Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
President-Elect Acidhead

FEDS move in on rancher - Remove Cattle

420 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sakari

And the Feds are giving the cattle back. http://www.reuters.c...EA3B03Q20140412 They are also not enforcing the grazing fees and the cattle are allowed graze on the same land.

Bundy's owed $1.3M. How much did this fiasco cost tax payers?

I've been up in the air over this event, not being sure who's actually right in all this. I was kind of siding with the government for while, but not how they handled this situation. If Bundy's owed so much for so long and he was truly wrong then how come they didn't simply arrest him right off the bat and why did it take 20 years to make a move? Unless this Harry Reid China deal is real? Now that they've ended the stand-off, pulled back on their demands and given the cattle back I can't help but think the Feds may have been wrong and this' been an example of how the gov will try and do and demand what they want and go to great lengths for it. They will push you around if you don't stand up.

Now, I understand the whole qualm about profiting from public resources but apparently Bundy's had a preeminent right to this territory or else the Feds had no reason to give up. Also, since the grazing law was set in 1930, and perhaps rightfully so as cattle were destroying much of the land, does that mean the law has to remain in effect for all time? This is just a guess but I'll bet there were far more cattle ranchers with far more cattle in the 1930's than there are today. Were Bundy's cattle really doing so much damage? After all, the cattle have been living fine off the land for decades so the resources must be aplenty.

Last, I wonder if an armed citizenry had anything to do with the Feds backing down? I read that there were quite a few making sure the Feds had to stare down a barrel too.

Quit being so ignorant.

They even stated he will still be taken to court. ( again )

It is not like they gave up, they backed off for everyones safety because of nut cases.

How much does his not paying for grazing cost tax payers every year? .......How much does it cost every other rancher out there that pays his or her dues?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

When are the American Indians going to " stand up " for what is rightfully theirs?

Same exact logic. This land was their families for generations.

I say they need to stand up too.

How many right winged militia are going to support that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Quit being so ignorant.

They even stated he will still be taken to court. ( again )

It is not like they gave up, they backed off for everyones safety because of nut cases.

How much does his not paying for grazing cost tax payers every year? .......How much does it cost every other rancher out there that pays his or her dues?

I'm not being ignorant dude. I'm going by what I've been reading. Every source is a little different and none seem to be overly clear on the situation. I haven't grown a passion for this case and haven't scoured the Internet for info. I checked a handful of different articles. From my calculations it costs the tax payers $65K a year for his grazing fees. TBH, I'd rather pay for cattle that feed and support the economy than some turtles. If the guy is absolutely in the wrong why hasn't he been arrested? It's quite obvious that since this is going further into court that certainty doesn't belong to either side ATM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

When are the American Indians going to " stand up " for what is rightfully theirs?

Same exact logic. This land was their families for generations.

I say they need to stand up too.

How many right winged militia are going to support that?

I would support natives if they were so inclined. I have nothing but respect for natives. Historically, they were the most shafted of today's minorities and are the most humble and quietest of them all. They don't go around whining about fairness and equality everyday and fir that I would support any cause they make a good case for.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

I'm not being ignorant dude. I'm going by what I've been reading. Every source is a little different and none seem to be overly clear on the situation. I haven't grown a passion for this case and haven't scoured the Internet for info. I checked a handful of different articles. From my calculations it costs the tax payers $65K a year for his grazing fees. TBH, I'd rather pay for cattle that feed and support the economy than some turtles. If the guy is absolutely in the wrong why hasn't he been arrested? It's quite obvious that since this is going further into court that certainty doesn't belong to either side ATM.

I do not use " ignorant " as a bad word.

You mentioned " turtles ", that is one of the right wing militias crap put way out of context to feed the sheep. That happened in 2013.

Bundy lost 2 court cases. He is in the wrong, he lost, twice. Not arrested, maybe because they do not want anyone hurt, as it is obvious they are dealing with nut cases.One federal. So, anyone who loses in court can just ignore the verdict by their peers? That is ok?

It is ok that all of the other ranchers pay these fees, yet one cry baby gets away with not doing it. By the way, he paid them until he " fired the BLM "

It costs us more in the destruction the cattle are doing. It also costs our future generations. I posted earlier I lived in Nevada, and saw first hand what over grazing can do.

He will get his day, it will come. And I can't wait.

My family was from the Mississippi area, maybe I should go there and build a home, tax free. After all, it was my families.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah65

Open range grazing has been around for centuries.

Who decided this land should be federal? Was it voted on and the people said "Sure Uncle Sam...take this chunk of land and then one day fence it off and not let us use it anymore"

Anyone got a transcript of that? A voting record?

Who says it's ok for the feds to seize state lands and call them federal lands to begin with?

I have a serious problem when I see a sign that says "Federal property, no tresspassing"...really? Who paid for that land? Who pays to maintain that land? Who pays for the rent a cops to secure that land? Erm...that would be "we the people"...it is "our land". The fed has no right to fence it off or say who can use it for what.

Sorry about some turtles...but...then again...I a tired of this crap. Cutting off water to farmers to protect some fish...I have a problem with that. If the farmers can't grow food, I'll eat the damn fish then.

Your position on this Sakari is the most left leaning, tree hugging position I have ever seen you take...what gives here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

Hard to find the truth anymore with this crap.....

Best I could find without typing myself :

The Background

According to many media outlets, the entirety of the story is that the Federal government is attempting to confiscate Bundy’s cows and fine him an unreasonable amount of money simply because of the presence of an endangered species of turtle in the area where the cows feed. Other outlets provide different versions of the story, with facts and timelines arranged in different order.

The fact is that Bundy’s cows had been grazing on Federal land. This is not disputed by anyone in terms of the location. Because use of public lands for commercial purposes (ranch cattle grazing is commerce), ranchers are required to pay a grazing fee to the BLM. This fee amounts to about $1.35 per animal.

Bundy stopped paying this fee in 1993. Bundy contends that the land is not under the jurisdiction of the BLM or the Federal government, but under the state of Nevada. Thus, he also contends that he owes nothing to the Federal government since he claims that the Feds have no jurisdiction. If he owes anything at all, he says, he owes the money to Nevada or Clark County. Since Nevada is not coming forward to claim their money, Bundy argues that he owes nothing at this time. It should be noted that Bundy says he is willing to pay grazing fees but only to Clark County.

Nevada is not coming forward to collect the money, of course, because the land is clearly under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Bundy, however, continues to claim that because his family has worked the land since the 1800s, he has pre-emptive rights including the right to forage. However, pre-emptive rights are the result of a contract agreement, a contract that Bundy has stated he does not have.

Many of Bundy’s supporters also claim that Constitutional rights are being violated in this case because of a clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17), which supposedly restricts the Federal government from buying from states except for the purpose of erecting “forts, magazines, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” However, the land in question belonged to the Federal government before Nevada even became a state, making it impossible to buy land that was not yet even a state. Even so, the interpretation of this particular clause of the Constitution in this manner is tenuous to say the least since it refers to the legislative governance of the stated areas and institutions under the ownership of the Federal government.

In regards to the “turtles,” the claims suggesting that Bundy’s fees were a result of the designation of the desert tortoise as an endangered species are fundamentally untrue. Bundy ceased his payments in 1993. The grazing area was designated as off limits due to the presence of the “turtles” in 1998. Thus, the “turtles” played no part in Bundy’s original resistance to the grazing fee.

However, it is also true that the BLM has euthanized a large number of the same tortoises they claim as being endangered; but the stated purpose of this euthanasia was to protect the sick tortoises from infecting the healthy ones being released back into the wild.

What should be pointed out, however, is that the DTCC (Desert Tortoise Conservation Center) was actually moved to the land where Bundy’s cattle were grazing in 1991 in order to protect the desert tortoise from becoming extinct due to a development in Southern Las Vegas, a money-maker that grossly outweighed any concern for nature in the minds of business and government.

The other side of this story is that since Bundy stopped paying his fee in 1993 and refused to accept a grazing permit, in the eyes of the BLM, there were no ranchers on the public land for five years, since Bundy is the only rancher left in Clark County.

Furthermore, although Bundy’s assertions regarding the idea that the BLM and other interests wanted him off the land should be given due attention, it should be pointed out that his original claim against BLM was that the Federal government did not have jurisdiction over the land.

In fact, Bundy doesn’t believe the Federal government has authority over much of anything. Last year, he told the New York Times, “I've got to protect my property. If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

Lastly, it is important to note that the original stated intent of the BLM and associates was to close off the federal land from the Bundy Ranch and remove the trespassing cattle, not to launch an all-out assault on the ranch in Waco fashion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

Open range grazing has been around for centuries.

Who decided this land should be federal? Was it voted on and the people said "Sure Uncle Sam...take this chunk of land and then one day fence it off and not let us use it anymore"

Anyone got a transcript of that? A voting record?

Who says it's ok for the feds to seize state lands and call them federal lands to begin with?

I have a serious problem when I see a sign that says "Federal property, no tresspassing"...really? Who paid for that land? Who pays to maintain that land? Who pays for the rent a cops to secure that land? Erm...that would be "we the people"...it is "our land". The fed has no right to fence it off or say who can use it for what.

Sorry about some turtles...but...then again...I a tired of this crap. Cutting off water to farmers to protect some fish...I have a problem with that. If the farmers can't grow food, I'll eat the damn fish then.

Your position on this Sakari is the most left leaning, tree hugging position I have ever seen you take...what gives here?

Your questions answered on reply above this.

My position is mine. And you mentioned fish. Salmon runs are dying off because of what you stated. I guess you are ok with that, I am not.

You say I am being left winged?....Go back and read my replies. I experienced this, I grew up hunting on protected BLM lands. The BLM saved the Deer hunting ( and others ) in Nevada. They saved a lot of land that would otherwise be private.

BLM land is PUBLIC LAND. That is the purpose of it, to protect it for us, and future generations.How do some of you not get this? If I went to that river where his cattle are grazing, he would try to run me off saying it is not mine. He is trying to take our land ( yours and mine ) and call it his own. And some of you do not get this.

“Despite having no legal right to do so, cattle from Bundy’s ranch have continued to graze throughout the Gold Butte area, competing with tortoises for food, hindering the ability of plants to recover from extensive wildfires, trampling rare plants, damaging ancient American Indian cultural sites and threatening the safety of recreationists,”

Anyway, read my replies, and your answers, as said, are above this reply.

Edited by Sakari
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah65

You really just posted exactly what the GOV would say.

Still doesn't answer the crux of my point. "WHO" decided this is federal land? WHO decided the fed can charge people to use it? The land, if actually paid for by the GOV and not seized...was paid for with "tax payer" money. So we get to pay for it and then pay to use it? I don't think so. Or...we get to pay for it and then the fed's fence it off and not allow access...really? You are OK with this type of GOV overreach? I'm not.

I hunt and I fish and I do believe in "conservation". There is proof that we are over harvesting the oceans and other fish and game resources. I get that. As a sportsman though, I "choose" to only harvest a very small amount a couple times a year. (I am getting ready to go fishing this afternoon. Whitebass-hybrid run is in full swing. I might bring one or two home for dinner but will prob just catch and release).

You mentioned the salmon...part of the probs with salmon returning to their spawning grounds is man-made obstructions, lower water levels...THIS is a natural problem...unless we can "make it rain" not much can be done with that part of the equation.

I guess my biggest problem with this whole scenario is it appears to be a semi-truth issue here. I see a bully in the GOV. Yes, this dude is breaking some laws but those laws were shoved down the throats of the people "after the fact"...anyone ever hear of grandfather clauses? I also see...in my tin-hat wearing conspiracy theory brain...subterfuge...trickery...deceit to achieve an end or goal. You mentioned a couple days ago when I pointed out the test well drilling of the area for fracking that was crazy...turns out...it's not so crazy after all....then we have the Harry Reid connection. That is not CT, this is just stuff that is coming out.

So what do we have here?

We have GOV grabbed land. We have a guy that says he should not have to pay to use land his family has used for a very-very long time (I agree with him on that). We have some activity in the shadows that appears to be counter to the goals and reasons being put on the table. We have an apparently endangered species thrown in the mix...which from my point of view is an excuse and not a reason. There has to be a "real" compromise somewhere. The irritating thing to me is if he "paid" for his cows...apparently the tortoises would be fine...really? No one gets the ridiculousness here? If the cows are a threat to the tortoises...then they are a threat whether he pays or not...it's a freaking scam to me...they just want the money or they want to use the lands for their own personal gain. To think for a moment that the GOV is being some great benevolent entity here is...well...right up there with the tin hat thinkers. There is a hidden agenda here like there almost always is in GOV workings. This one...appears to have been brought into the light...

But it's fine dude...I get your opinions. I occasionally have opinions that are not purely libertarian or conservative or liberal or progressive...sometimes...I am capable of seeing things from a totally new or different point of view.

This time, however, I am not impressed with the cover story and the bully tactics of the fed....

Edited by Jeremiah65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

You really just posted exactly what the GOV would say.

Still doesn't answer the crux of my point. "WHO" decided this is federal land? WHO decided the fed can charge people to use it? The land, if actually paid for by the GOV and not seized...was paid for with "tax payer" money. So we get to pay for it and then pay to use it? I don't think so. Or...we get to pay for it and then the fed's fence it off and not allow access...really? You are OK with this type of GOV overreach? I'm not.

I hunt and I fish and I do believe in "conservation". There is proof that we are over harvesting the oceans and other fish and game resources. I get that. As a sportsman though, I "choose" to only harvest a very small amount a couple times a year. (I am getting ready to go fishing this afternoon. Whitebass-hybrid run is in full swing. I might bring one or two home for dinner but will prob just catch and release).

You mentioned the salmon...part of the probs with salmon returning to their spawning grounds is man-made obstructions, lower water levels...THIS is a natural problem...unless we can "make it rain" not much can be done with that part of the equation.

I guess my biggest problem with this whole scenario is it appears to be a semi-truth issue here. I see a bully in the GOV. Yes, this dude is breaking some laws but those laws were shoved down the throats of the people "after the fact"...anyone ever hear of grandfather clauses? I also see...in my tin-hat wearing conspiracy theory brain...subterfuge...trickery...deceit to achieve an end or goal. You mentioned a couple days ago when I pointed out the test well drilling of the area for fracking that was crazy...turns out...it's not so crazy after all....then we have the Harry Reid connection. That is not CT, this is just stuff that is coming out.

So what do we have here?

We have GOV grabbed land. We have a guy that says he should not have to pay to use land his family has used for a very-very long time (I agree with him on that). We have some activity in the shadows that appears to be counter to the goals and reasons being put on the table. We have an apparently endangered species thrown in the mix...which from my point of view is an excuse and not a reason. There has to be a "real" compromise somewhere. The irritating thing to me is if he "paid" for his cows...apparently the tortoises would be fine...really? No one gets the ridiculousness here? If the cows are a threat to the tortoises...then they are a threat whether he pays or not...it's a freaking scam to me...they just want the money or they want to use the lands for their own personal gain. To think for a moment that the GOV is being some great benevolent entity here is...well...right up there with the tin hat thinkers. There is a hidden agenda here like there almost always is in GOV workings. This one...appears to have been brought into the light...

But it's fine dude...I get your opinions. I occasionally have opinions that are not purely libertarian or conservative or liberal or progressive...sometimes...I am capable of seeing things from a totally new or different point of view.

This time, however, I am not impressed with the cover story and the bully tactics of the fed....

Without snipping you quote to death....

We do not have to pay to use BLM ( PUBLIC ) land. I hunted, hiked, motorcycled, fished, etc. on it for most of my life, for free. Had to dodge a few private places though, unless you wanted salt rock shot at you. They place water trofts for the Antelope, Dove, Deer, Chukar, etc. They keep the eco system there. They feed the Wild Horses when times are bad, and get them water. They help fight wild fires.....They manage OUR land, and do it well.....And none of us have to pay to use it.....What is so wrong about that?

Now, let Cattle ( too many ) graze on it, and it ruins it all. Especially on river banks as Bundy is doing. I know, I saw it.

Hey, enjoy fishing, I have not been since I moved from Oregon to Arizona......Wish I could go.

.

Edited by Sakari
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah65

We have to agree to disagree this time my friend. Generally we tend to be on the same wavelength but not this time.

In your edit above, you pointed out "despite having no legal right to do so"...I am not choking that one down...you mentioned competing for food...do turtles and cows eat the same thing? News to me.

Plants recovering from wildfires....cow manure is the best fertilizer...

trampling rare plants...or we could let the turtles eat them.

Damaging ancient native american archaeological sites...which ones and how? If they are "in the ground" cattle over top of them aren't going to disturb them...if they are stone...not going to hurt that either.

safety of recreationists....well most modern "recreationists" are just stupid and prob have no business out there anyway. I mean...cows are generally pretty passive...unless it's a bull or someone provokes a stampede...can't see risk here.

It's fine man...this post was just to poke you a little bit. I disagree with the FED and this time you don't. I am sure at some point I am going to agree with something the FED does (doubtful but possible) and you will not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

We have to agree to disagree this time my friend. Generally we tend to be on the same wavelength but not this time.

In your edit above, you pointed out "despite having no legal right to do so"...I am not choking that one down...you mentioned competing for food...do turtles and cows eat the same thing? News to me.

Plants recovering from wildfires....cow manure is the best fertilizer...

trampling rare plants...or we could let the turtles eat them.

Damaging ancient native american archaeological sites...which ones and how? If they are "in the ground" cattle over top of them aren't going to disturb them...if they are stone...not going to hurt that either.

safety of recreationists....well most modern "recreationists" are just stupid and prob have no business out there anyway. I mean...cows are generally pretty passive...unless it's a bull or someone provokes a stampede...can't see risk here.

It's fine man...this post was just to poke you a little bit. I disagree with the FED and this time you don't. I am sure at some point I am going to agree with something the FED does (doubtful but possible) and you will not.

You are right on agree to disagree. And, I agree 100% on your " recreationists " point. I could go off on that forever.

I think I do have a better view, living there. Nevada ( I believe ) has more federal land then any other State. I want to remind people BLM stands for Bureau of Land Management, and they do an excellent job doing it.

Our Mission

The BLM's mission is to manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield.

I had a home ( thought we would retire there ) in East Sparks, Nevada. As far east as we could go, because of the growth. East of our house is all BLM ( public ) land, and we new no homes, subdivisions, etc. would be built there. That is why we chose it. The wildlife was awesome.

I have had the wonderful experience of seeing what cows do to the areas they graze in, especially near rivers. It would p*** you off, I guarantee that.

Also, The land in Nevada that is federal, has been owned by the federal Government before Nevada became a State, and Nevada never bought that land, or asked for it. So, that is your answer.

In Oregon, the State there does a similar thing as BLM in Nevada. Any beach property that goes for sale, the State purchases. They open it up to the public, and ensure it will never be private.

As I said, you would maybe have a different outlook on this if you lived there, and may understand it better.

Either way, as you said, we can agree to disagree.

Now, go enjoy some fishing !

Edited by Sakari
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari
In managing livestock grazing on public rangelands, the BLM’s overall objective is to ensure the long-term health and productivity of these lands and to create multiple environmental benefits that result from healthy watersheds. The Bureau administers public land ranching in accordance with the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, and in so doing provides livestock-based economic opportunities in rural communities while contributing to the West’s, and America’s, social fabric and identity. Together, public lands and the adjacent private ranches maintain open spaces in the fast-growing West, provide habitat for wildlife, offer a myriad of recreational opportunities for public land users, and help preserve the character of the rural West.

More here, and I enourage people to read it, and educate yourselves.

http://www.blm.gov/w...og/grazing.html

Edited by Saru
Trimmed for length, fixed video link
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Buzzkill

Sakari, you keep going back to court orders. It's federal court orders, which have to be fought in federal courts. Mr Bundy wants the state courts to decide his fate, but the Feds will never let that happen. He doesn't think he will get a fair hearing in the courts of the very people he has a grievance with. As far as cattle impacting the environment, he is the last of 53 ranches, so his cattle are just 0.5% of the total cattle that were once grazing on this land

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

If he's been doing it for 20 odd years, doesn't that qualify as squatter's rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian

This whole thing is probably going to go down one of two ways. The Federal government will either let things cool down for a bit, then move it again, or it will a court battle of vague interpretations of really old laws and confusing new ones that conflict with each other. If it comes to a court battle then he already lost, federal judges won't bite the hand that feeds them in a case like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

7 questions and answers about this situation.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/is-harry-reid-involved-seven-answers-to-seven-questions-youre-probably-asking-right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/

And it sort of answers my question. This relatively short standoff costed Nevada tax payers an estimated $3M. That more than twice as much as what this whole thing was all about. If this is honestly about what's good and fair for the tax payers how do you justify spending twice as much of their money as to gain only half of it back? And it failed! Something is wrong there. Now the tax payers are in for $4.3M including owed grazing fees. If Bundy's wrong they should've just arrested him and had an insight auction of his cattle and they should've done it a long long time ago. Seriously, I don't get why he's not been arrested. Owing $1.3M to the Feds, losing court cases and ignoring court orders and they toy around wasting who knows how much tax payers money through the years. Surely jail for this guy couldn't have costed tax payers that many millions of dollars. It could've been done and over a while back plus an onsight auction means quick money for the Feds, and no fussing around trying to haul 900 cattle to who knows where, as the buyers could tag and grab with their own time and resources. Even though I can't completely side with Bundy the Feds find every way to waste and screw up even when they're holding the right cards.

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Unless or until the state (or county) lawmakers write a law that tells everyone what goes where, what the Governor says should go. The Feds shouldn't be the muscle over this issue. It's a horrible spectacle for state sovereignty to have to see stuff like this.

Ownership should decide this quickly and easily. Who owns the land? If they say they don't want you grazing on it, get your damn cattle out of there. I'd just take his cattle and I'd give them back to the taxpayer one way or another. I'd let him scream from his ranch and if he keeps defying court orders with his cows, I'd keep taking them. He'd have to learn eventually no matter how stubborn and entitled he may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

State is there to take care of smaller, more local situation, and to carry out the orders of the Federal government. We're a republic, not a confederation.

Micromanaging a cow pasture is clearly a job for Uncle Sam. How could any State handle such a thing when they're busy doing their little things like putting us to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

I assume he does not have a deed stating that the land is his. So he is in the wrong here.

I would love to go use some public land for my own use without paying anyone anything. I think I should just go to the local park and cut down a few trees for my own use.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

if he was braking law for 20 years, why did not they arrest him before??? not when the public land was given to private company?????

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

if he was braking law for 20 years, why did not they arrest him before??? not when the public land was given to private company?????

I agree, but does it really matter? He is clearly in the wrong. I do think it is suspicious, but in the end he thinks he should be able to use land that is not his for free.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

I agree, but does it really matter? He is clearly in the wrong. I do think it is suspicious, but in the end he thinks he should be able to use land that is not his for free.

Glad someone got this :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

From what I understand his family has had grazing rights there for like 100 years. They put a tax on this guy so they could muscle him off the land, like they did everyone else in the area.

And look at the power when even just a few hundred people stand up and say 'Im not affraid of your threats, your guns, whatever.' They were on the right side of this conflict, and they knew it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

From what I understand his family has had grazing rights there for like 100 years. They put a tax on this guy so they could muscle him off the land, like they did everyone else in the area.

And look at the power when even just a few hundred people stand up and say 'Im not affraid of your threats, your guns, whatever.' They were on the right side of this conflict, and they knew it.

I'm not aware that the family had any documents that said that he could graze the land for free. He doesn't have a deed to the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.