Merged Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher in clash with federal

[Red Baron Farms]

And, Red Baron Farms, while you´re at it, check out the difference between "make a claim" and "provide evidence". There seems to be some confusion on your part about this...

I provided pages and pages of evidence on this forum. So much in fact that it was running perilously close to hijacking the thread off topic. All I have asked is for someone here to post ANY evidence at all. Something that as of yet no one has done any time I have asked. No one has posted any evidence that the range would improve for the wildlife if Bundy's cattle were reduced or removed, and no one has posted any evidence Bundy was given any other options for improving that range ecosystem that involved anything except reducing or removing his cattle.

Since that is the core of the problem to begin with, not one person here has posted anything important to the larger picture.

As I posted many times already in this thread, you bully anyone into a corner and they have a good chance of reacting to your force with force. But if you give someone an option that is beneficial to them, then they might just take it. Hopefully no one here actually thinks an America that bullies it's citizens around is a good thing. Nor is armed revolt of America's citizens a good thing either. So there always needs to be an option made available that is beneficial to everyone involved, if that option exists. In this case it does exist. So there is absolutely no reason for this stupid range war. Just an ignorant pissing contest.

 

[rwguinn]

I provided pages and pages of evidence on this forum. So much in fact that it was running perilously close to hijacking the thread off topic. All I have asked is for someone here to post ANY evidence at all. Something that as of yet no one has done any time I have asked. No one has posted any evidence that the range would improve for the wildlife if Bundy's cattle were reduced or removed, and no one has posted any evidence Bundy was given any other options for improving that range ecosystem that involved anything except reducing or removing his cattle.

Since that is the core of the problem to begin with, not one person here has posted anything important to the larger picture.

As I posted many times already in this thread, you bully anyone into a corner and they have a good chance of reacting to your force with force. But if you give someone an option that is beneficial to them, then they might just take it. Hopefully no one here actually thinks an America that bullies it's citizens around is a good thing. Nor is armed revolt of America's citizens a good thing either. So there always needs to be an option made available that is beneficial to everyone involved, if that option exists. In this case it does exist. So there is absolutely no reason for this stupid range war. Just an ignorant pissing contest.

No
No evidence. Lots of anecdotes and off topic speculation



. And mostly the same lame arguments that are off topic

 

[halleyscomet]

I provided pages and pages of evidence on this forum.

All of which is irrelevant because they have nothing to do with Bundy's stated motivations.

What, exactly, is the point you're trying to make? From my point of view it sounds like you're writing Bundy fan-fiction where instead of being a cheat using Sovereign Citizen nonsense to raise a private army of psychos with guns, he's somehow motivated by agricultural concerns, and has been refusing to pay the grazing fees for 20 years because of poorly defined agricultural concerns.

What are you trying to prove?

 

[iknownothing]

No one has posted any evidence that the range would improve for the wildlife if Bundy's cattle were reduced or removed

Because that has nothing to do with the situation.

and no one has posted any evidence Bundy was given any other options for improving that range ecosystem that involved anything except reducing or removing his cattle.

Because that has nothing to do with the situation. Again, it may be your issue, but it isn't Bundy's issue. His issue is his nonsense about not recognizing the federal government.

Since that is the core of the problem to begin with

No.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No
No evidence. Lots of anecdotes and off topic speculation



. And mostly the same lame arguments that are off topic

Now see THAT is a claim not backed by evidence. Basically the same thing you have done throughout this thread. Obfuscate because you have no evidence at all. So if you have no evidence, just let it rest. When some other reader of this thread comes here he won't have to wade through your countless attempts to bury it with post after post of meaningless clutter. No wonder there are people that think I haven't posted evidence. They would have to wade through scores of pages to find it with all these types of posts attempting to misdirect.

Bottom line is this started 20 years ago when BLM told Bundy he would have to reduce or remove his cattle, something he never agreed to. They made this decision because they wanted to improve the ecosystem for the wildlife, specifically the desert tortoise which had just made the threatened species list. That land has fairly good numbers of tortoise and they are mandated to protect them.

But no where is there ANY evidence that reducing or removing the cattle will benefit the tortoise or the ecosystem. There are ways to do that and still graze that land, (and I did post evidence) but Bundy was NOT offered that option as far as I know. (At least no one here as posted a single shred of evidence he was offered that option) Post some actual evidence and I walk away from this thread and you guys can go back to your verbal lynching party unencumbered by pesky dissenting views from me.

But keep attacking me and/or building strawmen you can tear down, and you are just justifying your own willful ignorance stemming from your zeal to verbally crucify Bundy at any cost.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I provided pages and pages of evidence on this forum. So much in fact that it was running perilously close to hijacking the thread off topic. All I have asked is for someone here to post ANY evidence at all. Something that as of yet no one has done any time I have asked. No one has posted any evidence that the range would improve for the wildlife if Bundy's cattle were reduced or removed, and no one has posted any evidence Bundy was given any other options for improving that range ecosystem that involved anything except reducing or removing his cattle.

Since that is the core of the problem to begin with, not one person here has posted anything important to the larger picture.

As I posted many times already in this thread, you bully anyone into a corner and they have a good chance of reacting to your force with force. But if you give someone an option that is beneficial to them, then they might just take it. Hopefully no one here actually thinks an America that bullies it's citizens around is a good thing. Nor is armed revolt of America's citizens a good thing either. So there always needs to be an option made available that is beneficial to everyone involved, if that option exists. In this case it does exist. So there is absolutely no reason for this stupid range war. Just an ignorant pissing contest.

Why should he have to abide by regulations from something that doesn't even exist(despite waving the flag of this non existent thing)?

Keep it to the actual issues this is about.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Now see THAT is a claim not backed by evidence. Basically the same thing you have done throughout this thread. Obfuscate because you have no evidence at all. So if you have no evidence, just let it rest. When some other reader of this thread comes here he won't have to wade through your countless attempts to bury it with post after post of meaningless clutter. No wonder there are people that think I haven't posted evidence. They would have to wade through scores of pages to find it with all these types of posts attempting to misdirect.

Bottom line is this started 20 years ago when BLM told Bundy he would have to reduce or remove his cattle, something he never agreed to. They made this decision because they wanted to improve the ecosystem for the wildlife, specifically the desert tortoise which had just made the threatened species list. That land has fairly good numbers of tortoise and they are mandated to protect them.

But no where is there ANY evidence that reducing or removing the cattle will benefit the tortoise or the ecosystem. There are ways to do that and still graze that land, (and I did post evidence) but Bundy was NOT offered that option as far as I know. (At least no one here as posted a single shred of evidence he was offered that option) Post some actual evidence and I walk away from this thread and you guys can go back to your verbal lynching party unencumbered by pesky dissenting views from me.

But keep attacking me and/or building strawmen you can tear down, and you are just justifying your own willful ignorance stemming from your zeal to verbally crucify Bundy at any cost.

How is he ever supported to pay fees to things that doesn't even exist? Why listen to these fictitious demands from a non existent entity like the federal government?

 

[Biscuit]

That whole post is a huge pile of woo. First off you simply lied in your first couple of so called "facts". I have already posted proof of that, so you know better.

Nope. Already provided the proof including Savory's own words to back up the first 2 facts. Anecdotes are not evidence of any kind yet alone scientific evidence. If they were than every woo that posts "I saw a ghost" would prove the existence of ghosts.

Then you follow with a strawman.

It's not a straw man, you have claimed that given the option to increase his cattle on the land and graze holistically things would be different. There is no reason to think that.

The point is that Bundy was never given any options beneficial to him. The BLM tried to force him into making a choice between bad or worse.

No he was given a choice between following the law and continuing to make some profit off the land he doesn't own, the beneficial choice, or doing whatever the heck he pleases and suffering the eventual consequences, also know as the bad choice.

No one knows if he was given a choice to actually use grazing to restore the range if he would have accepted that option, because that option was never given him.

And since we can't time travel and change the past your entire argument rests on what another poster has described as fan fiction. I think that description is apt. That and an unproven method of land management add up to a good story and nothing more.

The point is completely relevant to the situation now. Back ANYONE into a corner with only bad options, and a % are likely to react belligerently. It's just human nature.

He had a good option, to be a law abiding tenant.

 

[halleyscomet]

No wonder there are people that think I haven't posted evidence.

You haven't posted evidence that ANY of this agricultural hand-wringing has ANYTHING to do with Bundy's motivations.

The entire argument that Bundy was motivated in some way by holistic grazing belongs on Archive of Our Own with the rest of the Fan-Fiction, not in a thread discussing the actual real world case.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

How is he ever supported to pay fees to things that doesn't even exist? Why listen to these fictitious demands from a non existent entity like the federal government?

All that kind of commentary and action came AFTER he was backed by the BLM into a no win situation. Before the government tried to force him off the range, he paid his range fees.

 

[halleyscomet]

All that kind of commentary and action came AFTER he was backed by the BLM into a no win situation. Before the government tried to force him off the range, he paid his range fees.

You're ignoring the fact that the dude hasn't paid the fees in 20 years.

What evidence do you have that holistic grazing has ANYTHING to do with his motivations?

Please note, speculation, wishing really hard and clicking your heels together are not evidence.

 

[halleyscomet]

Cliven Bundy's mercenary army now begging for money online

The life of an ever-vigilant anti-government armed patriot is hard. And by hard, I mean dull and unproductive. Also, not very profitable. Maybe that's why all those guys hanging out cleaning their guns in Nevada are now begging hard-working Americans to please give them some money.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You're ignoring the fact that the dude hasn't paid the fees in 20 years.

What evidence do you have that holistic grazing has ANYTHING to do with his motivations?

Please note, speculation, wishing really hard and clicking your heels together are not evidence.

Strawman, I never said that. So find the evidence yourself. It's your strawman. Not only that, but the exact same strawman has been made before on this thread. So you don't even get credit for being original. Just obfuscating.

Not only that, but I am most certainly not ignoring the fact he hasn't paid fees in 20 years. That is the whole point. He stopped paying fees when the BLM put him in a no win situation 20 years ago. It's one thing to have a bully screw you over. Quite another to actually pay a bully to do it! That's insult to injury.

 

[Kestrel]

The 1998 court decision indicates that Cliven Bundy's father paid grazing fees. Cliven paid the fees when he was acting as a representative of his father. It is doubtful that Cliven ever paid grazing fees after he gained full control over the Bundy ranch.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It is doubtful that Cliven ever paid grazing fees after he gained full control over the Bundy ranch.

When did that happen? Before or after he was told to remove his cattle?

 

[Chaos]

Strawman, I never said that. So find the evidence yourself. It's your strawman. Not only that, but the exact same strawman has been made before on this thread. So you don't even get credit for being original. Just obfuscating.

Not only that, but I am most certainly not ignoring the fact he hasn't paid fees in 20 years. That is the whole point. He stopped paying fees when the BLM put him in a no win situation 20 years ago. It's one thing to have a bully screw you over. Quite another to actually pay a bully to do it! That's insult to injury.

Can you even last a single post without dishing out unfounded assertions?

Bundy was NOT "put in a no win situation". The BLM is NOT a "bully". It´s neither insult nor injury.

When you cannot agree on a price for a service -such as somebody letting you graze your cattle on their land - you are NOT entitled to getting that service for free in perpetuity.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Can you even last a single post without dishing out unfounded assertions?

Bundy was NOT "put in a no win situation". The BLM is NOT a "bully". It´s neither insult nor injury.

When you cannot agree on a price for a service -such as somebody letting you graze your cattle on their land - you are NOT entitled to getting that service for free in perpetuity.

It wasn't about the price or the fees originally. He paid the fees. When he stopped paying fees was when he was told to remove cattle. Being told to reduce or remove his cattle was his "no-win situation". Giving him a no-win situation with no beneficial options for Bundy, then enforcing that decision with the full weight of the power of the government is what makes the BLM a bully. If they had given Bundy an option that Bundy could live with, and Bundy refused, then they could justify it without it being considered bullying. But so far no one has posted any evidence they did that. Also the BLM doesn't own that land. It is public land. BLM is to manage that land according to their mandate.

The BLM’s multiple-use mission, set forth in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, mandates that we manage public land resources for a variety of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting, while protecting a wide array of natural, cultural, and historical resources, many of which are found in the BLM's 27 million-acre National Landscape Conservation System.

 

[halleyscomet]

Strawman, I never said that. So find the evidence yourself. It's your strawman. Not only that, but the exact same strawman has been made before on this thread. So you don't even get credit for being original. Just obfuscating.

Not only that, but I am most certainly not ignoring the fact he hasn't paid fees in 20 years. That is the whole point. He stopped paying fees when the BLM put him in a no win situation 20 years ago. It's one thing to have a bully screw you over. Quite another to actually pay a bully to do it! That's insult to injury.

I ask for evidence to support your claim that holistic grazing is related to this in any way and you reply with "Strawman! Strawman! Find the proof yourself!"

Thank you for conceding your lack of supporting evidence. I appreciate your admission, indirect as it is, that you have no facts to support your Bundy fan fiction.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

When did that happen? Before or after he was told to remove his cattle?

I see you have decided it was 'after'. On what evidence do you base this decision?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I ask for evidence to support your claim that holistic grazing is related to this in any way and you reply with "Strawman! Strawman! Find the proof yourself!"

Thank you for conceding your lack of supporting evidence. I appreciate your admission, indirect as it is, that you have no facts to support your Bundy fan fiction.

It is a strawman. I never said holistic management is related to it at all. In fact the exact opposite is what I said. It is BLMs LACK of providing Bundy with any options that would allow him to both graze and improve the habitat that is the problem. Holistic managed planned grazing or rest rotation grazing are just a couple options available that BLM DIDN'T offer Bundy.

So yeah, I am not going to offer evidence of a claim I didn't make. You find the evidence for your own strawman yourself. Your strawman, you argue with it.

I see you have decided it was 'after'. On what evidence do you base this decision?

The timeline I posted earlier. However, if you have some information otherwise, I'll be happy to look at it.