Tyranny
- Thread starter RankeCattleCo
- Start date
Help Support Steer Planet:
RyanChandler
Well-known member
I hope I get the same support when I continue to allow my cattle to graze on others' land and refuse to remove them. As a matter of fact, anyone living around the metroplex- I have some yearling heifers I'd like to bring over -at your expense of course- I'll come back and pick up their calves when they're weaned- surely you won't mind?
trevorgreycattleco
Well-known member
While I agree if you're not paying your bills you shouldn't be allowed to freeload. From what I can find, he was trying to pay his fees but it wasn't being accepted. Once all the actual facts come out I think we can come to a better opinion of what should happen.
XBAR -
Better yet, let's load our cattle up and take them out west for the summer and dump them out on Forest Service or BLM Land. God knows we'd have been better off doing that in the summer of 2011 than spending dumptrucks full of money feeding them during the drought.
But you know who the first ones to raise hell would be - the ranchers that have those public land grazing leases. They would catch us and run us off much quicker than the federal agency employees would.
But once that confrontation goes nuclear, the feds would show up and try to break it up. When they do that, we could get our unemployed, white trash distant relatives - who draw their various types of monthly government checks - rounded up to protest against the government. Even though they are perfectly healthy enough to dog cuss the agency employees and beat on their vehicles, they could show dismay at being pushed or tazed by those said agency employees because they used to have throat cancer. (In case anyone think's I've lost my mind there's a YouTube video making its way around of a protest grown awry this week).
There is a world of difference between this case and the justifiable complaints many ranchers have against federal land agencies that are restricting cattle grazing on public lands because of other competing land uses. But the reality is many of the areas that pressure is occurring on are marginal for cattle grazing at best. This guy is ranching northeast of Las Vegas. Anybody ever been to Las Vegas? I know when I've been my first though is that this is great ranching country....
If you want to make changes in this country for the better, you can't act just as philosophiclaly radical as the people you hate. The vast majority of the population in the middle ground doesn't like radicals on either side.
Better yet, let's load our cattle up and take them out west for the summer and dump them out on Forest Service or BLM Land. God knows we'd have been better off doing that in the summer of 2011 than spending dumptrucks full of money feeding them during the drought.
But you know who the first ones to raise hell would be - the ranchers that have those public land grazing leases. They would catch us and run us off much quicker than the federal agency employees would.
But once that confrontation goes nuclear, the feds would show up and try to break it up. When they do that, we could get our unemployed, white trash distant relatives - who draw their various types of monthly government checks - rounded up to protest against the government. Even though they are perfectly healthy enough to dog cuss the agency employees and beat on their vehicles, they could show dismay at being pushed or tazed by those said agency employees because they used to have throat cancer. (In case anyone think's I've lost my mind there's a YouTube video making its way around of a protest grown awry this week).
There is a world of difference between this case and the justifiable complaints many ranchers have against federal land agencies that are restricting cattle grazing on public lands because of other competing land uses. But the reality is many of the areas that pressure is occurring on are marginal for cattle grazing at best. This guy is ranching northeast of Las Vegas. Anybody ever been to Las Vegas? I know when I've been my first though is that this is great ranching country....
If you want to make changes in this country for the better, you can't act just as philosophiclaly radical as the people you hate. The vast majority of the population in the middle ground doesn't like radicals on either side.
knabe
Well-known member
-XBAR- said:
Like illegal aliens. Your selective enforcement of the law to fit your values is consistent with inconsistency. What a joke.
knabe
Well-known member
With pure democracy, one doesn't need representatives and the law changes with each election.
trevorgreycattleco
Well-known member
I don't know how it could be done on a ownership deal, but I'd love to see all federal lands opened up for high density, short term grazing by multi species. Don't destroy those resources, rather make them better. I read a while back the Appalachian mountains are loosing trees at a alarming rate. This article claimed it was from sitting idle so long with no disturbances.
Why does the federal govt own so much land anyway? With the agenda for much more?
This Bundy ranch thing could be a tipping point. Bait the militia out into a confrontation, then enact martial law for the safety of us all.
Why does the federal govt own so much land anyway? With the agenda for much more?
This Bundy ranch thing could be a tipping point. Bait the militia out into a confrontation, then enact martial law for the safety of us all.
knabe
Well-known member
trevorgreycattleco said:
for the children.
it simply isn't necessary for the federal government to own so much land, especially at the percentages west of the meridian.
it's irresponsible of the progressive greenies to advocate for any population increase by any means.
their continued used of watershed grabs at the expense of farming will inevitably lead to reliance to other countries for food. food inflation is out of control, and with it's movement overseas, so will it's poison.
We learned in junior high and high school American history classes why the federal government owns lots of land west of the Mississippi River. It's not a recent conspiracy or "Goverment getting bigger". It was how manifest destiny was brought about. The Federal government acquired a lot of it during the Louisiana Purchase and other portions - particularly the desert southwest - through the treaty following the Mexican-American War. So in essence, the Federal Government has always owned that land. As different federal agencies have evolved over time, the federal lands have been divided up among agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service.
The federal government transferred portions of those original land acquisitions to private and state ownership through a variety of programs such as the various types of Homestead Acts, federal land grants to industry such as the railroads, etc.
In this particular case, I think the Bundy's claim they had some type of agreement with the Mexican Government. The Mormon's first migrated to Utah at right about the same time period as the Mexican-American War, so any agreement between the Bundy ancestors and the Mexican Government would have been extremely short-lived. Being on the losing side of a war is a bad deal. People that have agreements with the losers tend to wind up on the short end of a stick. If you'll remember your history lessons - the Mormons did not want to be part of the U.S. and have always had a contentious relationship with the U.S. government since that first migration.
For most of our country's history, essentially nobody wanted the arid federal lands. Legitimate early cattle ranchers bought the good stuff - remember the early wars about barbed-wire, etc and fencing in the open range. Back in those days, the big ranchers worked very hard to keep the little guys out. Read about the Johnson County War in Wyoming. Don't think for a second the same stuff doesn't still go on with competition for public grazing leases.
There are lots of competing land uses on public land in the west - cattle, logging, mining, recreation, and hunting. Every single one thinks they are the most important and the federal land agencies get sued by all of them. They literally can't win and they can't please everyone. Out of all of them, cattle grazing generates the least revenue and least amount of jobs - so yes they do get squeezed. Cattle grazing can happen in almost every part of the U.S. Logging and mining can't, western hunting can't (mule deer, elk, etc). It's really that simple as to why grazing gets squeezed.
The federal government transferred portions of those original land acquisitions to private and state ownership through a variety of programs such as the various types of Homestead Acts, federal land grants to industry such as the railroads, etc.
In this particular case, I think the Bundy's claim they had some type of agreement with the Mexican Government. The Mormon's first migrated to Utah at right about the same time period as the Mexican-American War, so any agreement between the Bundy ancestors and the Mexican Government would have been extremely short-lived. Being on the losing side of a war is a bad deal. People that have agreements with the losers tend to wind up on the short end of a stick. If you'll remember your history lessons - the Mormons did not want to be part of the U.S. and have always had a contentious relationship with the U.S. government since that first migration.
For most of our country's history, essentially nobody wanted the arid federal lands. Legitimate early cattle ranchers bought the good stuff - remember the early wars about barbed-wire, etc and fencing in the open range. Back in those days, the big ranchers worked very hard to keep the little guys out. Read about the Johnson County War in Wyoming. Don't think for a second the same stuff doesn't still go on with competition for public grazing leases.
There are lots of competing land uses on public land in the west - cattle, logging, mining, recreation, and hunting. Every single one thinks they are the most important and the federal land agencies get sued by all of them. They literally can't win and they can't please everyone. Out of all of them, cattle grazing generates the least revenue and least amount of jobs - so yes they do get squeezed. Cattle grazing can happen in almost every part of the U.S. Logging and mining can't, western hunting can't (mule deer, elk, etc). It's really that simple as to why grazing gets squeezed.
knabe said:
Knabe - It isn't necessary for the federal government to own so much land in the west, but they do and a whole bunch of people - like me - want them to continue to own it. I like to be able get in my truck and go to Colorado/Wyoming/Montana, etc and go camping/fishing in the summer or hunting in the fall without having to pay anybody to get on their property. If you don't like the federal government owning land, you really should move to Europe where all land is privately owned. Many, many conservative Americans like the idea of there being land where anybody can go and pretty much do what you want to within very broad rules.
If the feds put that land up for sale, it would be bought by very large companies - probably a lot of them with foreign money - and 99% of us would be shut off from using it for anything.
knabe
Well-known member
there's plenty of parks everywhere. the federal government is in collusion with nature conservancy and others to to keep property and inheritance tax high to integrate adjoining properties into parks.
the government and the nature conservancy don't want people on the land. all you have to do is ask them.
the government and the nature conservancy don't want people on the land. all you have to do is ask them.
RankeCattleCo
Well-known member
They need all that land to use as collateral on foreign debts 
knabe
Well-known member
chambero said:
the big companies own it now. they don't have enough money to buy it all. one could put a restriction, similar to the homestead act that one had to be a direct user of the land. pretty simple to solve these problems instead of the continual government solution.
it's so hard to figure this stuff out. i guess one will never know what land would sell to people if it isn't offered for sale. pathetic. my great grandfather purchased some of this so-called arid land "nobody" wanted. he built berms, collected soil and today, that useless ground grows wheat and pasture and trees and continues to collect topsoil. sad people's perspective that only government has the monopoly on solutions.
we pray to the federal government for our bounty
we give it to them because we don't deserve it
only the federal government knows how to distribute it
they decide how to squeeze it and make it pop like a zit
with it's bounty spreading equally to everyone in the county.
knabe
Well-known member
the plague of humanity and why there can be no defendable position of environmentalism except the total and complete elimination of humans unless they eat food as an animal does. diametrically opposed positions of population control and uncontrolled immigration must clutter the mind.
http://www.alexmaclean.com/#
http://www.alexmaclean.com/#
Chambero -- Re: your comment above --
Knabe - It isn't necessary for the federal government to own so much land in the west, but they do and a whole bunch of people - like me - want them to continue to own it. I like to be able get in my truck and go to Colorado/Wyoming/Montana, etc and go camping/fishing in the summer or hunting in the fall without having to pay anybody to get on their property. If you don't like the federal government owning land, you really should move to Europe where all land is privately owned. Many, many conservative Americans like the idea of there being land where anybody can go and pretty much do what you want to within very broad rules.
If the feds put that land up for sale, it would be bought by very large companies - probably a lot of them with foreign money - and 99% of us would be shut off from using it for anything.
I think all of us that make a living or recreate on government land enjoy our freedom to do that. Right now, most of the recreation access is pretty secure. However, it is government land and is managed in accordance with political whims. The environmental organizations support elimination of all competing claims such as unpatented mining claims, ditch easements to convey water from federal ground to adjacent private lands, leases for cabins where the structure is owned by private individuals, public roads owned by counties under R.S. 2477, grazing preference rights (what the permits are based on). They have pretty much stopped most timber sales, they continually oppose counties claims to R.S. 2477 roads, they have pushed for laws to drastically increase the reporting requirements and annual fees for holding unpatented mining claims and making it an unfeasible as possible to actually work a mining claim through additional paperwork for "compliance," and have continually made it more costly and less feasible to continue livestock grazing. Once they run out of claims to extinguish on the federal ground, do you honestly think your recreational use is going to be preserved? I would not count on it over the long term. Also, the land would become more valuable for sale purposes if all outstanding claims under prior laws were extinguished. Is extinguishment of claims for the environment or is it to prepare it for sale? Either way, there is a lack of disclosure and honesty about the true purpose of all the commotion. Your free recreational use is ultimately at risk.
Knabe - It isn't necessary for the federal government to own so much land in the west, but they do and a whole bunch of people - like me - want them to continue to own it. I like to be able get in my truck and go to Colorado/Wyoming/Montana, etc and go camping/fishing in the summer or hunting in the fall without having to pay anybody to get on their property. If you don't like the federal government owning land, you really should move to Europe where all land is privately owned. Many, many conservative Americans like the idea of there being land where anybody can go and pretty much do what you want to within very broad rules.
If the feds put that land up for sale, it would be bought by very large companies - probably a lot of them with foreign money - and 99% of us would be shut off from using it for anything.
I think all of us that make a living or recreate on government land enjoy our freedom to do that. Right now, most of the recreation access is pretty secure. However, it is government land and is managed in accordance with political whims. The environmental organizations support elimination of all competing claims such as unpatented mining claims, ditch easements to convey water from federal ground to adjacent private lands, leases for cabins where the structure is owned by private individuals, public roads owned by counties under R.S. 2477, grazing preference rights (what the permits are based on). They have pretty much stopped most timber sales, they continually oppose counties claims to R.S. 2477 roads, they have pushed for laws to drastically increase the reporting requirements and annual fees for holding unpatented mining claims and making it an unfeasible as possible to actually work a mining claim through additional paperwork for "compliance," and have continually made it more costly and less feasible to continue livestock grazing. Once they run out of claims to extinguish on the federal ground, do you honestly think your recreational use is going to be preserved? I would not count on it over the long term. Also, the land would become more valuable for sale purposes if all outstanding claims under prior laws were extinguished. Is extinguishment of claims for the environment or is it to prepare it for sale? Either way, there is a lack of disclosure and honesty about the true purpose of all the commotion. Your free recreational use is ultimately at risk.
knabe
Well-known member
GoWyo said:
as slow as necessary to eliminate access. since the ultimate goal is less access, there is no movement towards more access, with the end game being no access.
the needle keeps moving slowly.
knabe
Well-known member
here's the government helping. seems to me the person who owes this debt is the person who made the mistake and their family members. the television mainstream media is the most irresponsible check on government in the entire history of mankind. they serve absolutely no purpose any more. they are simply the communication arm of the democrat party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/social-security-treasury-target-hundreds-of-thousands-of-taxpayers-for-parents-old-debts/2014/04/10/74ac8eae-bf4d-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_print.html
The Treasury Department has intercepted $1.9 billion in tax refunds already this year — $75 million of that on debts delinquent for more than 10 years, said Jeffrey Schramek, assistant commissioner of the department’s debt management service. The aggressive effort to collect old debts started three years ago — the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam.
funny how that works. just change the rules. why anyone should respect this government is beyond me.
i have nothing but contempt for my government.
they are the devil in almost every way.
yet we keep electing them and let non-elected people write the law and then the elected people vote on it without EVERY READING THE BILL OR LETTING THE PUBLIC READ THE BILL.
it's past time for a revolution. anyone who has the gall to reflexively stand up for our government is completely insane.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/social-security-treasury-target-hundreds-of-thousands-of-taxpayers-for-parents-old-debts/2014/04/10/74ac8eae-bf4d-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_print.html
The Treasury Department has intercepted $1.9 billion in tax refunds already this year — $75 million of that on debts delinquent for more than 10 years, said Jeffrey Schramek, assistant commissioner of the department’s debt management service. The aggressive effort to collect old debts started three years ago — the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam.
funny how that works. just change the rules. why anyone should respect this government is beyond me.
i have nothing but contempt for my government.
they are the devil in almost every way.
yet we keep electing them and let non-elected people write the law and then the elected people vote on it without EVERY READING THE BILL OR LETTING THE PUBLIC READ THE BILL.
it's past time for a revolution. anyone who has the gall to reflexively stand up for our government is completely insane.
trevorgreycattleco
Well-known member
I agree 100% with knabe here. He speaks the truth
Knabe:
You use the word revolution. What about your life sucks so bad that other people should die or that you are ready for, right now? Because that's what the word means.
If your life is that bad you to change something.
Calm down and be thankful for what you do have.
You use the word revolution. What about your life sucks so bad that other people should die or that you are ready for, right now? Because that's what the word means.
If your life is that bad you to change something.
Calm down and be thankful for what you do have.
knabe
Well-known member
The left from Wilson to Obama had a revolution. They weren't thankful with what they had. They wanted what others had. they developed an entire infrastructure around community organization to create a perpetually jealous and divisive strategy to steal the fruits of others labor and use speech control like at Mozilla to enforce their tyranny.
Why I should accept that. There's no need for violence.
There's plenty that sucks, the least of which is people constantly telling me what I should think or be thankful for. There's also plenty that doesn't suck, but our government is out of control.
Why I should accept that. There's no need for violence.
There's plenty that sucks, the least of which is people constantly telling me what I should think or be thankful for. There's also plenty that doesn't suck, but our government is out of control.
