The Bundy Trial: When Justice Fails

[farmin4u_98948]

SUMMARY. Where is the middle ground. This is where the story should go but it never does. Bundy’s Are at one extreme which at one time was the norm. The federal government has moved the line way way to the opposite side. Will it come to a common center.  Of course not. The rules are made where one size fits all and we know that never works. At least the Bundys pushed back.

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

SUMMARY. Where is the middle ground. This is where the story should go but it never does. Bundy’s Are at one extreme which at one time was the norm. The federal government has moved the line way way to the opposite side. Will it come to a common center.  Of course not. The rules are made where one size fits all and we know that never works. At least the Bundys pushed back.

 

[KFhunter]

the Mueller thing has really tainted congressional investigations, but this is a good purpose for that.   I wouldn't mind seeing a real investigation by congress through a joint committee, get to the bottom of this.  Might as well wait for a stiff wind, and pee in it 

[M_ray]

I think KF& Sitkas statements are on point.

Should people quit paying fees rent what have you because they disagree? No.  It should be obvious to many that many agencies have been weaponized  for political purposes. It's not an R vs D thing it's a control issue.

Perhaps I've done a poor job at explaining myself. The reason WHY I think this case is important and interesting from a law/contract/property rights issue is because of the lenght of time the Bundy family has been ranching that land.  Think of the kinds of issues we discuss on here about tribal rights. They highlight the kinds of problems  that are incured with a right or contract between 2 parties that do not end or have some kind of sunset clause in them. There arnt that many businesses that have out lasted the increases in regulation. The Bundies are one of a few.

This issue with the Bundies, right or wrong, has the potential to open a big can of worms. It is why I think the ESA has been used as a weapon so often, and I also belive it could be part of the reason why shady/ illegal stuff has been done.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

No you are being heard and its still a strange logic that my mind just cannot comprehend. I have been paying my tax's for 40 years, a number similar to that of which the Bundy family paid the proper fee to graze. I cannot just decide to stop paying based on the amount of time I have paid in.  If we decide to stop paying or bills or tax's we face late charges and increased fee's and or possible jail time. This is no different for the Bundy's, they stopped paying and that is simply called "Theft of services" which is a felony above a certain dollar amount. This doesn't even touch on the armed occupation that terrorized innocent workers at the wildlife facility in Ore that only adds to the crimes. Your argument would hold more weight had they not been paying the fee originally but to the contrary they stopped paying while others still paid their share for the same service.

[KFhunter]

What if the government regulated you out of a job, but demanded the same taxes still be paid. 

A closer analogy would be if the government kept piling on regulation after regulation crippling your old family business yet the same taxes must be paid even though you can no longer stay in the black.  To loose this business is to loose a family legacy dating back generations.

[Special T]

Some one with a ranching background may be able to clarify.
My understanding that the first iterations for the "fee" was not rent. It was mined collected to help develop the range land with water sources and such.

Belive it or not I appear to side with the Bundies because I would have loved to see discussion property rights.

Some questions I have not heard addressed that are the core of my issue.
Do you have to pay "rent" if you already have the right? If it's not rent what is it? When you pay $ you do so in consideration of some one else doing some thing.

I haven't done exhausted research on the issue which is why I would have liked the discussion to have revolved around it. It has not, and I've state my opinions why.

It's quite possible my writing skills have failed to express my understanding of the lifecycle of contracts, and the nature of property rights. Especially how they are different today because for 99% of us they have been reset several times. I Belive the Bundies may have been the 1%.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[M_ray]

Some one with a ranching background may be able to clarify.
My understanding that the first iterations for the "fee" was not rent. It was mined collected to help develop the range land with water sources and such.

Belive it or not I appear to side with the Bundies because I would have loved to see discussion property rights.

Some questions I have not heard addressed that are the core of my issue.
Do you have to pay "rent" if you already have the right? If it's not rent what is it? When you pay $ you do so in consideration of some one else doing some thing.

I haven't done exhausted research on the issue which is why I would have liked the discussion to have revolved around it. It has not, and I've state my opinions why.

It's quite possible my writing skills have failed to express my understanding of the lifecycle of contracts, and the nature of property rights. Especially how they are different today because for 99% of us they have been reset several times. I Belive the Bundies may have been the 1%.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The grazing fee is just that ...  a fee to graze your cattle a fee to compensate for the damage and food eaten and loss of the resource that is owned by you and me. He has the right to access those lands if he chose to hike or bird watch or take pictures but that same right doesn't transfer to each head of cattle.  Think of it this way ...  they are basically running business for profit and not paying into the system for their share of the added damage the cattle create and the reduction of the resource.

[KFhunter]

The grazing fee is just that ...  a fee to graze your cattle a fee to compensate for the damage and food eaten and loss of the resource that is owned by you and me.
they are basically running business for profit and not paying into the system for their share of the added damage the cattle create and the reduction of the resource.

That's not true at all, if it were the grazing fee's would be a lot higher.  The fee is to offset infrastructure work that goes along with having cattle.  The fee's are to do projects like putting in additional water sources, fencing off stream beds to prevent erosion or fencing out critical habitat like wet land areas.  All of these things benefit wildlife as a whole, in dry areas putting in a water tank helps out everything from antelope to elk, you name it.  Even frogs, snakes and birds as the water can create a tiny wetland oasis.  The grazing contracts today have property improvement projects right in the contract, have you read any?  I have.

Responsible grazing can and does improve land but you never hear about that, probably never see it either.  People just buy into the tired old line of over grazing and welfare ranching.  I see a lot of misinformed hunters on here buying into the same tired old lines.  If overgrazing is happening then ask the BLM, DNR, USFWS responsible for that particular area whats up.  There are ranchers who've been running the same property for generations and some of them perhaps get a little lax on making sure the cattle don't sit in one spot too long, the BLM or whomever needs to make sure that isn't happening too. 

Some of the best deer hunting is in cattle grazed leases, the fall grasses will green up and there'll be a new growth for the deer, then in the winter months they'll paw trough it.  Cattle make nice trails through the brush allowing the rabbits, deer and other critters better access instead of just having a jungle of old rot that doesn't renew without a massive fire..cattle also reduce fire loads.  So in don't know where you get your information but perhaps you could study up on it.

[Boss .300 winmag]

The grazing fee is just that ...  a fee to graze your cattle a fee to compensate for the damage and food eaten and loss of the resource that is owned by you and me.
they are basically running business for profit and not paying into the system for their share of the added damage the cattle create and the reduction of the resource.

That's not true at all, if it were the grazing fee's would be a lot higher.  The fee is to offset infrastructure work that goes along with having cattle.  The fee's are to do projects like putting in additional water sources, fencing off stream beds to prevent erosion or fencing out critical habitat like wet land areas.  All of these things benefit wildlife as a whole, in dry areas putting in a water tank helps out everything from antelope to elk, you name it.  Even frogs, snakes and birds as the water can create a tiny wetland oasis.  The grazing contracts today have property improvement projects right in the contract, have you read any?  I have.

Responsible grazing can and does improve land but you never hear about that, probably never see it either.  People just buy into the tired old line of over grazing and welfare ranching.  I see a lot of misinformed hunters on here buying into the same tired old lines.  If overgrazing is happening then ask the BLM, DNR, USFWS responsible for that particular area whats up.  There are ranchers who've been running the same property for generations and some of them perhaps get a little lax on making sure the cattle don't sit in one spot too long, the BLM or whomever needs to make sure that isn't happening too. 

Some of the best deer hunting is in cattle grazed leases, the fall grasses will green up and there'll be a new growth for the deer, then in the winter months they'll paw trough it.  Cattle make nice trails through the brush allowing the rabbits, deer and other critters better access instead of just having a jungle of old rot that doesn't renew without a massive fire..cattle also reduce fire loads.  So in don't know where you get your information but perhaps you could study up on it.

 

I’ve been in areas that were a total waste land due to lack of water, but the rancher had installed a trough for water supplied from a spring, thus water was stored for all types of fauna, instead of just running down hill and evaporating into thin air where nothing could benefit from it. 

[idahohuntr]

Some one with a ranching background may be able to clarify.
My understanding that the first iterations for the "fee" was not rent. It was mined collected to help develop the range land with water sources and such.

Belive it or not I appear to side with the Bundies because I would have loved to see discussion property rights.

Some questions I have not heard addressed that are the core of my issue.
Do you have to pay "rent" if you already have the right? If it's not rent what is it? When you pay $ you do so in consideration of some one else doing some thing.

I haven't done exhausted research on the issue which is why I would have liked the discussion to have revolved around it. It has not, and I've state my opinions why.

It's quite possible my writing skills have failed to express my understanding of the lifecycle of contracts, and the nature of property rights. Especially how they are different today because for 99% of us they have been reset several times. I Belive the Bundies may have been the 1%.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

You keep stating the Bundy's have rights on public land that simply never existed.  This is why they owe millions and have numerous court orders against them. 

There is no big property rights implication here.  It is extremely simple: his cow were trespassing, he was told to get them off the land since he didn't want to pay for a new grazing permit, and he refused to do so. 

He's probably really fortunate the land he was trespassing on was the federal governments...if it was another private landowner this clown of a family would probably be laying in some shallow graves in the Nevada desert somewhere. 

There are no legally recognized inherited grazing rights, preemptive rights, special rights, or grandfathered public-domain land-use rights held by the Bundy family or Bundy's ancestors. Bundy lost his special-rights arguments in the United States v. Bundy cases. Bundy had only base property and normal AUM grazing-allotment permits, like the permits of thousands of other ranchers throughout the western United States. The court found that Bundy and his father actually first began grazing their cattle on the Bunkerville Allotment in 1954 and used it for several years. They paid for cattle grazing again from 1973 until 1993, when Bundy paid the last fees for his final grazing application for the period from December 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993. On January 24, 1994, the Bureau of Land Management delivered a Proposed Decision Order to Remove and Demand for Payment to Bundy by placing it on the dashboard of Bundy's vehicle while he was in the vehicle. BLM officials allege that Bundy became agitated, descended from his truck and accused the BLM of harassing him. He then returned to his truck, threw the proposed order out of the window and drove away. One of Bundy's sons then picked up the document, tore it to pieces and threw it on the ground. On February 17, 1994, the BLM issued a final decision canceling Bundy's range-grazing permit. Bundy subsequently informed the BLM in several administrative notices that he intended to graze cattle "pursuant to my vested grazing rights". Bundy failed to demonstrate the existence of any such special rights when given an opportunity to do so in court.

And here is the actual court order spelling this all out.
https://www.scribd.com/document/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXIS-23835

[bigtex]

Some one with a ranching background may be able to clarify.
My understanding that the first iterations for the "fee" was not rent. It was mined collected to help develop the range land with water sources and such.

Belive it or not I appear to side with the Bundies because I would have loved to see discussion property rights.

Some questions I have not heard addressed that are the core of my issue.
Do you have to pay "rent" if you already have the right? If it's not rent what is it? When you pay $ you do so in consideration of some one else doing some thing.

I haven't done exhausted research on the issue which is why I would have liked the discussion to have revolved around it. It has not, and I've state my opinions why.

It's quite possible my writing skills have failed to express my understanding of the lifecycle of contracts, and the nature of property rights. Especially how they are different today because for 99% of us they have been reset several times. I Belive the Bundies may have been the 1%.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

You keep stating the Bundy's have rights on public land that simply never existed.  This is why they owe millions and have numerous court orders against them. 

There is no big property rights implication here.  It is extremely simple: his cow were trespassing, he was told to get them off the land since he didn't want to pay for a new grazing permit, and he refused to do so. 

He's probably really fortunate the land he was trespassing on was the federal governments...if it was another private landowner this clown of a family would probably be laying in some shallow graves in the Nevada desert somewhere. 

There are no legally recognized inherited grazing rights, preemptive rights, special rights, or grandfathered public-domain land-use rights held by the Bundy family or Bundy's ancestors. Bundy lost his special-rights arguments in the United States v. Bundy cases. Bundy had only base property and normal AUM grazing-allotment permits, like the permits of thousands of other ranchers throughout the western United States. The court found that Bundy and his father actually first began grazing their cattle on the Bunkerville Allotment in 1954 and used it for several years. They paid for cattle grazing again from 1973 until 1993, when Bundy paid the last fees for his final grazing application for the period from December 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993. On January 24, 1994, the Bureau of Land Management delivered a Proposed Decision Order to Remove and Demand for Payment to Bundy by placing it on the dashboard of Bundy's vehicle while he was in the vehicle. BLM officials allege that Bundy became agitated, descended from his truck and accused the BLM of harassing him. He then returned to his truck, threw the proposed order out of the window and drove away. One of Bundy's sons then picked up the document, tore it to pieces and threw it on the ground. On February 17, 1994, the BLM issued a final decision canceling Bundy's range-grazing permit. Bundy subsequently informed the BLM in several administrative notices that he intended to graze cattle "pursuant to my vested grazing rights". Bundy failed to demonstrate the existence of any such special rights when given an opportunity to do so in court.

And here is the actual court order spelling this all out.
https://www.scribd.com/document/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXIS-23835

Bundy keeps saying their relatives grazed on the land so they should be able to. Well should I go back to the family farm my gramps had in the 20s and take up stake? Most of you would probably laugh and say no, well it's the same thing for Bundy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[farmin4u_98948]

Soooooooo.  When the Bundys act outside of the rules set forth by the Federal Government they are wrong.  But.  When Natives act n accordance it’s their federal laws. Treaty Laws. They are wrong too.   Consistency  fellow HW members. And no. It’s not apples and oranges.      there are huge similarities.   Do I have any experience in this.  Yes. Working with my uncle in south central Oregon. Watching the fed government take over State land. Understanding that the Bundys war was against the feds. Not the State.  Look carefully. The states are locked in a loosing struggle with the feds.   Lots more I could say.  The Bundys are a pawn in States vs Feds.  Sorry. RATTLE AND RANT.

[idahohuntr]

Soooooooo.  When the Bundys act outside of the rules set forth by the Federal Government they are wrong.  But.  When Natives act n accordance it’s their federal laws. Treaty Laws. They are wrong too.   Consistency  fellow HW members. And no. It’s not apples and oranges.      there are huge similarities.   Do I have any experience in this.  Yes. Working with my uncle in south central Oregon. Watching the fed government take over State land. Understanding that the Bundys war was against the feds. Not the State.  Look carefully. The states are locked in a loosing struggle with the feds.   Lots more I could say.  The Bundys are a pawn in States vs Feds.  Sorry. RATTLE AND RANT.

Your mention of treaties has no bearing on this case.  Many tribes in the Northwest have treaties with the United States...in exchange for land they reserved many rights including fishing and hunting.

The Bundys do not have any treaty with the US...sorry, but it is apples and oranges.

[NW SURVEYOR]

Farming 4U states that the "Feds" are taking over "State" land in Oregon.
As a surveyor in WA, OR and ID I seriously doubt this is indeed fact.

As for Bundy, all this clown had to do was pay his grazing fees like any other responsible rancher and things would have been fine.
No, this idiot wants sell the ides that some sort of "Prescriptive Right" has ripened which is not the case.
There is no provision for Adverse Possession or Prescriptive Right against the sovereign AKA, The United States Government.
This is how the BLM, FS and the US Government protects "Our" land from the likes of Mr. Bundy.

I can see the day when Bundy would put up "No Trespassing" signs on land that he does not own.
Imagine suing an area for 20 years and then posting it as your own.
This is stealing from the rest of the people in the country.

Bundy has used the land for free, refused to pay his bill and cost the taxpayers of this country millions of dollars with his BS.
He is not a hero, he is a thief and no better than someone ripping of the government by collecting welfare while able to work.
The whole families a joke.

[h20hunter]

Yyyyyyyuuup!