Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BayouBengal07

(1,486 posts)
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 02:24 PM Apr 2014

In 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?

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In an argument re: Bundy and federal land "seizure" (Original Post) BayouBengal07 Apr 2014 OP
Have your opponent give you the citation. upaloopa Apr 2014 #1
He did. BayouBengal07 Apr 2014 #7
Most of what right wingers have to say is bullshit upaloopa Apr 2014 #8
Cattleman's Association seems to think so. Loudly Apr 2014 #2
My comments would be, Bundy and his neighbors can graze cattle to sinkingfeeling Apr 2014 #3
what if a family of farmers decided to just grow 100 acres of corn where HIS cows are grazing... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #5
The land belonged to the territory of Nevada. HooptieWagon Apr 2014 #4
Good summary...thanks...nt joeybee12 Apr 2014 #6
BLM is constantly trying to balance competing interests pinboy3niner Apr 2014 #9

BayouBengal07

(1,486 posts)
7. He did.
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 02:42 PM
Apr 2014

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)
8. Most of what right wingers have to say is bullshit
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 03:39 PM
Apr 2014

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.

sinkingfeeling

(51,457 posts)
3. My comments would be, Bundy and his neighbors can graze cattle to
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 02:31 PM
Apr 2014

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)
5. what if a family of farmers decided to just grow 100 acres of corn where HIS cows are grazing...
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 02:40 PM
Apr 2014

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)
4. The land belonged to the territory of Nevada.
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 02:39 PM
Apr 2014

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.

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
9. BLM is constantly trying to balance competing interests
Tue Apr 15, 2014, 03:49 PM
Apr 2014

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 Bundy’s Cattle and the “Federal Land Grab”
http://www.factandmyth.com/conspiracy-theory/cliven-bundys-cattle-and-the-federal-land-grab

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In an argument re: Bundy ...