A Military View of the Bundy Ranch Situation: Why Everyone Should Be Worried

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Do you have any proof that he's rich? Or are you just assuming he is because he's a rancher. He runs a small herd of cattle.

reply to post by ketsuko


Apparently it's ok for the Reid family to suck the country dry and sell us out to Chi Coms, but this evil bastard ranching there deserves to be shot and killed by the BLM.

reply to post by ketsuko


I think it comes down to it was all fine and dandy until Reid and his son were making deals with the chi coms and they needed all the cows off the land. All the other ranchers caved, and Bundy is the last. He won't budge and is blocking a deal with chi coms and that is why the BLM came in under the pretext of the friggin endangered turtle which they (BLM) are euthanizing as we all talk about this.

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 though)

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.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I understand that, but I think OB, whom I generally like an respect, needs to look up the concept of lawfare because that's what was being used against Mr. Bundy to force him and his family out of business and their generations old livelihood for someone else's convenience and enrichment.

In a fair and just country like we used to have, this would not have happened, but the reason most of us are here is because we suspect, maybe even believe, that those days are past.

We live in country now where there are so many laws that you honestly can't go through a single day without breaking one, so if they want you, they can get you. How do you follow the law in that system? The answer is that you can't. Instead, you simply hope you never do anything to draw attention to yourself.

reply to post by ketsuko


No hon, he is wealthy in his own right because of that ranch... If you want I'll get you the proof. He is not bursting with money, but 900 head is not poor... not even a little.

Every cow you see.. is an average of 800 dollars. And she drops another 800 bucks on the ground once a year.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Your tax dollars don't pay for squat.

The land just sits there and does nothing. If the cattle us it, it does nothing. If the cattle don't use it, it does nothing.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by ketsuko

 

No hon, he is wealthy in his own right because of that ranch... If you want I'll get you the proof. He is not bursting with money, but 900 head is not poor... not even a little.

Every cow you see.. is a thousand dollars. And she drops another thousand on the ground once a year.

Money on the hoof is not money in the bank. I have cousins who own cattle. I do know something about it.

That's like saying we're rich because we have some land in the family. Yes, it looks like money on paper. It amounts to wealth, but it doesn't actually dough in the bank. My parents live on an extremely fixed income ... on their wealthy land.

reply to post by ketsuko


Except for the matter of land maintenance. They do burn offs and other things to keep the land up. I have seen this. They really do try to maintain the land within reason.

reply to post by ketsuko


Until you go to auction and sell off once a year.

Going and selling at auction was an annual thing for me. And yes... it IS money in the bank. You have your maintenance of your own, upkeep of the herd.. apparently he doesn't spend any on grain or hay for the most part since he is set up to live without that expense...but he has expenses...

but every year, at auction... its money in the bank. All your doing once you have the first few years rotation, is taking them to auction when they hit the right age for a good sale. You keep some of the younger ones and sell some of the older every year so you have a good rotation of your own cows... and you sell off your steers and heifers you aren't keeping... every year.

That keeps you going for the next year... and gets you all your profit for the year. 900 head provides a decent profit margin. And that family has been doing this for 130 years.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


And that payoff has to cover you for the rest of the year for you other expenses. It's like getting your entire year's salary in one lump sum. And he's not selling all those cows, some of them have to be kept back for next year.

As to land maintenance ... they're doing that whether the cows run on it or not.

Maintaining the land is important, even for tortoises. A habitat needs all it's natives to survive, most people know this, most ranchers know this. Usually when these types of things happen, it reminds me of the war between ranchers and wolves, there's always a handful of ranchers that want to pretend nothing matters more than their business, their cattle while the rest of the ranchers agree conservation is important too. Cattle can't graze on dead land. Does the fed do it right? Usually never. That doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. You ride them to fix it, not end it.

Most ranchers know what a reasonable head of cattle is for their area in combination with how many other heads of cattle are using the area. What kind of sense does it make to raise a herd of cattle that the land can't sustain? Most ranchers also rather like the way the system is set up with public grazing, it means they have to buy less land, it means ranching stays less monopolized. Imagine if all public grazing land went up for sale? A few of the richest ranchers buy it all up. Does anyone think one rancher is going to let another graze on his/her land? Maybe, for an exorbitant fee, but I doubt it.

Doesn't anyone wonder why other ranchers that use the Gold Butte land didn't follow Bundy's lead? He's been in the media for years, visibly getting away with not paying his permit fees and then grazing without a permit, that's 16K ranchers that use that land. Why are militia from far and wide needed when 16K ranchers would be an actual 'range war'. Can't be because they were afraid to stand up to the Fed. Bundy has been demonstrating for years that it can be gotten away with and he just added an exclamation point to that fact.

Come on people, wake up, you have no gold and you have no land, we have all said it before, we said it when homer put his flag upside down, we said it when you prevented tourists from leaving your parks, your government has sold you all out, mind you im pretty sure they are counting on a huge natural disaster to wipe the slate clean, i think USA soil is being used as collateral, who do you lend from, who do you owe gold to ?

reply to post by OpinionatedB


It's all about what's right and what's wrong.
Just an example of how our fine System works.
I'm in the process of a divorce.
We my wife soon to be X and i own 2 pieces of property.
I moved out to the other property which is sisde by side.
Last winter i moved out to stay with friends to save enough money
for repairs to the property due to her children destroying the place
when they lived there.
Children in late 20's and 30's
when i went to move back in they had replaced the locks and moved right back in.
Now it's in Our Good ol fashion court system.
I'm Still paying the property Taxes on both Properties and cant even live on one of them.
Her son and his daughter out of wedlock live with her.
Her daughter lives in the place i was living.
had to get a court order just to get the rest of my belongings.
Which most were missing.
I just love how this system works.
Don't you ?

reply to post by ketsuko


Yes, its like getting your entire capital every year at once, because that is exactly what it is. It's also why farmers are extremely careful with money, you don't know what will happen over the course of the next few years.

But you DO sell one cow for each calf dropped.

Some might be older after she's had a few calves to keep a good rotation of young healthy cows, some are steers, and some are heifers... but after you have your rotation in place... its just a matter of keeping that rotation going. And for each calf that gets dropped, your selling one of something - unless you have had a few losses (as in deaths) that need replaced that year.

I was extremely careful... and did not end up with any losses but one that I can remember. Come a hard winter and I was making sure the calves were in the barn and warm with their mothers... If any got sick I was giving shots and isolating them, and I was out there every day with my herd and knew if one got sick. When it came time to for calving, I was out there and if any one was in trouble I was there... helping them.. all night if need be. I also kept the bulls separate from the cows and managed it to where my cows were only dropping in the spring. I can only remember one loss.

Not everyone is that involved, or that lucky. I do also know this. I also know I am in a very good area, none of the farmers around me had many losses either. It's a great place to raise cattle - and great neighbors too.. always helping each other.

reply to post by bluesman1955


The system is not always right, but there is a system in place where you keep taking a case higher... and can get injunctions until matters are truly solved.

In matters of divorce, I think courts are usually pre-disposed to the wife... and this should not be that way.. everything needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

In the matter of Bundy, he took his case to court twice, and could prove nothing on whatever grounds he was using. Also, keep in mind his neighbors aren't standing with him... and neighbors usually know the situation better than anyone. Farming communities are very close by nature.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Then, you also know it's a mistake to assume that just because he's a rancher that he's rich.

My own grandfather raised sheep and farmed wheat. He was getting something of a double pay-out on his livestock. He could sell the lambs for meat and sheer and sell the wool on all his adult stock. He was also making money off his wheat crop ... but by no means was he rich. By the time he had to pay for his equipment and other overhead costs, he was making a modest living at best and running slightly in the red at worst. So, on a good year, he was having to do what he could to save for those bad years. He kept a few hundred head at his peak.

Maybe this is an over simplification but after he lost in court and never complied why couldn't the local sheriff, pay a visit to him and say move your cows or we will do it for you and send you the bill. Give him like 120 days to do it, then when he didn't, deputize some farm hands, bring the cattle trucks in and make it happen. Now if he showed up threatening them with firepower, they would leave and come back with firepower themselves as a natural reaction.

Biigs
I dont really understand this whole ranch issue, would somone be a gem and message me a really basic overview [i do not wish to litter this nice mans thread], everything i find on google is just confusing me.

Id like to know what the ranch is and a little on this whole fiasco.

If anyone would do that, id greatly appreciate it.

EDIT -> thank you Kandinsky, he/she filled me in. Thank you.

edit on b2828621 by Biigs because: (no reason given)

A very long time ago, his family paid for those rights, and he owns those rights. This is basically land usage rights issue.

Traditionally, and even as we speak now, there are farmers who maintain pre-emptive water rights and access, and there are ranchers, all over the world, who graze their cattle on public land. This is the power of the people and how its done.

The land, everyone calls state land or federal land, is no such thing.

It is the people's land, it is our joint property, and these rights usage not only support the farmer, not the mega million dollar monopoly, but cottage industry farmers, but also FEED PEOPLE, this is how food is done.

The fees and all the rest are fascist state psuedo laws that actually violate basic common rights and constitutional right.

Again, land does not belong to your employee manager, but to your estate, the people.

Another point, people keep saying he lost in court. Um...no he didn't. Courts either fire justice or prevent justice and fly the corporate fascist rogue flag. Any politician or judge that violates freedom and rights, that violates common law and constitution, and that violates your common sense understanding, is committing a crime. Their laws are unlawful.

No one is obliged to follow them. In fact, its illegal, though often unknown to the government workers and police, to enforce such legislations in any way. That I learnt from the well educated essays of a constitutional lawyer.

Don't follow bad orders, its not lawful to do so. Even if they wrote up unlawful legislation to try and make you.

He did the right thing by not following their crimes they say are laws.