Buckle up for safety and please keep your limbs inside the ride.

I guess I still don't get the outrage.. somebody with some brains needs to explain this to me... and not just say because it's his right (it's not)

I realize the guy has use rights... which he stopped paying for... and even if he paid for it, they are granted to him, not for perpetuity but until there is better use for the land..

so are we now to grant him perpetual rights to the land for his own exclusive use? because that is what is happening and what people are defending.... if that's the case, how do I get myself a few hundred acres for free just by buying a few acres within... it's like renting a room and then claiming you own the house... doesn't work that way

public land should benefit the public at large... if a large power generating wind farm is going up in that public land, so then it benefits the public... just because a Nevada senator is involved doesn't mean the project is bad... it will in fact generate power for the area.. and indirectly if not directly benefit more than just one family...

before people feel pity for this rancher, he isn't poor.. he decided to not pay a few hundred thousand dollars in use fees, which he then pocketed... money that he got to spend instead of it going to the public coffers... money that should have gone to other govt projects but instead he gets to keep what all other ranchers have paid up to this point..

I realize I'm going to get flak for this, but I can't see supporting his cause, just because he is standing up to the govt doesn't mean he is right.. he's just a squatter plain and simple.. and if you support those, I know a few people that are happy to camp in your backyard and use it exclusively for their purpose without you having any say...

a lot of folks here don't even bother to read what the issue is and I probably sound strange to them, all they hear is a guy is standing up to the govt with guns and that must be good...

just as bad a brainwashing as the other side are doing...

anybody that can have an intelligent argument without calling names or throwing insults, I'm happy to have a healthy discussion... if you start going below the belt, I know how to throw counter insults just as well... and I'm on vacation so I have all the time to do so..

On the Bundy thing I would agree with you doc but the guy in this video was talking about the BLM closing down private land. Is the opposite of Bundy.

...but let's not start with the insults. Keep it civil.

Well there is the whole Bundy family thing where they were granted use of 640,000 acres via the Guadalupe Hildago treaty... who cares about that though.. ;)

Meh...just ask some Native Americans about how much the Federal government respects treaties like that.

wrongs don't make right

Mash - I was obviously talking about the Bundy thing.. didn't listen to the audio on this new one as I was watching TV --- dumb mistake... but I have an excuse that I just drove 1500 miles and I was tired... but hey I have the sun on my favor now in sunny AZ

to rectify that I've listened to the entire video and it sums down to this article link

http://elkodaily.com/news/new-blm-battl ... f887a.html

bottom line, the grass is being depleted because of drought and cattle grazing.. they are not closing down the grazing area but rather asking the ranchers to scale down operations for a season to allow grass to recover from the drought... much like fishing restrictions in the bering sea to protect salmon populations and other sea populations...

but to task somebody to cut down their inventory by half, is probably a bit drastic...

as for the private property thing, yes that may be a bit extreme, except that it's in the middle of BLM land, so unless the owner can fence his property and limit the cattle from straying, it is reasonable that there is concern that the cattle will eat the grass on BLM land..

apparently the family already fenced in some of the private land, so that argument is not valid..

again I apologize for starting on the wrong range war... my previous post was specifically for the Clive Bundy issue and I'm happy to debate that or this new one as well... this new one has sparse info though

How long do you have to be here to be considered native? Is there a cut off year?

could you specifically show some hard facts to support that... unless you are saying they were on that property when Nevada became part of the US territory, then that's just incorrect..

yes homesteads were established by the treaty...

the Bundy patriarch bought a homestead from somebody else (they didn't own it since the mexican war) and he did knowing full well there were some land use issues...

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/ ... ly-history

his homestead did not encompass the area of debate now... his homestead is not being questioned, it's his use of the adjoining land to his homestead...

same issue I raised, you can't buy a unit in the condo and take over the empty units on your floor just because they are next door...

cliven bundy is simply a guy that found a nice gig, buy a piece of land and use the adjoining land free of charge, that was well and good until the BLM decided they wanted the land back, now he is complaining that his rights are being violated...

last I heard, he does not own BLM land and therefore has never had any perpetual rights... just use rights that were subject to revocation at some point...

it's like a kid getting an allowance from their parents and when that is cut off crying and declaring it's his birth right to get an allowance... because that's what Bundy is getting, free use of land he does not own..

XDM you are taking the Feds side over the people, first off. Think about that deeply. You are also taking the word of some crap media story that is so obviously not true that even the rest of media knows is so disengenious they don't want to touch it. Look harder to defend the great people of this land, not the likes of Harry Reid and his ilk, and you will more likely find the truth. You are fighting for the wrong side. I know you are smarter than this.

urban that is where you are wrong... I am not taking anybody's side..

anybody that knows me knows that I will follow the argument down the path of facts... even to the point of proving myself wrong.. I learn that way..

show me the facts, I will side with you.. until then the facts are not in Bundy's favor... there are many articles and even the Bundy family themselves in an interview clearly outlining that they bought this property from another person.. so how can they have homestead rights from the 1800's when they clearly bought the land in the 40's

and this is not FEDS vs the People.. this is FEDS vs one man who has benefited from free use of public land...

if you always side against one group, you run the risk of being brainwashed/hoodwinked...

my purpose in these debates is to spur independent thinking -- I'm hoping that is what comes out of this debate

From my understanding the Bundy family had settled on that property back to 1845 and was granted the use of much greater than even they are using to positively produce on. Show me the evidence of the Bundy's saying otherwise. I'm interested to see it.

What you are defending is a Federal government that was intended to be limited by the Constitution. In other words the BLM is not suppose to exist and any claims it makes are fraudulent.

I saw that interview the first time around... if I find it I will post it.. but the Bundy family did not live on this ranch in the 1800's.. they bought it from the Leavitt family.

but it sounds like you are intent on believing what you want, so I will leave it at that. it still doesn't change the fact that they don't own the surrounding land. they own 160 acres and that's all they paid for...

so now they get to have exclusive use of the surrounding thousands of acres? how's that right? it's not theirs and they get to profit from public land.. and have refused to pay fees as well..

it is obvious you are a staunch anti-govt which is fine, just make sure you are able to look above the deception from both sides and judge for yourself...

questioning the existence of BLM is futile, they are there... ranchers don't like the BLM because it gets in their way... just like old time fishermen didn't like fishing quotas...

if the rancher would get out of public land and stay on their own private property, I can support abolishing the BLM... but we all know they won't do that.. it's too expensive...

much easier to use public land for private use.. and then complain when that sweet deal gets taken away..

somebody still needs to answer how exclusive use of public land by a private business is justified? what if I wanted to ride an ATV or camp on public land where their cattle is grazing.. they will shoo you away.. so it's no longer open to the public then?

Been in a similar situation. At our old house we had some "neighbors" who decided to park their cars on community property. Claimed they had been doing it for > 10 years (which they hadn't because they cleared the land a few years ago. So anyway THEY PAVED IT WITH ASPHALT and basically F.U. rest of the community.

So there was some arbitration before it went to litigation was, we'll grant you a lease to park there, providing you keep access clear and you pull up the asphalt.

Of course they agreed, signed the agreement, and then reneged later, and there was a big lawsuit (by which time we'd moved).

Point is, some people only care about themselves.