It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Domo1
reply to post by Bakatono
Meaning that if anyone has any right to annex the land it is the State, not the Feds.
Source that it's illegal? No smartassery.
So if the local government said it was illegal would that be OK?
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: gariac
I think the proverbial "first shot" was by the BLM when they reduced the cattle permitting in 1993.
That's when Bundy became "Doctor NO".
He saw it all coming.
He did not want to be a sacrificial lamb.
The environmentalists demand "mitigation" for land damage.
Why can't they "mitigate" the human and business damage they cause ?
originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: govmule
The fact is, the BLM priced fees so high out of 53 ranchers he is the only one left,
You claim there is only one rancher left leasing land from the BLM. Let me name two: Steve Medlin and Joe Falini.
originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: xuenchen
You didn't specify Clark County.
But get this: you know how you keep your ranch? You pay the grazing fees. Shockingly simple.
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: xuenchen
You didn't specify Clark County.
But get this: you know how you keep your ranch? You pay the grazing fees. Shockingly simple.
Even if Bundy did pay, they were getting cancelled anyway.
You know that.
He knew it to at the time.
Why else would he not pay?
The BLM's response was one sentence long:
"We welcome Mr. Bundy's new interest in the American legal system."