Breaking: Bundy family unearths BLM mass cattle grave

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Kurius

If you leave your diamond ring in a park, and someone finds that ring and says hey, come pick it up... and you refuse to pick it up... so they call you again and say hey! come pick up your ring, its yours we don't want it... and you again refuse to go and get it...

Sometimes I park my car outside (with the ignition key on) and valuables inside. I guess I will have to ensure you don't come near my neighborhood lest you might think you "found it" and drive it across the country then expect me to collect it only after paying for your gas and "good effort". Lol.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Phoenix

I think most of what we disagree on is perceptions and interpretations. I don't recognize any 19th century claim to land because one private citizen says so. I'd say he could litigate it, but he already has. Starting in the 90's to present, it hasn't been one court but multiple cases ruled on. He's lost them all.


As I see it though, Bundy is a citizen of the State of Nevada and the United States. He can do one of 3 things when law isn't to his liking. He can fight it (see above...done it and lost). He can change it (That's the one thing he hasn't tried, which I've seen..I could be wrong) or he can break them. He chose the 3rd, and in my opinion, chose poorly. Opinions vary.

Wrabbit2000, yup you've pretty much described differences in thought and interpretation. Yours based on rule of law as it were dealing specifically with grazing rights, mine a bit more idealistic and far ranging in scope.

I entered the fray when it was obvious the BLM had no qualms about using massive force and violating the constitution in order to carry out its court order and those reasons are my basis of involvement and debate - I see the grazing right issue as a secondary one due the way the BLM carried out something that should have been done by hired cowboys first and THEN and only THEN had Bundy done some overt action the Sheriff department should have handled it.

I do not believe the BLM has a law enforcement mandate as part of its duties. The BLM should have deferred to local law enforcement if actual force was required to carry out its permitted duties via the court order.

I don't think much doubt exists that the BLM well exceeded the gist of the court order which allowed cattle seizure only, not sale, not killing, not tearing up water tanks, lines or infrastructure. It was to the courts to decide the next step after round-up not BLM.

The court orders by the Judge(s) obviously never envisioned BLM importing an estimated 300 personnel of which only a hundred or so were involved in a round-up, the rest being armed and ready to defeat any opposition to its will.

You say in a way Bundy had no rights due a court order, I say the BLM not only disregarded his and all Americans rights but from the get go fully intended to do just that.

For me and I think many others that IS the problem here.

That it is the Bundy situation bringing forth an underlying problem between the people of this country and its federal government is paramount which negates whether or not Bundy is right or wrong on his view of grazing rights.

Bundy has only highlighted the real problem which is an almighty federal government willing to squash its individual citizens to maintain an aura of absolute power over those citizens.

This should be as daylight to everyone when its considered how the BLM planned and went about enforcing its court order on Bundy.

a reply to: Phoenix

Wrabbit2000, yup you've pretty much described differences in thought and interpretation. Yours based on rule of law as it were dealing specifically with grazing rights, mine a bit more idealistic and far ranging in scope.

That's one interpretation. Grazing or whatever the specific issue was is secondary to the central question. Did he break the law? Is he continuing to break the law? If so, law enforcement officers have not only the right but the duty by their job title to do something about it. If he hasn't broken the law, then BLM has an issue...that's what I wish I saw but just don't, in good faith here.

I do not believe the BLM has a law enforcement mandate as part of its duties. The BLM should have deferred to local law enforcement if actual force was required to carry out its permitted duties via the court order.

I'd seen where some politician came out saying that. I'd like to see that compared to this:

BLM Rangers are uniformed officers who provide a regular and recurring presence over vast areas of public lands. They are responsible for conducting high visibility patrols; conducting public contacts; enforcing federal laws and regulations; assisting local county or city police departments, other federal and state land management agencies, and BLM Special Agents investigating illegal activity on public lands; and generally providing for the safety of BLM employees and public land users.

BLM Rangers regularly patrol public lands by four-wheel drive vehicle, all-terrain vehicle, motorcycle, aircraft, snowmobile, jet ski, boat, horse, and even the oldest patrol method—on foot. The job of a Ranger varies considerably depending on location. In the southwestern desert areas, Rangers spend a great deal of time dealing with large numbers of recreational users and off-highway vehicle issues, as well as a variety of resource theft and vandalism incidents; Rangers along the southern border may encounter illegal aliens and smuggling while their counterparts in Alaska travel long distances by aircraft and snow machine to patrol remote areas of public lands; and, Rangers in urban areas may encounter crimes related to alcohol, hazardous materials and other dumping, wildland fire and arson, and many other trespass concerns.l

Source

They appear to have the position, title and duties of law enforcement. They certainly have the equipment and apparent federal authority of law enforcement. If they aren't law enforcement, that alone crosses criminal lines and very clear ones with very serious penalties attached. It's not a casual thing to suggest, and I'd love to see that proven, if true.

I don't think much doubt exists that the BLM well exceeded the gist of the court order which allowed cattle seizure only, not sale, not killing, not tearing up water tanks, lines or infrastructure. It was to the courts to decide the next step after round-up not BLM.

Then the next step is to take them back to court. Meeting them head to head with weapons is exactly what the majority of the public will support the Government to put down in conditions like that. It's not even a sympathetic positon. The BLM and National Park Service people were on foot, next to their vehicles with men on horseback across the ridges as well as in front of them. That's a terminally losing position for them. Some may see that as a good thing, but backing a dangerous animal into a corner is just a way to insure, like it or not, it's a fight to the end that may come. It didn't this time. Thankfully. For all involved.

You say in a way Bundy had no rights due a court order, I say the BLM not only disregarded his and all Americans rights but from the get go fully intended to do just that.

No.. I say the man is a criminal by literal act of breaking laws for 20 years. He's no armed robber or other serious criminal terrorizing society....but we're a nation of law or we aren't. Simple as that.

He has rights...but they aren't with a rifle in a dry wash like some old west desperado. They're in the same court house (or more favorable one, perhaps) that the BLM got the order they were enforcing.

That it is the Bundy situation bringing forth an underlying problem between the people of this country and its federal government is paramount which negates whether or not Bundy is right or wrong on his view of grazing rights.

The Government has made a habit of exceeding it's authority. Why the outrage on this case? Not this 'cause', because there are cases better than this one to champion in Texas, Wyoming and elsewhere. Currently, in fact. A little digging will lead folks to much better positions to punt from. Why this specific man on this specific piece of property with this specific dispute? Harry Reid? Okay... I can get behind that. Except.....'Ol Scary Harry has been playing fast and loose for years and no one seriously objects. He's been implicated in worse than this, and not THAT far back. Why this one? Why this man?

The fixation and passion on ONE case ..and a rather bad one without legal support at that...among SO many which exist to make this fight with, is baffling. That's my boggle, as it were.

a reply to: Kurius

This is exactly what we are trying to highlight to you.....some of us observe you are too fixated by details that you tend lose sight of the bigger picture as many who tend to side with BsLM do.

For the record, I'm a member when not doing Mod stuff, and that leaves me a member about 90+% of the time for what I'm up to. I'm always, by very serious rules, a member...not a Mod, in any thread I post casually or conversationally in. The point is, I'm a sole individual with time and interest to look things up. I convey what I find and take positions on facts, not emotion of situations. (usually... No one's perfect).

Given that? Am I debating individuals or am I debating a group? I'll change my approach dramatically if it's the latter. I'm assuming we're just having a discussion here among individuals.

Just because the BsLM/government can type the law and hit Ctrl-P, it doesn't mean they have the right to steal (essentially that's what it is if done by ordinary folks)...

When property is left on public lands, collecting the abandoned property isn't stealing, it's doing the job they're paid to do in the case of the Bureau of Land Management. Managing those lands and what's on them is their job, and it's been that way for more decades than this dispute has been running. (Example: BLM Horses and Burros Authorization and Stats) It's just what they do. The fight, if any, is with a court order and the court which ordered it. Remove the BLM? The National Parks Service is also authorized to do this under that order. Are they bad too?

Who is a particular set of law written for? Is it truly for the people or just "masked" to be so?

This particular set of regulations and laws was written so commercial ranchers don't let their animals eat their way through the scenic beauty our nation still has intact. Grazing programs are meant to limit and balance the needs, so animals don't over-eat the land and starve out the wildlife which also shares the food sources. These laws have good and solid basis behind them. The question here in Mesquite Nevada is...which side broke them?

Since you are good at research, please help find out: how much BsLM spent getting thugs to the Bundy's property, intimidating the family and stealing their cattle. Some say $3million, but BsLM has declined to make this public.

I'm not aware of any agency that is required by law to make public the spending on an ongoing operation. This isn't over. This hasn't ended. Not until that court order is rescinded or something comes to supersede it. They have 11 months to go back and finish the land clearing. Perhaps the next budget year will show line items to cover this. If one knows how to read the budgets (look for local office, if available, or regional and use a process of elimination for what is there, for instance), it should be something viable to find out. I don't personally care though. We have a Government spending trillions on junk and waste....and millions on this justifies civil unrest or uprising? Not in my opinion.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Early on I would have discounted the Bundy's grazing issue as between him and the courts. When the "free speech" zones went up along with the tazing and knocking down of protesters became news that changed the entire situation as far as I and I think I can say hundreds of thousands of others opinions. The day of the tazing it is clear on video that the protesters were asking the right question as it turns out their fears were later proved true - their issue was BLM over stepping bounds of the existing court order - they got thuggery for asking a valid question.

The grazing issue started the problem for sure but the BLM's subsequent actions turned it into something entirely different where the grazing is but a small issue.

It's not an economic issue nor for me nor is it really about grazing rights - it's about a very heavy handed government having no qualm violating constitutional rights not only at the Bundy ranch but all across this nation.

Here is the problem as I see it. First Amendment Zones did not start at the Bundy Ranch. They started long before in January 2012. Perhaps I was the only one to notice this?:

At a background briefing Thursday, city officials assured us they will meet with protest groups to decide where to put "free speech" zones around McCormick Place.

Free speech in Chicago The challenge of the NATO, G-8 summits

Police being heavy handed is also not a new thing; look at the things occupy had to deal with.

You cannot back a man who is clearly in the wrong, just to oppose something else. Oppose the wrong, no matter where you find that wrong. That is the only right thing to do in my mind.

Two wrongs never make a right and all that. In order to win any battle the moral high ground must be taken. Which means we have to call out the wrong, wherever it happens to be seen.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Two wrongs never make a right and all that. In order to win any battle the moral high ground must be taken. Which means we have to call out the wrong, wherever it happens to be seen.

Well they do if you're multiplying in Algebra...but never mind me. I'm still cursing and putting the whammy on the ancient Persians who invented the blasted stuff.

Anyway.. I have to say you hit it right on, IMO. Fight the wrong or move on, but don't side with one wrong to fight another. Absolutely right on that. That sort of thing is what made the other side the horror they have become. Alliances with whoever happened to work out best that moment. It makes for bad futures coming from decisions purely of personal convenience, not actual cost.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Yuck... maths... cannot stand them! Don't even get me started!

I DO think there should be a LOT of jumping up and down and getting our house back in order where concerns the constitution... I was freaking out about their little free speech zones a couple years ago, yet back then no one seemed to care.

Now its a matter of another day, another right they stomp on.

But Bundy doesn't care about our rights, he only cares about his pocketbook. And supporting him wont get us out of the whole "free speech zone" territory, or stop the police from becoming more and more brutal.

That, we will have to face down on our own... and I am really hoping soon we will decide to do just that. But I'm also praying we have our heads about us when we decide as a nation to do so. Because in the end, we all matter. Even Kali's turtle loving self. We all have to be able to have a voice, and it may not always agree with our own.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000

Given that? Am I debating individuals or am I debating a group? I'll change my approach dramatically if it's the latter. I'm assuming we're just having a discussion here among individuals.

If you remember. I think there was another member who highlighted the same (you couldn't see the forest for the trees). I used "we" in that sense. Sorry if it confused you.

When property is left on public lands, collecting the abandoned property isn't stealing, it's doing the job they're paid to do in the case of the Bureau of Land Management. Managing those lands and what's on them is their job, and it's been that way for more decades than this dispute has been running.

Well, Wrabbit2000 (may I call you Wrab?), my understanding of the concept of stealing is taking something that doesn't belong to you without the permission of the owner (whether legal or illegally; therefore, I also don't condone those who could write the law to allow themselves or certain interest groups the privilege to steal from others - whether you call that a job or not is immaterial; many thieves insist what they do is also an occupation). Just because you are given the authority by BsLM to take someone else's property, it doesn't make it right IMO. But I understand where you are coming from and I can't change your perception. But please do understand there are two sets of laws in this world: those for the rich and powerful who can influence the law and those for the remainder of the population. Sometimes we need to decide if you would rather be the victim or just not partake in their game- ie. via civil disobedience. I highlighted in the previous post how Gandhi exercised this in the case of the British imposition of tax on salt. Perhaps closer to your neighborhood, you probably are very familiar the boston tea party. If you and OpinionatedB had lived in those eras, I think you would both likely to condemn those who "broke" the law and if you had your way, would lock Gandhi up and literally swallow the key. Lol.

As much as you and OpinionatedB would like to think the Bundy's concern is only protecting their own pocket, I beg to disagree. I think the easiest and cheaper thing to do was for them to pay the grazing fees...fighting those who write the law is an uphill battle and one that is rather costly at that too (I used to know someone who went broke doing just that). I'm not sure if anyone without such a strong principle as the Bundy's would want to sacrifice their livelihood and peace of mind. Perhaps there is an incomprehensible, greater force at work that has given them strength....something that we are witnessing more lately with cases like Manning, Snowden, etc (whom I think you also condemn and immediately throw in the box marked "wrong/criminals").

We are certainly living in an interesting era. Our outlooks on ethics may differ greatly - you go by the book (no matter how unjust it may be), the rest of us by what our souls "feel" to be the universally right thing to do (beyond that of the "justice" system). Perhaps going strictly by the book is your calling, Who knows? I was raised that way too, but have started questioning more as my soul "matures" (as I'd like to believe) and stopped drinking fluoridated water . I just "know" that only going by the resonance of the soul can one live life without regrets nor need for self-justification for his actions. And I think the Bundy's are doing just that. Do they care if others accuse them of just protecting their pockets and that The Daily Show publicly humiliate them? Frankly, I think they couldn't care less and will do the same all over again if they have to.

We need to keep in mind that all the grazing permits were cancelled in favor of the 1998 BLM proclamation that made the Gold Butte area an "area of critical environmental concern" to offset the impacts of other developments in the Las Vegas region.

Gold Butte, which covers roughly 350,000 acres south of Interstate 15 near the Arizona border, was initially designated as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) by the BLM in 1998 as part of a land management plan for the Las Vegas area.

Connection drawn between cattle roundup and BLM report

Obviously Bundy is "sanding" the wood against the grain, but the businesses he runs are being threatened.

His rigid stance of "NO" from the beginning is one of the biggest pain-in-the-ass problems the BLM has.

Just look at what the government has had to go through because Bundy refuses to recognize the "authority".

I think he saw the whole thing coming when the Desert Tortoises were put on the endangered species list in 1990.

That's when this whole thing started.

Like Harry Reid said the other day "something will happen".

a reply to: Kurius

I'm going to be writing a major effort this weekend on this topic. Probably Sunday, if things go well. (We're going to be slammed hard with storms here on Sunday, so nothing better to do..lol). So I'll be short on this thread, given that intention.

However, I think the personalizing of this is what is starting to offend me the most. Mention is made of me and Opinionated, as if we form a team or side unto ourselves. I respect Opinionated's position and happen to agree with it in almost all ways. Although even there, not 100%. It would be odd if I did. It's not about people, but principle.

Principle is a shifting sand to stand on for position, because it's a subjective way of measuring a situation. Principle changes in the minds of each person based largely on life experience, personal interest and time spent building the background of knowledge that comes to play in a discussion like this.

I think the bottom line is, there is a degree of personal demonization going on around the nation on this topic that is just outrageous. No one man, especially a profit driven rancher, is worth civil unrest that will fill body bags. Clive Bundy's profit statements for his cattle herd aren't worth one lost life on either side. Not one. Law indicates principle is shaky here, and more than normal. To say the least..

So I will respect the opinion of those who disagree as much as I respect their absolute right to hold those opinions. I hope it's returned in kind as we explore the whole issue of the BLM and public lands further.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I would hope any in-depth discussion regarding BLM's part covers its unconstitutional actions and violent reactions to protests at the beginning of its removal operation which IS an issue many did die in the past for so that future generations could benefit. An issue still worth that price today.

It is those issues got my attention not the grazing issue.

Looking forward to your posts.

I've gotta stand with Wrabbit on this one.

If you want to graze cattle on public land, pay the grazing fees.

If you don't agree about the grazing fees, fight them in a court of law. But pay the fees.

If you lose in court, appeal. Repeat. But pay the fees.

If you lose the appeals, use the power of any US citizen to change the law. But pay the fees.

That's the way this country works. I believe that is the way this country was DESIGNED to work as well.

a reply to: Montana

Let's hope you will never get into such predicament of fighting in court against big bullies (over and over again) over an issue you feel passionately right about (as the Bundy's do)...On second thought, let's hope you will face one soon and understand what that entails.

It is easier said than done, believe me. You "work the way this country was DESIGNED to work" while they are exempted from the same. It's like playing chess with someone who says only his pawns can attack your pieces any way they want to because he makes the rules....and you say "oh, ok you can continue that but I will tell my mom you cheated".

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

There will never be a civil unrest filling body bags. Governments will only prey on the weak and least armed. They will back off the Bundy Ranch...at least for now until they know they are safe to prey again.

As for your upcoming detailed post, I won't hold my breath. Your idea of "whole issue" is likely a summary of what you have presented to affirm your position and perhaps additional "proofs" that the Bundy's need to be crucified.

Wrab, so far, as much as you would like to be seen as someone who is objective and level-headed, I can at least see that you have not; one can easily deduce this by your constant demonizing of the Bundy's. You do provide an opposing views only to justify them not worth considering. You have been cherry-picking your infos ignoring the larger issues (don't ask me why; only you know the answer if you could only be honest with yourself if you do some self reflections).

Yes, I apologize.... I suppose it is a grave insult to be seen a as a team with OpinionatedB who thinks The Daily Show is a sound "research" platform...Does being in the same category as the NYT sounds better? They strive to project themselves as an unbiased news source too, but they are not. For example, we now know they edited out Bundy's video to make him look like a racist extremist.Linked from Drudgereport

How I loathe those who abuse their power, who can control the media and easily crush one man's public image! Try to fight the mighty bully alone and unprotected; you can never win. As Harry Reid said, "Something will happen to the Bundy's". It certainly does sound it will be another dirty play behind the scene....sigh.

Meanwhile, enjoy & stay safe in the rain/storm...

originally posted by: Kurius
a reply to: Montana

Let's hope you will never get into such predicament of fighting in court against big bullies (over and over again) over an issue you feel passionately right about (as the Bundy's do)...On second thought, let's hope you will face one soon and understand what that entails.

It is easier said than done, believe me. You "work the way this country was DESIGNED to work" while they are exempted from the same. It's like playing chess with someone who says only his pawns can attack your pieces any way they want to because he makes the rules....and you say "oh, ok you can continue that but I will tell my mom you cheated".

A citizen can feel passionate about anything they want. That doesn't make them right. If you have taken your opinion through the courts and lost repeatedly, most likely you are not right. It is certainly not a guarantee, but it is most likely. And in the end, even if you are right, your only recourse is to change the law.

Why do you assume that I don't know how things work in this country? I've been around for a while. I have LOTS of experience. Who is to say that I haven't already been around this block? (In a second hand kind of way I really have)

This is a real problem with some members on ATS. Anyone who disagrees with your point obviously "just doesn't know"! Maybe it is YOU that just doesn't know?

a reply to: Kurius

I appreciate your opinion and interpretation of the events and law surrounding them. You have your right to it, as I have my right to mine.

You're personalizing this, and continuing to keep it personal, at a level I just cannot keep going with. So, for now anyway, I appreciate the side chat and I'll wish you well while working in my own direction with my own efforts.

Nothing personal, and that's really the heart of it when it gets down to it.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Sorry you feel that way. I am not personalizing this. My comments are not anymore "personal" than yours about the Bundy's and their commendable effort (I think)to fight an overarching government body. You are calling them "profit driven ranchers, et. al. and they are not here to defend themselves. While I don't call you names, I'm asking you to seek deep within yourself to ask if you really have been truly objective and fair in your arguments (my observation says not). If you think that's personal, then there's something that hits home at personal level. It is absolutely ok if you say you back BsLM 110% no matter what they do; and that, after all, you live strictly in a the land of the law (period). You can even be frank to say that you have friends or loved ones working with the BsLM, if that's the case. There's really no need to mask yourself as one with an impartial objective view. That is an insult to your own intelligence as well as ours.

Nothing personal. Just that I expect honesty in your posts. No response required. I wish you well with your efforts.

a reply to: Montana

Sorry...You are absolutely right. It is sooo darn easy to fight those big bullies. In fact, it's a breeze. That's why we ARE seeing corrupt lying officials, war criminals, banksters in jail. Hmmm, wait....are we?

Hey, remember the woman who threw her shoe at Hillary (and intentionally or unintentionally missed)? Well, she is still under federal custody, facing a possible two year sentence in federal prison. She's probably better off working with the big bullies killing innocents, taking pay-off's, robbing taxpayers or grabbing lands from ordinary hard working citizens. At least perhaps she will have you as her good little soldiers saying that she is only doing her job and accusing her victims doing wrong instead? A shame. I really don't know where humanity is heading.