada that cover ranching but............. if it is a law and everybody else complies with that law..........why/what makes this rancher any different?

 

point number 2...... if goverment officials arrive to do what they are paid to do and people stand in the way(confront) then in my own opinion they not the officials are breaking the law.

 

point number 3..... as stated in point number 1 this is a law(requirement for ranchers) that has been on the books for years. having armed people show up on the scene now in defense/defiance falls into the realm of mob mentality

 

while i understand that a man is trying to do a job and earn a living the way he was/is going about it is wrong. there are many laws that i am expected to follow and many more that i do not agree with but that does not give me the right stand there with a gun in my hand and expect things will change..........

 

at the end of the day this type of action i am quite sure will be looked at by many different sides and all will see it a different way.......... just my humble 2cents and only my opinion.

 

[sidewinder]

I'm pleased with the way it turned out for now anyway,it's not over. Bottom line though he lost in court over and over.

But he stood his ground so,to speak, was willing to risk it all I seems.

Most upset about the First Amendment zones and well the 100s of fed.agents sent to guard the contract cowboys.a fixed position like this is easier for the Feds. To make a stand though.

Boston bombings and Donner in Calf. Was telling ,took thousands of cops to catch one cubby ex cop and a couple of basically kids with a kitchen pot and one handgun.

Something to take note of.mobile vs fixed position.

 

 

i guess that was one of the points i was trying to make......... he went to court and the outcome was the same so he along with others took matters into their own hands. that is still breaking the law.

 

not trying to start a wizzing contest here but what 1st amendment rights(zones) are in question? im just asking because im not sure what you are talking about.

 

as for the bombings in boston or what happend with the so called man hunt in california has nothing to do with what is/has taken place in nevada.

Edited April 13, 2014 by sidewinder

[First-light]

This guy has a big bill to pay. 

[Mustang51js]

Some things I heard was that it was his families land that was seized by the government and then told he has to pay fees to keep his cattle on it.

[Doc]

Some things I heard was that it was his families land that was seized by the government and then told he has to pay fees to keep his cattle on it.

My first impression after reading the article was, "what is the rest of the story"? How can anyone expect to use public resources for personal gain? There has to be more to all this than the article was letting on. Wouldn't you think?

[G-Man]

bml land was taken from familys but they retain grazing rights..most of the west is this way if you didnt own the land you can pay a grazing fee. ny central park is open to free range as well if you would like to keep your sheep grazing there(its on the books look it up) its not a lease like in the dacks where camps are being taken over by the state when they run out and are razed to the ground. his family owned the land generations ago. but he paid the fee anyway when this crap hit the fan he looked into it and he doesnt have to pay on his familys former land. the feds were worried about a desert tortise that is expanding its range.. its based on animal lovers saying one thing and reality another. bison and tortises got along fine as do the cattle. but he stood his ground while others fled. kudos for him.

this is also an issue around yellowstone where public lands are grazed on by cattle, ranchers there despise the bision as they carry and pass on dieseses to cattle.. they were told to stop grazing but feds couldnt stop them and ant bison that leave the park are usually shot..its public land but ranchers know their rights and defended them years ago on basically same issue.

Edited April 13, 2014 by G-Man

[sits in trees]

Sounds like a big political Hootenanny to me.....And why the hell is Porterhouse freakin 10 bucks a pound!!!!

[hunterman7956]

This story goes deeper than desert tortoise , it involves Sen Reid and his son wanting to pave the way for the Chinese to get the land at one sixth the price it's worth then the Chinese were going to build solar systems and a factory to build them and sell the energy to the surrounding area.The deal fell through and the Chinese pulled out.The land is state land not under BLM control and Bundy's family has lived there since 1848 also they have no contract with the feds .If not for the people  that heard his plea for help it would have ended differently. So those that don't believe we can make a difference by standing up for our rights as Americans this serves as a perfect example.Some stated that they were willing to die if fired upon for this cause.

[bubba]

More to it than that.  Watch in a couple weeks when we hear on Friday afternoon the dictatoe in Washington signed a bunch more executive orders Friday afternoon taking away more rights while the world was watching Nevada.  Just a distraction. Did you ever know the Govt to back down even when they were wrong.   

[HectorBuckBuster]

The rancher was paying the State of Nevada the grazing fee's.

[dbHunterNY]

the fact that he "owes" those taxes and it's to protect the desert turtles is absolutely ridiculous.  state/county owned and controlled land which he's had arrangements with them to pay the grazing fees.  the cattle and turtles have lived in harmony just fine for life times.  if they're so endangered why is the Gov destroying about a 1000 of them?  it's literally impossible to make enough of a living if you accrue $1.1 million in federal taxes in that time.  one more messed up thing under this administration.  half the time I wonder if it's even the President's fault or just the ass-hat people that work under him.  Court losses for the Bundy's don't mean anything.  They don't make the laws they uphold them, whether right or wrong at times.

[d-bone20917]

Having your cattle graze on federal land is not a right.  This guy had his cattle grazing illegally for 20 years.  It seems the BLM has been more than patient.  

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Having your cattle graze on federal land is not a right.  This guy had his cattle grazing illegally for 20 years.  It seems the BLM has been more than patient.  

I would love to see an impartial account of the complete timeline and facts. It sure seems that both sides seem to have a spin when presenting.

 

I will say that I wish the Feds put the same resource and effort to pursue illegal aliens as they are pursuing illegal cows.

[d-bone20917]

I would love to see an impartial account of the complete timeline and facts. It sure seems that both sides seem to have a spin when presenting.

 

I will say that I wish the Feds put the same resource and effort to pursue illegal aliens as they are pursuing illegal cows.

 

Yeah, there has been a lot of opinion pieces on both sides, but there are some facts out there if you look for them.  They gave this guy numerous chances to make it right and he didn't.  If they never take action why would any of the other cattle farmers getting permits and actually paying them comply?  Try not paying your taxes and see how long it takes the IRS to take action.  

[mmkay]

 

Yeah, there has been a lot of opinion pieces on both sides, but there are some facts out there if you look for them.  They gave this guy numerous chances to make it right and he didn't.  If they never take action why would any of the other cattle farmers getting permits and actually paying them comply?  Try not paying your taxes and see how long it takes the IRS to take action.

If they never take action why would any of the other cattle farmers getting permits and actually paying them comply?

 I think he is the last cattle rancher in the area. according to the news reports i've seen, there were well over 150 ranchers in that area. The federal government put them all out of business...made it to costly to raise cattle. Regardless of who's right about the fees, fines or what have you, it appears that federal governmnet went overboard in its tatics.

Lastly, I agree with other posters that this has very little to do with a desert turtle or a ranch family that has been raising cattle on this land for over 100 years. Look to Harry Reid and his family. The land is slated for other development (solar panels)

Edited April 14, 2014 by mmkay

[d-bone20917]

 

If they never take action why would any of the other cattle farmers getting permits and actually paying them comply?

 I think he is the last cattle rancher in the area. according to the news reports i've seen, there were well over 150 ranchers in that area. The federal government put them all out of business...made it to costly to raise cattle. Regardless of who's right about the fees, fines or what have you, it appears that federal governmnet went overboard in its tatics.

Lastly, I agree with other posters that this has very little to do with a desert turtle or a ranch family that has been raising cattle on this land for over 100 years. Look to Harry Reid and his family. The land is slated for other development (solar panels)

 

I wasn't referring just to this area.  They still issue a lot of grazing permits and they need to enforce the law.  There must be a reason the Nevada Cattleman's Association backed the BLM.  I guess we will just have to see where it goes.  

[Two Track]

The federal government set up a single 1st Amendment area for people protest from.

I do not recall the specifics, but was a fixed size and location.

 

So they were telling people where they can protest on federal public land that is open to all.

 

That is an infringement on the 1st Amendment.

 

I could understand if there was a corridor that needed to be open for the cattle to pass through, but that is not what government did or stated they were setting up.

 

This is way it was brought up all over.  It was not just the grazing on public land.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Two Track

[HectorBuckBuster]

This all has to do with State Land owned by Nevada being taken over by the federal government. He has been paying Nevada the fee's not the Federal government.

[hunter49]

   I feel the gov't should worry more about illegal aliens & drugs crossing the borders, the trillion $$$ of dept. they have us in ,taking care of our Vets, SSI & many other things they have screwed up instead of some rancher grazing his cattle in the middle of nowhere that no one else is using . Plus the gov't is getting their grass mowed fro free!

[HuntOrBeHunted]

It's got to be deeper than some cows eating grass. And I don't think it's over by a long shot.

 

I am happy to see people stand up and show support. Let's hope they stand strong.

[d-bone20917]

The federal government set up a single 1st Amendment area for people protest from.

I do not recall the specifics, but was a fixed size and location.

 

So they were telling people where they can protest on federal public land that is open to all.

 

That is an infringement on the 1st Amendment.

 

I could understand if there was a corridor that needed to be open for the cattle to pass through, but that is not what government did or stated they were setting up.

 

This is way it was brought up all over.  It was not just the grazing on public land.

 

They could have peacefully protested where ever they wanted to.  When you threaten to engage federal law enforcement officers in a fire fight then they limit where you can protest.  It's no longer considered peaceful at that point. 

[mmkay]

The above statement is flat out WRONG. The federal government set up a FREE SPEACH ZONE, three miles away from their activities. The Feds only allowed protester to be within a small roped off area. If a protestor demonstrated, voiced concerns or other forms of non-violent protest outside the FREE SPEACH ZONE , they were subject to dog attacks, tasers or arrest.

the feds also banned the news media from covering the activies. They banned news helicoptes from flying over head to film the cattle round up.

Welcome to the new America comrades. Our fathers and grandfathers fought the Second World War to defeat this kind of National Socialism (or fascism); both political parties brought it back to us slowly during the past 40 years.

Edited April 15, 2014 by mmkay

[d-bone20917]

So not allowing individuals to obstruct law enforcement activities is national socialism?  What happens when these innocent protesters get caught in the cross fire?

 

I don't disagree with you though.  If people are ready to die to support this guys illegal activities then I say have at it, but is that really in the best interest of public safety?  Are they free to protest anywhere they want when law enforcement isn't    seizing cattle?