Quote from: TECSHARE on March 03, 2015, 05:17:39 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on March 03, 2015, 04:41:36 AM

words

The facts have not changed, but your understanding of them has, yet you still cling to the same conclusions. Sounds like confirmation bias to me. Additionally I think you are far to easily dismissing his claims. Here is some additional information on his claims to grazing rights. IMO this is beynd Cliven Bundy's rights, it is also an issue of states rights.

"In 1993, to protect the tortoise (among other things), the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation effortsefforts entailing the elimination of livestock grazing in certain areas, the Post reports. The BLM purchased grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land, but Bundy family members refused to willingly sell their grazing privileges, the Post reports."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/30/cliven-bundy-is-a-racist-but-federal-ownership-of-state-land-is-still-a-serious-problem/
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/cliven-bundy-bureau-of-land-management-10-things-to-know-105735.html
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/04/cliven-bundy-cattle-standoff-consequence-illegitimate-government-claims-land/

Most of your links say what I said. #2 in politico is just wrong and this is easily ascertained. Bundy's daddy bought the 160 acre melon patch in the 1940's and Bundy himself only got the cows in the 50's or some such (after watching J.R. Ewing on 'Dallas' or some such one supposes.) The Taylor Grazing Act started before both of these things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grazing_rights_in_Nevada#Federal_rangeland_laws

Bundy's only claim is that he is a Mormon and there were Mormon's in the area before the state was chartered. And his grandmother was from the general area when she was born. Laughable. Bundy tried to argue that everyone is mistaken and this is state property (not fed) because the law is crystal clear and not favorable to his position. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. Frankly, I wish it was state property myself but at this point it just isn't so. Sad day for Bundy.

Now it appears that Bundy does have water rights which do exist, are extremely valuable, and he worked his ass off for them. I've defended these rights in this thread and believe that he should be handsomely compensated for them if the Feds change their land use priorities. I suspect he and others would be screwed on this if the eco-rat-bastards have their way. That would be wrong in my book no matter how much I despise the guy.

The concept of Feds "purchasing" his "rights" makes no sense. They may have wished to buy up the remainder of his lease. If so, he should have taken the money because when the lease is up, it's up and any quasi-claim to run his cattle would be poof. That happened years ago. Bundy got desperate and tried to invent bullshit laws out of whole cloth. What I cannot stand about these 'sovereign citizen' types is that all of their deep philosophical bullshit happens to be extremely self-serving and rediculous. Even worse than the greenies! If people want to knuckle down and do the hard work of effecting political change, God bless. I may even be involved myself in something like state's rights. If they want to pull shit out of their ass and threaten anyone who calls them on it, good ridence. In Bundy's case I still think there is a very good chance that he was working with the Feds hand-n-glove and now taking his payola. In that case he is about as loathsome as a human can get.

edit - fix link. From link:

Quote

Prior to the enactment of the TGA, an open-range system existed on public domain land.[8] The TGA was enacted by Congress to prevent overgrazing of rangelands,[9] and authorized the permitted use of lands designated as available for livestock grazing while specifying that grazing permits convey no right, title, or interest to such lands.