reply to post by ketsuko
That land was NEVER their land. They used it, everyone around there used it yes... and in 1934 with the Taylor grazing act the processes of land use
were supposed to be more clear cut etc.
They did have to pay a fee to the federal government since it is the responsibility of the federal government to maintain that land.
in 1993 this man had his permit revoked... revoked... for not paying this fee. This is the same as welfare.... he wants our tax dollars to support him
by using our tax dollars to maintain land he doesn't even care to pay rents for its use.
It's a business, he can pay rents. Why do my tax dollars have to support a rich man? I don't agree with supporting the poor so why in the hell should
I agree to supporting the rich?
This land in 1998, a full 5 years AFTER he lost his grazing permit... was turned over to a preservation society. Now.. we have seen these idiotic
preservation societies in action and they actually do think they are preserving these turtles, same like we have seen in Florida when they want to
save the damn swamps.
We don't have to agree, and I personally would rather have seen the land go to a better use than saving damn turtles, but the fact is it was federal
land that stayed in the federal purview.
I think it should have gone up for bid to Americans, and people who could really use it, like Bundy, would have the opportunity to buy it - or it
could go under some homesteading laws and Bundy could homestead it. (I don't think federal land should be sold to anyone but a full blooded American
But the point is... that isn't what happened, nor is what might be right what anyone is fighting for. If you are going to use land, then you should
pay to play.. that money goes to land maintenance... if not there specifically then other places, and helps lessen the stress on our tax dollars. This
man is, after all, running a business on it.
The government isn't stealing his land, they aren't doing anything other than what the BLM was created to do. If people don't like it, they should
lobby against it. But going out there to start a mini-war instead of doing the right thing for the right reasons.. is wrong.
As far as it taking more land out in the west to raise cattle... yes, it does. So they should have purchased more back in 1870. I purchased enough for
my cattle... why couldn't they? Different climates take a different number of acres per head, and any farmer knows what they are.
13-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)