It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Bundy Ranch Conspiracy Debunked

page: 7
28
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:04 PM

seaez

So you agree with the figures?

Looking at the income side, the FBM records from 2010 indicate the average weight of calves sold at weaning time was 594 pounds. Using a current price of \$158 per hundredweight (cwt) for 600 pound cattle and rounding the weight off at 600 pounds means a weaned calf value of \$948. But to accurately determine the cost of the cow, he said, you must also consider the eventual price the cow will bring once she is culled from the herd and the longevity of the cow in the herd.

Using information from the CHAPS (Cow Herd Appraisal Performance Software) program of the N.D. Beef Cattle Improvement Association, the average cow age in the state is 5.7 years, which means the average number of calf crops per cow is 4.7, since she doesn't calf that first year. Current cull prices would pay \$70 per cwt., which would come to \$910 for a 1300 pound cow.

The various figures are now ready to be gathered together and the value of the cow determined:

Income 4.7 calf crops @ \$948/ year = \$4455.60
Cull cow sale = \$910.00
Total income with 3 percent death loss adjustment = \$5204.63
Expenses Pasture for 4.7 years @ \$216/year = \$1015.20 Winter feed for 4.7 years @ \$252/year = \$1184.40 Yardage for 4.7 years @\$90/year = \$423.00 Total expenses = \$2622.60

Net income over life of cow = \$2582.03

If a producer would like to realize a profit of \$200 per head each year that would be an additional cost of \$940 over the life of the cow, meaning that the value to pay for a bred heifer would be \$1642.03.

Net Income over life of cow * # of cow lifetimes in 20 years * # of cows (900) is over 6.5 million
That does sound about right. Now ... what happens to the 6.5 mil? How many people do you have to divide that up by? How much has to be saved for the inheritance tax? Ad nauseum.

\$6.5M ain't jack squat over 20 years. How much is the host of The Young Turks making ... and contrast that with the work he does, by the efforts of the Bundy's, and by what the consumer gets from it. If I'm not making my point clearly, we need to talk about something completely different.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:09 PM

Really what it comes down to is this. We are speaking a foreign language to them. To them, work is go to some office or something for 8 hours, work 7 of them, and go home. Maybe a bit of overtime once in a while, if you are lucky enough to have a job that offers it. Working the land, or raising animals is really a sun up to sun down kind of thing, and even more sometimes when you are having issues, like predators, or even human interference. Not to mention when something goes wrong, like a machine dieing on you, replacing farming machinery is a huge expense.
edit on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:10:43 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:14 PM

Bundy a "good American?" maybe not, but he certainly seems to be an upstanding Nevadan. When you get down to brass tacks, all that rah-rah America bullcrap means so much less than having involvement and pride at the state level.

I see the Bundy incident as a wonderful tool that has exposed some serious problems with the federal government.
1. The feds claim ownership of 86% of the land in Nevada. Are you flipping kidding me? The US federal government should own only the land which is directly tied to military bases, federal courthouses, and federal agency offices (and to be honest, they should simply lease those.) Those cockroaches owning 86% of a state is beyond offensive and completely flies in the face of the idea of "A union of STATES."
2. The BLM brought military power to deal with a domestic issue. That is a great example of unjust force and, being completely honest here, I am thrilled to see their unjust force met by armed citizens willing (and eager) to equalize the sides. This is a court matter, not a military matter. It should have started and stopped with a couple of BLM agents in their spiffy little city suits contacting the county sheriff to accompany them on issuance of a property lien. If the sheriff refused, tough crap for the BLM, back to court to force the sheriff to either comply or sit as an honest judge questioned how in the world the BLM has any authority over that much land.
3. It just ammounted to a feel good story, even if the ultimate result won't be a Bundy victory, it feels damn good to see the feds turn tail. Especially seeing them do so in such a Keystone Cops manner. My God, talk about a collective that lost major face in a public altercation! They entered the fray with a bit of swagger and crawled out with their pants around their ankles.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:48 PM

seaez

Snarl

I owned more cattle than Bundy. Believe me, I didn't get rich. You can make a good living ... but you'll work your butt off doing it. Why should the government get more of a cut off your cattle than the taxes you pay after taking them to market? The grazing fees they're after are just another tax used for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

You owned cows, do the numbers at the link below jive? Because that has him with over \$2 million dollars of cattle on federal lands, more if you take into account the economic reality of him grazing his cattle off federal lands and not paying for it:

www.farmandranchguide.com...

In this case, rich rancher making money off of federal lands - I agree with the wealth redistribution, as in him paying for his fair share of the land. If the land is so horrible why would he want his cows there? Why not allow another rancher who is willing to pay the grazing fees?

so all his cattle feed only on grass and shrubs? nothing else? no hay or grain?

do they have cow doctors and take care of themselves?

are they free range? what's it cost to raise 1 cow for market?

then they go to a feed yard before market. that costs.

anyway, the 2mil estimate is just that, on the hoof. don't you minus costs?

cattle are not free money.

i don't know if he broke laws that would warrant such a response from the feds, but i doubt it. what did it cost the feds?

he owes money? put a dam lean on his actual property!

edit on 3054584930pm2014 by tsingtao because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:57 PM

Snarl

Here's the telling bottom line from your source document. You need look no further.

If a producer would like to realize a profit of \$200 per head each year

Nobody really gets rich off of raising cattle. You 'can' make a lot of money off a self-sustaining ranch, but it is the hardest work I have ever done in my entire life ... and there is Tremendous financial risk for the rancher (Mother Nature can be harder on you than the government ... and nobody cares).

There are far easier ways of making money. Bundy knows he's just too old to move away and start a new endeavor. Somebody in one of these threads said, "Unstoppable force -vs- immovable object" ... and that's really what we have here. It's not doing anyone any good ... and over what? Bundy's million \$50K/year fee ... that the government would blow in less than 5 minutes?

People were ready to kill over this because the government made a mountain out of a molehill. Something's just broke!!

yeah, people think it's easy money.

even a riding stable is hard work. lol!

any ATS'rs ever lose an arm in a combine?

right outside my place i got 2 old ladies out in their gardens at 6 am every morning taking care of their plants and veggies and they don't even move around!

these city dwellers haven't a clue what it takes to put food on their table.

edit on 30290041030pm2014 by tsingtao because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:22 PM

Net Income over life of cow * # of cow lifetimes in 20 years * # of cows (900) is over 6.5 million
That does sound about right. Now ... what happens to the 6.5 mil? How many people do you have to divide that up by? How much has to be saved for the inheritance tax? Ad nauseum.

\$6.5M ain't jack squat over 20 years. How much is the host of The Young Turks making ... and contrast that with the work he does, by the efforts of the Bundy's, and by what the consumer gets from it. If I'm not making my point clearly, we need to talk about something completely different.

\$6.5M is not jack squat over 20 years, but regardless that isn't Bundy's only land, he has private land. My issue is his sense of entitlement and the \$6.5M made on Federal land, over grazing it by a factor of 10 times (per a lawsuit claim) without paying the \$1M in fees over the 20 years to use the Federal land.

How much did his father pay? His father's father? Him up until 1994?

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:54 PM

seaez
My issue is his sense of entitlement and the \$6.5M made on Federal land, over grazing it by a factor of 10 times (per a lawsuit claim) without paying the \$1M in fees over the 20 years to use the Federal land.

If you want to be offended by some dude out in the middle of the desert, I have no problem with that. We're just members of a forum with differing perspective. My perspective was developed from first-hand experience, and I know cattle.

Cattle are lazy. They won't overgraze. They'll move. That's what they do. As they go about their business they actually improve the land. They don't step on turtles and they don't cost the taxpayer a nickel until you find them in the supermarket or the drive-thru window of Burger King.

Harry Reid's \$5 billion dollar deal with the Chinese and the lack of involvement by the governor and local sheriff ... these things cause me concern. Government thugs throwing grown women to the ground, dressing out in combat gear, threats of shooting groups of Americans, riling up militias nationwide ... over some damned grass ...

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:07 PM

buster2010

burntheships

Really, then I suppose you are going to take a stand against the BLM for
going beyond the law as they killed cattle, destroyed protected Desert
Tortoise burrows...destroyed property without a legal ground to stand on?

On a Friday night conference call, BLM officials told reporters that "illegal structures" on Bundy's ranch -- water tanks, water lines and corrals -- had to be removed to "restore" the land to its natural state and prevent the rancher from restarting his illegal cattle operation.

However, the court order used to justify the operation appears only to give the agency the authority to "seize and impound" Bundy's cattle.

"Nowhere in the court order that I saw does it say that they can destroy infrastructure, destroy corrals, tanks ... desert environment, shoot cattle," Houston said
.

url

www.sfgate.com...
edit on 16-4-2014 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Were these structures on federal land or Bundy's land? Bundy likes to claim this land as his which it isn't but if it was on federal land then they have a right to tear them down without court order. You may want to reread your second link because it in no way supports Bundy.
Bundy has never claimed the land was his. In every interview, he clearly states it's not his land. Post some proof of you claim.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:07 PM
Some folks on this thread need to do some serious research into food production and the costs of food production. If you think a rancher running a thousand head of cattle on the free range desert is a multimillionaire, I've got a real deal for you.... If you think a rancher is one of the corporate-elite...you need to do a bit of research. Ted Turner is a corporate-elite rancher. Mr. Bundy just ain't in his golf club, I'd bettcha! If you think dealing with federal alphabet agencies is like dealing with your local property valuation administration, you've got a lot to learn.
If you've never been involved with a lawsuit against a government agency, you have no idea---no clue---can't imagine---how much paper those agencies can generate. If you have one lawyer, they have at least three and all three are simply looking to draw the suit out as long as possible in the hope that you will run out of money to pay lawyers. It's a really effective tactic. Judges often dismiss claims for that very reason---to be rid of the case---or just to kick it up another level.
This incident reminds me of the old Popeye cartoons where the big, burly bully cast his eyes on Olive Oyl in a lustful gaze. Then his small brain tells him that Popeye is the only thing standing between him and that vision of loveliness so he proceeds to beat the stuffing out of Popeye repeatedly.
In this case Mr. Bundy's "can of spinach" was the community that gathered to stand with him. He chased the bully away....for now...with the help of his friends and neighbors---the "spinach" that helped him punch out the bullies.
When I saw the support of his neighbors and friends, I had no hesitation in trusting him. If the people who live and work and play with him say he's doing right for all, I'll believe them. I believe he sees the future if good, honest people like him don't stand up like my Pappy used to say, "Rear up on your hind legs and fight!"
To be able to draw that many supporters to your side for a fight against the most powerful force on earth? What sort of man could command that amount of respect in his community? This is a community, not a collection of people who moved to this location because it's a trendy place to live. They live there because they love the land and the life it has given the community. They know that when bad things happen the only people on which they can depend are their family, friends and neighbors---not some alphabet agency. We're talking about a sparsely populated area already and driving the last rancher in the county out of business was just a little too much for them. This is not some cult of people like Waco. This is a community of people who came out to support him in his fight against the treatment he's gotten from his "public servants" and they said they'd had enough.
This man didn't go down to the local union hall and pay people to climb onto buses and travel to his ranch. From the "on the scenes" reports I'm hearing via radio and some videos emerging, everyone who showed up there did so because they believe in him and his fight. They believe he sees the bigger picture; they share his view of what looks like a future of slavery for his grandchildren. They want to change that picture.
I'm quite sure the man isn't a saint. He's a man trying to make a living and build a future for his offspring. His only problem is that he didn't model his parenting on the Harry Reid style. Little Harry's made sure his offspring are good for a few hundred years.

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:28 AM

Errr....cattle DO overgraze. Any poorly managed livestock animal is capable of overgrazed if they are not properly rotated.

www.eoearth.org...
Beef Mag

In fact, overgrazing by cattle has been the cause of land destruction in many places world wide. Livestock period have negative environmental impacts in most places, due most of the time to non-native animals being introduced to places that can't deal with them, or unsuitable animals for certain types of range.

But that's a whole other argument. The current one is over who is right and who is wrong in this Bundy vs the Feds battle. After days of trying to find unbiased sources of information on this issue, I still don't know who the hell to believe. From what I have gathered thus far, both sides are peopled by complete idiots who are turning this situation into more than it should be.

On one hand, Bundy has been grazing federal land for free. Just because he doesn't like the rules doesn't invalidate them. That he doesn't recognize the federal government's jurisdiction doesn't give him any more leg to stand on. He doesn't own it. His grandpappy signed a deal with the state. Well, the State signed a deal with the feds turning over the land, as is their prerogative. Thus, the feds own the land, and if he wants to use it, he needs to play by their rules. He has been given two decades of warning to GTFO, and has chose to ignore it. So, it's all on him.

On the other hand, what the hell are the feds tripping about? All that land they own in Nevada, since the Cold War, has been used to test every type of nuke and WMD in the U.S. arsenal. They test planes and bombs all over the place, experiment with new technology, and dump the toxic crap anywhere they feel like. Hell, they wanted to turn Yucca mountain into a nuclear/toxic waste dump. Hald the state is downwind of the Test Range, half the place has been poisoned and irradiated. Yet they now are worried about a freaking turtle after they spent half a century wiping out everything but the cockroaches. Really? The federal government has done more in that state to eradicate endangered wildlife than any small time rancher and his couple herds of cows ever could. If the desert tortoise can survive 50 years of nukes, nerve gas, anthrax, and whatever else got dumped in the desert, a few hundred cow hooves aren't going to do much more harm.

Besides, I'm surprised the feds can even get anyone to pay to graze there. Has anyone ever visited that part of Nevada? You'd have to pay me to live there, let alone try and survive running a ranch. The feds, if anything, should be paying HIM to graze that wasteland. Like, pay him money to graze, under the condition he takes part in efforts to try and restore some of the damage the Test Site has already done. I sure as hell don't see anything in the area that I think would be worth 1.6 million dollars worth of fees, even if spread over 20 years.

So really, I hope both sides lose.

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:41 AM

This is exactly why we now see them pushing veganism. It is everywhere recently. It is to support a political agenda.

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:39 AM
All the ignorant left leaning " Oh Bundy is breaking the law!"

Ya'll need to get a grip! For the record, I would much rather be a God fearing, gun toting, beer drinking, flag waving, moral loving, military cheering, Big Government hating, Constitution abiding freedom fighting American; than a left leaning, politically correct, Big government loving , "guns are bad", can't think for myself, tit for tat, skin my dog I'll skin your cat, constitution re writing, flag stomping, power abusing, Progressive, any day of the week!!

Here is what the a Judge said when a similar case came across his bench:

Judge Jones said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.” In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

Notably, the court said, "The Government may not abuse its discretion in refusing to renew, or in revoking, a [grazing] privilege."

Significantly, the family will be under permanent injunctive relief and the government shall not reduce the Hages' permits by more than 25 percent for any period of time without the courts' consent, and never permanently.

Specifically, the court found, "The Government has abused its discretion in the present case through a series of actions designed to strip the [Hage] Estate of its grazing permits, and ultimately to strip Defendants of their ability to use their water rights." He explained, "Substantive due process protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of their liberty by government."

The court further explained, "The Government cannot withdraw them (grazing permits) or refuse to renew them vindictively or for reasons totally unrelated to the merits of the application as governed by published laws and regulations, lest the Government abuse its executive power in a way that shocks the conscience."

the new american

Reid is going to prison along with a whole bunch of others but Cliven Bundy will not be going with them!

Pax

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:13 AM

Mamatus

Second, I have said from the beginning that Bundy had no claim to the land. The entire situation is kind of like having someone let your family live in an extra house they had rent free for 100 years. Then the owner of that house coming back to you and saying that they were happy to loan you the house but times have changed and they would like you to start paying rent to continue to live in that house. Now, instead of gratitude for the last 100 years of rent free living the people that have lived in that house, your entire family and many others, pull out guns and forcibly attempt to steal the house.

Sorry to tell you, but you may be dead wrong.

If Bundy has no claim at all, why did the BLM not not simply take the appropriate legal action and put a lien against the cattle? Why did the BLM attempt to enforce with force?

Answer: It is what is known as "prescriptive rights" or "prescriptive easements"

In most states, if a use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the “owner” of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993 but continued to use the land for over 20 years, so it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land.

Now there have been court orders over the years, however, prior to the August 2013 court order which is what has brought us to the situation we see today there was no legal action of any kind taken since 1998. So that is 15 years that he used the land and the BLM did nothing to enforce and claim trespass. Thus Bundy may indeed have prescriptive rights to the land.

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:18 AM
I figured I might as well add a little more info for all those "Bundy is breaking the law" and "Bundy owes a million in fees" crowd...

Bundy actually never refused to pay grazing fees. He has always claimed that the Federal Government has no claim to the land and therefor he would not pay the BLM. He has always stated that he would be happy to pay grazing fees to Clark Country. Clark County has actually refused payment.

Bundy actually owes about \$200,000 in grazing fees. The remainder of the so called 1.1 million he "owes" the BLM is actually fines and interest.

Just food for thought.

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:32 AM

Olivine

UxoriousMagnus
The Federal Government can not legally own land other than for military forts, compounds and buildings for the establishment of organizations that they need (Courts, Congress, USPS, etc)

They can and do legally own the Federal lands out west. Your constitutional interpretation is outdated, so says the Supreme Court. Do you not recognize the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court, either?

But Bret Birdsong, a professor at the Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and an expert on public land and natural resources litigation, said Bundy's legal arguments that federal rangers and BLM staff have no jurisdiction over the federal lands he uses for ranching "are based on interpretation of the Constitution which has been debunked by the Supreme Court for many years."
"That is clearly not the law," he said.

Source

wow....just wow...

well....first of all.....I thought we were a Constitutional Republic......no?

that means....when there is an organization that can tax or regulate the free people of this country....they must be elected into that post....so if we don't like what is going on....we can get rid of that person and elect someone else.

tell me.....when did we elect the head of the BLM again? I don't recall that vote....must have missed it.

as for the Federal courts upholding the position of the federal government on any issue.....yeah.....suspect at best....

the constitution is there to protect us from the government...so when you see the government saying things like "the constitution is outdated" .... that's when you know you are on the right trail

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:36 AM

buster2010

ScientiaFortisDefendit
Regardless of what the socialist mouthpiece Cenk Uygur says, the ownership of the land is a red herring. The issue that people have is with the massive armed response by the federal government to COWS MUNCHING GRASS.

By the way, CU debunked nothing.
edit on 16-4-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)

This may come as a shock to you but if you keep trespassing on Federal land even after losing in court and you keep trespassing they will eventually do something about it.

Like kill you by firing squad while you're in your own home? Duly noted.

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:36 AM

it's 900 head of cattle on over 600,000 acres......Snarl's view still stands when looking at those numbers......if it was 6,000 head on a 1,000 acres.....then you have a point.

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:51 PM

Mamatus
Found this from Cenk Uygur (Young Turks) on Live Leak this morning. Maybe I am late posting it. Did a quick search of Bundy Ranch and it did not come up. This was a response to the Storm Clouds Gathering conspiracy video recently posted on YouTube and linked here.

Not sure how to embed Live Leak videos here to I will just drop a link. If someone will tell me how to embed it that would be great.

www.liveleak.com...

Now my take on this:

First, I think Cenk to be a pretty upstanding dude when it comes to investigative reporting. Like any other media outlet it is always good to double check the facts being tosses out. So I did and I could find nothing ambiguous or misleading in his facts.

Second, I have said from the beginning that Bundy had no claim to the land. The entire situation is kind of like having someone let your family live in an extra house they had rent free for 100 years. Then the owner of that house coming back to you and saying that they were happy to loan you the house but times have changed and they would like you to start paying rent to continue to live in that house. Now, instead of gratitude for the last 100 years of rent free living the people that have lived in that house, your entire family and many others, pull out guns and forcibly attempt to steal the house.

IMO Bundy is not a good American, he is a trouble making ingrate. It is sad how many people will blindly follow along with him.

Keep in mind I am no fan of BLM as I got screwed over by them pretty hard myself, to the tune of 80k. I am still trying to recover and had I the extra cash I would have eventually won in Court as a local rancher conspired with BLM to remove my legally (and permitted) business from the area. I unlike Bundy did get screwed over. However, the facts remain the same in this case. Bundy has no rights to that land and never did.
edit on 16-4-2014 by Mamatus because: Gwammer and speeeeling

Yes what a scam, why didnt I think of it.

Just go back in time 150 years, settle some land, then have it turn into a state, and give the land the state on the guarantee that your family can keep using it to graze (easement), then have your family care for that land for 150 years, then have the Gov create a new department and break the deal with you, so that you can then not pay their fees.

Man I can not for the life of me figure out why everyone is not doing this?
edit on 17-4-2014 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:16 PM
It;s not debunked. The solar panels are not on directly Bundy's ranch but they need to the ranch as buffer zones to get carbon credits.

Who watches the Turks anyways. Those guys are hardcore partisian leftists. lol
edit on 17-4-2014 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:48 PM

MsAphrodite

This is exactly why we now see them pushing veganism. It is everywhere recently. It is to support a political agenda.

www.prisonplanet.com...

“Hoofed locusts.” That’s how Sierra Cub founder John Muir saw domestic sheep and cattle. It is a term later adopted by Earth First! anarchist and “EcoWarrior” Edward Abbey and other radical enviro-actvists.

A key presenter at the conference was Roy Elicker, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation. Central to Elicker’s message was the point that ranchers could be driven off range, the “public lands”, by simply driving them out of business with costly fees and regulations.

“In other words,” he told the conferees, “if you start making them pay their true cost of what they’re doing, they’re going to fold up. They can’t — if they got to go out and move that cow around six times, by the time they’re done, they’ve lost their shirt.”

So, the activists must work closely with the politicians and the federal and state agencies to make it too expensive for the ranchers to stay in business — force them into bankruptcy.

top topics

28