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

[Red Baron Farms]

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. You simply can't get everyone to agree what is "wise and reasonable". Someone is going to be PO'd. Indeed, the events of the last six years show that some folks are just dedicated to being angry, regardless of what is actually done. Some of the same people who rant about illegal aliens are perfectly fine with lawless citizens.

You really believe that? It's silly to ask the government to act wisely because someone will hate the government no matter what they do? Why do we even have a representative government in the first place then, if it doesn't matter? I personally believe the anti-government sentiment is directly proportional to the degree in which it ignores its citizens. If you have some bureaucrat making a bad decision, and it happens, then it seems wise to correct that error. Might not make everyone happy. I am sure there are Vegan eco-terrorists out there that want all grazing eliminated on all public land no matter what, even if it destroys the ecosystem for everyone and the wildlife too! So yeah, you couldn't make everyone happy no matter what you did. But the BLM goal is to improve that ecosystem for the tortoise and other wildlife. Since that can be done simply by implementing a modern grazing system, which is also part of the BLM mandate, it should have been an option offered to Bundy way back in 1993. Then Bundy would have nothing to say. No beef. No resistance from him. If he did resist anyway, he would be very limited in recruiting opportunities. I am no political scientist by any means, but that seems reasonable.

 

[cwalner]

You really believe that? It's silly to ask the government to act wisely because someone will hate the government no matter what they do? Why do we even have a representative government in the first place then, if it doesn't matter? I personally believe the anti-government sentiment is directly proportional to the degree in which it ignores its citizens. If you have some bureaucrat making a bad decision, and it happens, then it seems wise to correct that error. Might not make everyone happy. I am sure there are Vegan eco-terrorists out there that want all grazing eliminated on all public land no matter what, even if it destroys the ecosystem for everyone and the wildlife too! So yeah, you couldn't make everyone happy no matter what you did. But the BLM goal is to improve that ecosystem for the tortoise and other wildlife. Since that can be done simply by implementing a modern grazing system, it should have been an option offered to Bundy way back in 1993. Then Bundy would have nothing to say. No beef. No resistance from him. If he did resist anyway, he would be very limited in recruiting opportunities. I am no political scientist by any means, but that seems reasonable.

The problem is that even you acknowledge that Bundy was not aware of your pet theory, so his objection to the government has nothing to do with it. I also don't think that any of his militia have ever heard of it either. Everybody is there is because they have bought into various CT's like sovereign citizen and FMOTL crap. Bundy's own words show that he thought that the BLM has zero right to restrict his use of government owned land and has no right to expect payment for that use. He is claiming that he does not recognize the federal government (while riding around with a US flag for photo ops).

This came about because of Bundy's delusional CT beliefs and has nothing to do with any actions taken or not taken by the BLM. His recruiting efforts have worked because, unfortunately, there are many people who share those delusional CT beliefs.

 

[SezMe]

I don't think it's possible at this point. The derail has just gone on way too long.

Agreed. The HM stuff has gone on for so long it is, unfortunately, integral to the thread.

 

[iknownothing]

When they do make mistakes in judgement, it is up to us to try and get that fixed.

At best though, even if I go along and agree that HM is a sound practice, even one they should promote (and I really don't care enough to agree or disagree), that still doesn't add up to a major mistake on their part. Nothing that needs a public apology and giving Bundy all he wants. Nothing worth Bundy and his armed idiots. The most worked up I could imagine getting, if it became clear that they ought to be promoting HM but weren't, is "huh, maybe they should." Not "OMG, we need a revolution!"

BLM didn't back Bundy into a corner. Neither did Clark County. The guy built a corner and stepped into it with a bunch of armed, self patriotic asshats. Now, law enforcement has to figure out how to resolve the situation with no one getting hurt. If someone does, RBF will again tell us how it's all due to HLM.

Yes.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The problem is that even you acknowledge that Bundy was not aware of your pet theory, so his objection to the government has nothing to do with it. I also don't think that any of his militia have ever heard of it either. Everybody is there is because they have bought into various CT's like sovereign citizen and FMOTL crap. Bundy's own words show that he thought that the BLM has zero right to restrict his use of government owned land and has no right to expect payment for that use. He is claiming that he does not recognize the federal government (while riding around with a US flag for photo ops).

This came about because of Bundy's delusional CT beliefs and has nothing to do with any actions taken or not taken by the BLM. His recruiting efforts have worked because, unfortunately, there are many people who share those delusional CT beliefs.

Right. Bundy is simply reacting to the government telling him to remove cattle. It never occurred to Bundy to argue a different grazing system because he knows NOTHING about it. All he knows is that the BLM is trying to remove his cattle and end his way of life. He resents that and is fighting back. That's why the BLM has publications like Hormay, A. L. (1966). Principles of Rest-Rotation Grazing and Multiple-Use Land Management, US Dept. Agr. Bureau of Land Management. Bundy should have been afforded the opportunity to use it. Education is always better than ignorance. Ignorance is what started this whole mess.

 

[marplots]

Has anyone discussed these issues with the cows?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Right. Bundy is simply reacting to the government telling him to remove cattle. It never occurred to Bundy to argue a different grazing system because he knows NOTHING about it. All he knows is that the BLM is trying to remove his cattle and end his way of life. He resents that and is fighting back. That's why the BLM has publications like Hormay, A. L. (1966). Principles of Rest-Rotation Grazing and Multiple-Use Land Management, US Dept. Agr. Bureau of Land Management. Bundy should have been afforded the opportunity to use it. Education is always better than ignorance. Ignorance is what started this whole mess.

Again, the bolded is false. Bundy claims this, but it is not supported by the court documents. Bundy's claim started and ends with "The BLM/Federal Government has no claim to the land."

 

[12AX7]

This whole conflict started with BLM incompetence!

No.

It started with the fact that Bundy didn't pay his fees (for 20 years) for a right to be on the land.

Period. Over. Done. End of discussion.

Ignorance is what started this whole mess.

Let's do it again.

No.

It started with the fact that Bundy didn't pay his fees (for 20 years) for a right to be on the land.

Period. Over. Done. End of discussion.

Anything but blaming Bundy for not paying his fees (for 20 years) for a right to be on the land.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Let's do it again.

No.

It started with the fact that Bundy didn't pay his fees (for 20 years) for a right to be on the land.

Period. Over. Done. End of discussion.

Anything but blaming Bundy for not paying his fees (for 20 years) for a right to be on the land.

Sure You prefer to ignore why he stopped paying his fees, just as The Greater Fool prefers to ignore why he rejected BLM's authority. That's fine. If you prefer to do that, then it allows you two to ignore any mistakes the BLM made. I personally always like to get at the root of any issue like this though. Helpful in preventing it from happening again and again.

Bundy's claim started and ends with "The BLM/Federal Government has no claim to the land."

You confuse Bundy's legal defense for why he shouldn't have to remove his cattle, with the obvious fact that he was told to remove them.

 

[halleyscomet]

The BLM's motivation for starting this whole conflict from the beginning was to improve the ecosystem of that range.

Again, you lie.

Bundy started this, not the BLM.

You keep going in circles, making unfounded claims about the motivations of BLM and Bundy. If you provided ANY evidence for your claims it would be interesting, but unending repetitions of the same base assertions is going to make me reject your arguments out of hand, not take you seriously.

Life is too short for circular arguments with people who hijack threads to soapbox about BS theories.

For the record, you've convinced me the BLM was RIGHT to not bring up the topic of Holistic Land Management with Bundy. I remain convinced that the BLM really should have shot the cattle that he is illegally grazing on federal land instead of rounding them up and returning them. The government is being entirely too nice to a domestic terrorist who really needs a government issue high caliber projectile between the ears. My hope is that the collection of unpaid, paranoid psychopaths that have taken up residence at his compound turn on each other and gun one another down. That would give Bundy the final blaze of glory warlords like him seem to want.

 

[12AX7]

Sure You prefer to ignore why he stopped paying his fees, just as The Greater Fool prefers to ignore why he rejected BLM's authority. That's fine. If you prefer to do that, then it allows you two to ignore any mistakes the BLM made. I personally always like to get at the root of any issue like this though. Helpful in preventing it from happening again and again.

You confuse Bundy's legal defense for why he shouldn't have to remove his cattle, with the obvious fact that he was told to remove them.

Nope.

It's been explained upthread why this argument doesn't work.

At this point, you are being purposefully obtuse. It started with the fact that Bundy didn't pay his fees (for 20 years) for a right to be on the land. If Bundy stopped paying because of the issues you mention (which you have provided ZERO evidence for), then there were other venues available to him to address that. It didn't happen.

Bundy didn't pay his fees (for 20 years) for a right to be on the land.

 

[desertgal]

Sure You prefer to ignore why he stopped paying his fees, just as The Greater Fool prefers to ignore why he rejected BLM's authority. That's fine. If you prefer to do that, then it allows you two to ignore any mistakes the BLM made. I personally always like to get at the root of any issue like this though. Helpful in preventing it from happening again and again.

You confuse Bundy's legal defense for why he shouldn't have to remove his cattle, with the obvious fact that he was told to remove them.

No.

It doesn't matter WHY Bundy rejected BLM's authority. It only matters that the authority existed. Right or wrong, Bundy signed a contract and had an obligation to abide by BLM's authority while using THEIR land. If he had a legitimate issue, there were legal avenues to resolve it, but refusing to pay the fees while continuing to use the land was not one of them. If he didn't have a legitimate issue, then continuing to use BLM land without paying the grazing fees was nothing more than squatting his cattle on property which he wasn't entitled to.

I think it sucks that the school zone limit at my son's high school is 15 mph when the elementary school down the highway has a zone of 25 mph. It's a high school, for crissake. Presumably, the students know how to cross the street. It's a "bad law", in your speak. Doesn't give me the right to just ignore it.

HLM is not the core issue here. Bundy's conflict with BLM began with him simply refusing to abide by the law because he thought he was above it. You can call it a "bad" law all you want, but that's just your way of condoning Bundy, and it's stupid and irrelevant. So is the HLM issue.

 

[Biscuit]

Right. Bundy is simply reacting to the government telling him to remove cattle. It never occurred to Bundy to argue a different grazing system because he knows NOTHING about it. All he knows is that the BLM is trying to remove his cattle and end his way of life. He resents that and is fighting back. That's why the BLM has publications like Hormay, A. L. (1966). Principles of Rest-Rotation Grazing and Multiple-Use Land Management, US Dept. Agr. Bureau of Land Management. Bundy should have been afforded the opportunity to use it. Education is always better than ignorance. Ignorance is what started this whole mess.

Yes in 1966 a BLM employee published a research paper on rest rotation.

Was that the last word on grazing and land management from the BLM?

Is that now, was it in 1993, or has it ever been the BLM's official policy on grazing?

Has the BLM ever published papers promoting other grazing policies?

Of all the land grazed under BLM how much has been managed under rest rotation since 1966? Was this the default option for every grazing lease renewed since 1966?

Was rest rotation EVER offered as the new terms to ANY rancher using BLM land as their only option?

Is it not true that that paper is just one of thousands on grazing and land management that the BLM has published? That rest rotation has never been officially endorsed as the best option for land management by the BLM?

 

[cwalner]

Is it not true that that paper is just one of thousands on grazing and land management that the BLM has published? That rest rotation has never been officially endorsed as the best option for land management by the BLM?

Are you a lawyer? I know you follow the Scotus closely, but that question is phrased like a lawyer cross-examining a witness (or at least a fictional lawyer in some courtroom drama).

 

[SomedayGirl]

You confuse Bundy's legal defense for why he shouldn't have to remove his cattle, with the obvious fact that he was told to remove them.

RBF, I just don't understand. You've been shown repeatedly from the court documents that he was told to remove the cattle AFTER he stopped paying. BEFORE that he was offered a 10 year extension on his lease with some restrictions that did not include herd reduction or permanent removal.

Why do you keep insisting otherwise?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Keep tilting at that windmill Mr Quixote, it will fall in the end.

I'll have you know I'm perfectly aware that Bundy's case had nothing to do with a preference for holistic land management, and that it's a simple matter of him not paying for the use of the land and then using it anyway.


Harrumph.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

RBF, I just don't understand. You've been shown repeatedly from the court documents that he was told to remove the cattle AFTER he stopped paying. BEFORE that he was offered a 10 year extension on his lease with some restrictions that did not include herd reduction or permanent removal.

Why do you keep insisting otherwise?

Because I didn't see it. Please link the restrictions list or the court document that states he was not asked to remove his cattle down to 150 head. I have been looking hard for an excuse to abandon this thread completely for days now, but with grace because some one actually produced evidence instead of woo. I would be tickled pink if you posted it again for me or linked me to it somehow. I missed it. If it is true that Bundy was never asked to remove his cattle down to 150 head, and that whole thing is a lie, I got my excuse to declare Bundy the worst thing since the Devil himself, and the BLM God's gift to Mankind, and wash my hands of this sordid affair.

Here is what I have been basing that particular part of my opinion on. Range war timeline

1973

■ Cliven Bundy pays grazing fees to the BLM for the next 20 years.

1993

■ The BLM modifies Bundy’s grazing permit by reducing the size allowed for his herd to 150 and restricts where his cattle can graze in the Gold Butte area. He refuses the permit and stops paying grazing fees. The BLM cancels his permit.

I thought the Las Vegas Review-Journal was reputable. But if that Journal was wrong and what you are saying is right, then there is nothing to talk about here.

 

[Biscuit]

Are you a lawyer? I know you follow the Scotus closely, but that question is phrased like a lawyer cross-examining a witness (or at least a fictional lawyer in some courtroom drama).

Sorry. Two judges, former lawyers, in my family and the majority of my customers are lawyers. Nearly went to law school myself.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

RBF, I just don't understand. You've been shown repeatedly from the court documents that he was told to remove the cattle AFTER he stopped paying. BEFORE that he was offered a 10 year extension on his lease with some restrictions that did not include herd reduction or permanent removal.

Why do you keep insisting otherwise?

Sunk costs, I imagine. His entire argument in this thread is based on the notion that, had the BLM offered Bundy a deal that would have let him keep all his cattle, there wouldn't be a problem.

Now that it turns out the BLM did apparently offer Bundy a deal that allowed him to keep all his cattle, RBF has no choice but to completely ignore that reality.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Sunk costs, I imagine. His entire argument in this thread is based on the notion that, had the BLM offered Bundy a deal that would have let him keep all his cattle, there wouldn't be a problem.

Now that it turns out the BLM did apparently offer Bundy a deal that allowed him to keep all his cattle, RBF has no choice but to completely ignore that reality.

see above post 1697 If they actually did offer him that deal, I'd love to see it. You are going under the false assumption that I give a rat's ass about Bundy. I don't. I never met him and don't care. If the government offered him a deal that wasn't deleterious to his ranching operation and Bundy foolishly refused anyway. So be it. Send in the BLM and arrest his sorry arse.