Bundy Ranch

[DC Tom]

Besides Bundy and whatever shinanigans Reid and his mob are up to, don't you think it's alarming how much land the feds either own or control? Personally I really like the idea of state sovereignty and that would seem hard to maintain when the feds own almost all the land. Just wondering what your opinion is on that.

 

I don't know that I'm alarmed at how much they control. But alarmed at how they manage it...yes, more than a little. I'm okay with managing and restricting public land use for private economic development (e.g. not letting Bundy's herd or the the solar plans !@#$ up the desert ecosystem so people can make a buck at the government's - meaning, ultimately, our - expense). But restricting access for public use - and worse, designating the specific unrestricted plots as "First Amendment Zones" - really sticks in my craw, even if it is ostensibly for public safety.

 

And by the way...your sgc link? Crap. Even if the cherry-picking of one little misunderstood sentence about solar plans wasn't a giveaway, it took about 20 minutes to figure out that the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and the cattle grazing allotments (and zone for cattle removal) not only aren't even close, they're separated by Lake Mead.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

I don't know. But, I do know to look for seemingly unrelated info and see if it has any implications for what we are looking at. It's patterns in my work. Always patterns.

 

The information we've been presented thus far makes little sense. And, as we get more, the explanations for this chain of events are even more strange.

 

Everything I know about this says: there's something else going on here besides a dumbass rancher and some, suddenly way overzealous bureaucrats.

 

My experience with Federal employees says they don't take risks to their turf like this without a very good reason, or somebody ordering them to do it. and either threatening that turf, or promising more turf and/or protection.

 

A few pages back this was my initial gut instinct and im sticking to it. Both sides had very strong over reactions to something that didnt appear to be warranted.

 

I think its always been about how harry reid can use that land for his own financial gain and since the liberal tactics are to just intimidate citizens and continue their power consolidation. Trouble is...this rancher didnt wsnt to give up his cattle claim on the governments land and resulted in a stand off.

[DC Tom]

A few pages back this was my initial gut instinct and im sticking to it. Both sides had very strong over reactions to something that didnt appear to be warranted.

 

I think its always been about how harry reid can use that land for his own financial gain and since the liberal tactics are to just intimidate citizens and continue their power consolidation. Trouble is...this rancher didnt wsnt to give up his cattle claim on the governments land and resulted in a stand off.

 

The rancher gave up his claim 20 years ago.

 

Are you really arguing that Harry Reed has been plotting this solar-power takeover of grazing land for 20 years, and Bundy's a willing accomplice who's now having second thoughts?

[Dante]

I don't know that I'm alarmed at how much they control. But alarmed at how they manage it...yes, more than a little. I'm okay with managing and restricting public land use for private economic development (e.g. not letting Bundy's herd or the the solar plans !@#$ up the desert ecosystem so people can make a buck at the government's - meaning, ultimately, our - expense). But restricting access for public use - and worse, designating the specific unrestricted plots as "First Amendment Zones" - really sticks in my craw, even if it is ostensibly for public safety.

 

And by the way...your sgc link? Crap. Even if the cherry-picking of one little misunderstood sentence about solar plans wasn't a giveaway, it took about 20 minutes to figure out that the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and the cattle grazing allotments (and zone for cattle removal) not only aren't even close, they're separated by Lake Mead.

I guess I just don't think the federal government has a right to own any land really. They can just pass some sort of green law and that gives them the right to confiscate property. Scary to me. I understand feds have to have some control of land. Ports, military bases and so on. Parks as well but that could be handled by the states. As long as your not dumping chemicals,nuclear waste or whatever land should be privately owned. I'll have to look closer at the sgc link. Not sure of the geography.

[DC Tom]

I guess I just don't think the federal government has a right to own any land really. They can just pass some sort of green law and that gives them the right to confiscate property. Scary to me. I understand feds have to have some control of land. Ports, military bases and so on. Parks as well but that could be handled by the states. As long as your not dumping chemicals,nuclear waste or whatever land should be privately owned. I'll have to look closer at the sgc link. Not sure of the geography.

 

What property are they confiscating? The land in question has never been owned by anyone other than the federal government (Bundy admits so himself - he PAID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LEASE THE GRAZING RIGHTS before 1993), and with regards to the cattle this is a case where due process has actually been followed.

[boyst]

For those wondering...

This is commercial beef. 2,500 head at avg of $1.10-1.20.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

While those are all true, what hasn't been reported is the stuff in the intervening 20 years. You're acting as if this came up suddenly because it got picked up in the press. I have a feeling a lot more has been going on over the years, and while to the rest of the world it seems sudden, from DLM's standpoint, it's simply the next stage in the escalation. Could be as simple as that.

 

^^This^^

 

Holy Moly... All these pages and here we are back to what was said since the start.

 

For those wondering...

This is commercial beef. 2,500 head at avg of $1.10-1.20.

 

Is that a buck 20 a pound? What's the average weight of per head?

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

I don't know that I'm alarmed at how much they control. But alarmed at how they manage it...yes, more than a little. I'm okay with managing and restricting public land use for private economic development (e.g. not letting Bundy's herd or the the solar plans !@#$ up the desert ecosystem so people can make a buck at the government's - meaning, ultimately, our - expense). But restricting access for public use - and worse, designating the specific unrestricted plots as "First Amendment Zones" - really sticks in my craw, even if it is ostensibly for public safety.

 

And by the way...your sgc link? Crap. Even if the cherry-picking of one little misunderstood sentence about solar plans wasn't a giveaway, it took about 20 minutes to figure out that the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and the cattle grazing allotments (and zone for cattle removal) not only aren't even close, they're separated by Lake Mead.

 

Exactly... Spot on. All the crazies out there, just listen to Tom (& GG) and what he is putting down. He's probably the only one that can make you see things as they really are. You don't have to agree w/me, just agree with them. It will cause you less pain. ;-P ;-P

[boyst]

This story could not come at a better time for farmers [/sarcasm]. With the Farm Bill now in the news and this guy and his finances being talked about people are going to not be too happy with farming and everyone and their mother is going to attack farmers.

 

^^This^^

 

Holy Moly... All these pages and here we are back to what was said since the start.

 

 

 

Is that a buck 20 a pound? What's the average weight of per head?

It is based off of liveweight of the animal, it's not hanging or finished product. Nor did I factor that some of the steers that would be conditioned would be $1.50 or more. The mommas won't get much, maybe a few breakers and they'll bring that down and sell probably $.9 at best. The yearlings could fetch as much as $1.50 a lbs., as well. The bull would get about a $1 at best.

 

Beef prices are on a rise and likely be the highest ever soon. Which means corn prices have been low and will go back up. Then prices of corn will be up and beef down.

 

The avg. weight for a finished steer should be no less then 1100 despite the breed. I saw some Hereford influenced, some short horn and others in a few pictures - but mostly Angux X something - Charolais, Hereford, Simmental, etc. Those should still be 1100-1200.

 

The mommas should be about 1400 if they're in good shape, the yearling calf weighs 900 if you're doing good. The newborns drop at about 65-90 lbs., by weaning 6mos should be about 500-600 if you're doing good.

Edited April 16, 2014 by jboyst62

[DC Tom]

Exactly... Spot on. All the crazies out there, just listen to Tom (& GG) and what he is putting down. He's probably the only one that can make you see things as they really are. You don't have to agree w/me, just agree with them. It will cause you less pain. ;-P ;-P

 

No, I'll still inflict pain.

[tomato can]

Interesting comments from Mark Levin......

 

http://therightscoop.com/in-depth-mark-levin-gives-his-take-on-the-dispute-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

[Dante]

Interesting comments from Mark Levin......

 

http://therightscoop...ral-government/

The first 45 minutes were great yesterday. Really like Levin

[Gary M]

A good take on this!!

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375824/case-little-sedition-kevin-d-williamson

[Dante]

I'd be calling lawyers. Going on the offensive. For damaging property and also cattle rustling. People used to be hung for stealing cattle.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ranch-standoff/

Edited April 16, 2014 by Dante

[DC Tom]

I'd be calling lawyers. Going on the offensive. For damaging property and also cattle rustling. People used to be hung for stealing cattle.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ranch-standoff/

 

It's not cattle rustling.

[Dante]

It's not cattle rustling.

Maybe cattle wrastlin?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Maybe cattle wrastlin?

It's "cattle wrestling". We've covered this already.

[....lybob]

It's cattle rostering, football fans should know this - I'm moving steers from his roster to my roster ie rostering

[Nanker]

One question I have... if it was Federal territory prior to it becoming a state - how did it become Federal territory after the sovereign state was born? Was that now not state (small s) property? Sure, the Feds managed it, but did it not in fact belong to the state?

 

What's interesting to me is the story has exposed the deep seated mistrust of the Federal government - who's agents do not have municipal powers granted to them in the Constitution - by many in parts of America that city/suburban dwellers have little or no awareness of. Riparian rights is another area of great concern. Most folks are only recently hearing about things like the Colorado River water disputes and that's largely because So Californicated's swelling population demands more, but their greenies pulled the plug out of the drain to protect a snail or a moss or mosquito or some damn thing, so now the river quite literally "passes through" and goes into the sea.

[3rdnlng]

From a Facebook posting:

• 
   
   
   
  Bob Gailey In an open letter, Bundy’s neighbor, Kena Lytle Gloeckner, explained why ranchers are supporting Bundy. Her letter, which has been posted on numerous blogs, said:
   
  There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment.
   
  In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non-ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – – not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price.
   
  If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy singlehandedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
  

Edited April 17, 2014 by 3rdnlng