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

[SomedayGirl]

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 posted a link to the 1998 federal court order that goes thru the history to that point on #1606.

I pulled the relevant section from that re: lease term and land use restrictions and that's in #1627.

gregthehammer quoted #1627 in his post #1634.

For ease, here they are again:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXIS-23835

In his Reply (#7), Bundy explains this action started in 1992 when he received a "Full Force and Effect Decision Bunkerville Allotment" from the BLM. Reply(#7), p. 5. The letter to which Bundy refers is in fact dated January 28, 1993. Bundy claims this "decision concerning the Desert Tortoise, if fully implemented,would lead to the end of ranching in Clark County," and his ranching days would be over. Reply (#7), p. 5. The decision from the BLM does not inform [*8] Bundy he can no longer graze livestock due to the protection of the Desert Tortoise, but instead reminds Bundy that his grazing permit would end at the end of the next month,February 1993, and the new permit application was attached to the decision. The decision informed Bundy the BLM would issue him a new ten-year federal grazing permit for the Bunkerville Allotment. Mot. Dism. (#4),Exh. E. The terms and conditions for the new federal grazing permit allowed for livestock grazing with some restrictions to be determined by the BLM. For example,if tortoises were found to be active in the early spring in a specific area, then grazing would not be allowed until the amount of spring ephemeral forage had grown to a sufficient amount.

There is no mention anywhere in the order about a reduced herd or the 150 number.

 

[Corsair 115]

... a new study by western range ecologist John Carter ...

John Carter? I thought he was on Barsoom.

 

[AlBell]

Your last post was a home run and you've followed it up with a grand slam.

I'd say desertgal won the Internet.

 

[desertgal]

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

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.

People have been producing evidence in this thread since the start. No one has produced "woo"-that doesn't even make sense.

Perhaps the next time you jump into a thread with unfounded assertions, you should park the arrogance at the door and take the time to read what other people have to say.

 

[BenBurch]

Wait, what?

What's happening next week? What did I miss?

You didn't miss anything. I think it will be very soon, though. Probably after the holiday rather than before.

 

[BenBurch]

How to deal with a bad law:

You have three honorable options;

1. Suck it up and obey it.
2. Try to get it changed while obeying it.
3. Accepting the consequences of being an outlaw.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You didn't miss anything. I think it will be very soon, though. Probably after the holiday rather than before.

And what makes you think this?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Holistic Management is


OFF : TOPIC

I agree.

Can we split the thread, Mods? Please?!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

There is no mention anywhere in the order about a reduced herd or the 150 number.

You are right. It says "The terms and conditions for the new federal grazing permit allowed for livestock grazing with some restrictions to be determined by the BLM. For example,if tortoises were found to be active in the early spring in a specific area, then grazing would not be allowed until the amount of spring ephemeral forage had grown to a sufficient amount." as you posted. What were the restrictions? Was one 150? Is that what they determined? I saw that post by you. But absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. I would like to know if the restrictions that got Bundy so agitated, ie.. "BLM officials allege that Bundy became agitated, walked out of his truck and accused the BLM of harassing him." included a restriction to 150 head or not. The court document claims there were restrictions and even declares one example, but no list, nor any indication of what the BLM determined.

 

[cwalner]

You are right. It says "The terms and conditions for the new federal grazing permit allowed for livestock grazing with some restrictions to be determined by the BLM. For example,if tortoises were found to be active in the early spring in a specific area, then grazing would not be allowed until the amount of spring ephemeral forage had grown to a sufficient amount." as you posted. What were the restrictions? Was one 150? Is that what they determined? I saw that post by you. But absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. I would like to know if the restrictions that got Bundy so agitated, ie.. "BLM officials allege that Bundy became agitated, walked out of his truck and accused the BLM of harassing him." included a restriction to 150 head or not. The court document claims there were restrictions and even declares one example, but no list, nor any indication of what the BLM determined.

Sorry, It does not work that way. You have repeatedly made the claim that the BLM restricted his cattle to 150. You are making the positive claim. You need to provide evidence of that claim. Desertgal only pointed out that in the few available documents of the dispute that she has reviewed there is no evidence of that claim.

You are the one making the claim. You need to show evidence.

 

[halleyscomet]

Sorry, It does not work that way. You have repeatedly made the claim that the BLM restricted his cattle to 150. You are making the positive claim. You need to provide evidence of that claim. Desertgal only pointed out that in the few available documents of the dispute that she has reviewed there is no evidence of that claim.



You are the one making the claim. You need to show evidence.

Some people are not capable of understanding the difference between providing evidence and simply repeating the claim.

 

[desertgal]

Sorry, It does not work that way. You have repeatedly made the claim that the BLM restricted his cattle to 150. You are making the positive claim. You need to provide evidence of that claim. Desertgal only pointed out that in the few available documents of the dispute that she has reviewed there is no evidence of that claim.

You are the one making the claim. You need to show evidence.

That was SomedayGirl, not me.

 

[BenBurch]

And what makes you think this?

Well, just based on what a public affront to the law this is, and how long it would take to organize the operation.

 

[cwalner]

That was SomedayGirl, not me.

To quote the great sage Rick Perry: Oops.

 

[SomedayGirl]

RBF, as near as I can tell the only source for that 150 number seems to be Cliven Bundy himself.

And I don't know if you've noticed but ol' Cliven is a bit deranged, bless his heart.

If there were to be severe restrictions to numbers on the allotment it seems likely that would have merited a mention by the court. Instead the example offered is of possibly restricting specific areas at specific times of year to specifically make the point that Bundy misinterpreted what he was told by the BLM.

As to Bundy's contention that he was being harassed, it's possible he saw it that way - he's a deadbeat squatter and the landlord wanted him to pay up or get his animals off the property. The landlord had sent repeated letters to that effect.

So anyway, what is the original source for that 150 number? If it's the LVRJ, where did THEY get the number from? That figure is what derailed this entire thread and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that's what the BLM demanded at any point in this whole silly saga.

 

[HHellpop]

Actually not. He refused to agree to the changes BLM dictated to him. BLM changed the contract not Bundy. It is true that the BLM can do that legally. But saying Bundy agreed then violated is false. He never agreed.

If my cable TV service legally changes their contract with me to raise prices or reduce services, and I disagree with the change, the proper response is to tell the cable company to discontinue providing the service completely. Continuing to use the service would mean that I agreed to the changes and I am liable for the fees. Continuing to use the service and not paying the fees would be theft.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

If my cable TV service legally changes their contract with me to raise prices or reduce services, and I disagree with the change, the proper response is to tell the cable company to discontinue providing the service completely. Continuing to use the service would mean that I agreed to the changes and I am liable for the fees. Continuing to use the service and not paying the fees would be theft.

agreed And if there is a dispute over the contract and you wanted to continue service and not pay at the same time, there are ways like paying an escrow account etc that can be resolved once in court, just to be sure you don't get into even worse hot water. Bundy tried one of those ways, a very foolish one, by paying the county instead. They sent his check back.

 

[Chaos]

agreed And if there is a dispute over the contract and you wanted to continue service and not pay at the same time, there are ways like paying an escrow account etc that can be resolved once in court, just to be sure you don't get into even worse hot water. Bundy tried one of those ways, a very foolish one, by paying the county instead. They sent his check back.

He also went to court, again and again, and lost, again and again.

Any sane person would see this as an indication that are wrong. Bundy did not - draw your own conclusions from that.


And where does your fantasy take into account Bundy´s claims that his family actually owned the land in question to begin with?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Sorry, It does not work that way. You have repeatedly made the claim that the BLM restricted his cattle to 150. You are making the positive claim. You need to provide evidence of that claim. Desertgal only pointed out that in the few available documents of the dispute that she has reviewed there is no evidence of that claim.

You are the one making the claim. You need to show evidence.

Look Bundy claims it and the Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote it. I provided that evidence more than once. I asked for evidence that the report was false and Bundy was lying. The court documents say there are restrictions. The link provided doesn't contain the comprehensive list. So there is no way to tell from that link what all the restrictions were. That means the Las Vegas Review-Journal could be right...or wrong. No way to tell from that link.

 

[BenBurch]

It is still idiotic to argue that whatever restrictions there were matter in the present case.

As I see it, Bundy is in open rebellion against the USA and we could try him for treason and stick a needle in his arm. (Yes, I know we will only jail him for his crimes, but we certainly could make this case.)

Nothing AT ALL that went before they decided to raise weapons against agents of the federal and state government matters any more.