General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn an argument re: Bundy and federal land "seizure"
So I'm engaged in an all-important internet debate.
Him: "ask the other 1000 or so ranchers who have been forced to close down due to the government 'reclaiming' their land."
Me:"It's my understanding that the issue was that Bundy refused to pay the grazing fee, and that's why he was 'kicked off' the land. The other ranchers, who paid the fees, had no issue, and there was no 'reclamation' by the federal government, because they weren't claiming to own the land."
Him: "Hundreds of the Bundy family neighbors have been pushed out of ranching, a profession and culture the families shared with generations of their ancestors, by the federal government slowly restricting more and more of the usage of federal lands."
So, has anyone come across an authority that shows that this goes beyond Bundy's grazing rights issue; that environmental mandates and the like are causing an epidemic of ranchers expelled from their livelihoods?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)BayouBengal07
(1,486 posts)I didn't want to post it here, because it's Breitbart, and it would therefore be too easy to dismiss on it's face. I was curious about the substance of the argument.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)They pull a talking point out of their ass or someone else's ass like Breitbart then you are supposed to defend your self against it.
It is a waste of time talking to them. Just tell them they are full of shit and leave it there. No minds are ever going to be changed.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)their hearts content on any land that they own, providing verifiable deeds of ownership or they can graze on federal lands by paying the fees to the US government which does hold the deed to public property.
Here's some history and how permits are made from the BLM.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)who gets the right of way? The farmer or the cattleman? THAT'S why you should do business on your own property or pay that rent on it you owe Bundy...
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It was part of land taken from Mexico by the US. When Nevada became a State, all that land was turned over to the Federal Government. Some of it was allowed to be homesteaded (in max 160 acre parcels). None of the homesteaded land is in question. What is in question is land that is, and always has been, publically owned. Grazing used to be allowed on this land, until 1986 Grazing Act signed by Reagan required grazing fees to be paid, and limits set on the number of cattle allowed to graze. This land was never owned by Bundy or his ancestors. Bundy has refused to pay the grazing fees the past 20 years, and has exceeded the number of cattle allowed. There are multiple court judgements against him he refuses to pay. If any of his neighbors have refused to pay grazing fees, then there is probably court orders against them too. Not having heard news of that, its logical to conclude the neighbors have paid grazing fees. Ask the person you're arguing with to provide evidence 100s of Bundy's neighbors have had land they hold title to seized by the US Govt. It hasn't happened.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)At a recent meeting in Sacramento, agency officials heard from cattlemen who want increased culling of wild horses to allow more cattle grazing; wild horse supporters who want cattle grazing reduced; and environmental groups that want increased restrictions on various uses to protect plants and wildlife. Add to that recreational use, mineral interests, and more...
It's BLM's responsibility to weigh these competing interests and determine the best use or balance of use while handling a ton of lawsuits seeking to prevent it from acting, or to compel it to act, in some way.
Here's some fact and myth info on some of the issues your friend may bring up:
Cliven Bundys Cattle and the Federal Land Grab
http://www.factandmyth.com/conspiracy-theory/cliven-bundys-cattle-and-the-federal-land-grab