Next Waco/Ruby Ridge?

thesadguy
Posts
607
Joined
6/30/2012
Location
ATL, GA US
Edited Date/Time 4/17/2014 5:51pm
|
Crash82
Posts
8990
Joined
9/16/2006
Location
MONTGOMERY, AL US
Fantasy
1986th
4/9/2014 8:44am
Unreal man, the Government is now cattle rustlers!
Crash82
Posts
8990
Joined
9/16/2006
Location
MONTGOMERY, AL US
Fantasy
1986th
4/9/2014 10:34am Edited Date/Time 4/9/2014 10:49am
Crazy how folks on here like to defend freeloading and chicken funking etc but no response on this.
MT MX
Posts
1551
Joined
3/5/2011
Location
Great Falls, MT US
4/9/2014 11:56am
Take the cattle from him. Period. That's bullshit on the ranchers part, I think.
This is the same type of situation that is happening to all of us with our OHV areas. The government takes the land away, but he's trying to make his defense be 'Well, previous generations did it". Try riding a motorcycle through somewhere that it is not allowed and then tell forest service that?!
This is a touchy subject for me, because it is happening ALL OVER Montana on public lands. I can't fucking stand it! Not all ranchers are this way though. My in-laws are 4th generation ranchers and farmers, but they own their own land to provide grazing for their cows. Also, my uncle and aunt have a huge angus ranch in Northern Montana, yet they provide land for grazing for their animals as well.
This guy is a crook, he just doesn't want to accept it.
thesadguy
Posts
607
Joined
6/30/2012
Location
ATL, GA US
4/9/2014 1:21pm
Right or wrong, this show of force by the feds is unnecessary.

The Shop

Shiftfaced
Posts
859
Joined
12/15/2008
Location
Ruby Ridge, ID US
4/9/2014 1:56pm
Take every single one of his cattle. He is trespassing on MY land.

I think the show of force is appropriate. He can either comply with the law, or face the consequences.

These kinds of people ONLY know force. If you try to "reason" with them, they laugh at you.

His choice. Comply with the permitting process; get his cattle off MY public lands; or deal with force.

No crying about the outcome. It is ALL up to him.
MT MX
Posts
1551
Joined
3/5/2011
Location
Great Falls, MT US
4/9/2014 2:41pm
He's been told multiple times to remove his property (cattle) and he won't comply. That's the reason for the excessive force. If any of that cattle get injured or damage is caused on non-grazing public land a whole new worse shitstorm would errupt.
It all boils down to he just doesn't want to pay for what everyone else is already paying for, because his daddy and granddaddy didn't have to pay for it. This cowboy needs to realize it isn't the 'ol West anymore.
FastEddy
Posts
13364
Joined
8/3/2008
Location
., FL US
Fantasy
944th
4/9/2014 3:00pm Edited Date/Time 4/9/2014 3:04pm
Shiftfaced wrote:
Take every single one of his cattle. He is trespassing on MY land. I think the show of force is appropriate. He can either comply with...
Take every single one of his cattle. He is trespassing on MY land.

I think the show of force is appropriate. He can either comply with the law, or face the consequences.

These kinds of people ONLY know force. If you try to "reason" with them, they laugh at you.

His choice. Comply with the permitting process; get his cattle off MY public lands; or deal with force.

No crying about the outcome. It is ALL up to him.
I like the confiscation resolution.
Sounds like forces are beefing up though for their own security purposes at this point.
How far they take their security stance against one man & his family is what could lead to non-public support/outrage.
I believe that was the problem in Waco & also Ruby Ridge.
When I met Weaver years back when he was hitting up the gun show circuit in the NW...
His main gripe and his supporters gripe was not a show of force,it was the amount of force
& below the belt tactics that the feds used. For instance having a sniper shoot Vicky in the head while she cradled her infant.
Or even shooting little Sammy in the back. Then even in Waco they used* 1st SFOD B Squadron to take the compound.
A clear violation of Posse Comitatus Act. - even using them as advisers at first was illegal.

Unfortunately it took McVeigh's bombing in OKC to open eyes within the Feds and get policies changed.
That was something that had a major influence on the change of polices - whether people were blind to fact or not.
But it's a fact.

Personally,I don't see foresee the Feds messing up with this situation.
But it's clear some are anticipating it.
Shiftfaced
Posts
859
Joined
12/15/2008
Location
Ruby Ridge, ID US
4/9/2014 3:14pm
Was that the "Bucket Brigade" that kept opening irrigation canals?

I have a problem with people using federal land for their personal gain, without paying a fee for the use of the land. It is there for us all to enjoy, and that form of enjoyment can take MANY forms.

The Bucket Brigade were issued PROVISIONAL water rights. One of the requirements for the continuation for the permit to be valid was for a certain amount of water to be in the reservoir. Several years of drought dropped the levels of the water reservoirs, so their permits were revoked. So what did they do? Cut the locks off the weirs, and kept their irrigation water flowing, not giving a shit what the consequences down-stream were.

And people lined up to back them, just like they will with this kook. If it can be spun as "anti-government", people will line up to support it. Even if it is REALLY stealing. Or a straight-up handout. They only look at the anti-government part, and could not care less about the rest........
APLMAN99
Posts
10108
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Dallas, TX US
4/9/2014 3:35pm
We've got a few similar issues in our little area. Folks with cabins at Lake Wenatchee saw their land lease rates skyrocket a little while back and they howled in protest. They thought they should pay basically nothing for the federal and state land that their cabins are on, despite the astronomical increases in nearby private property prices. Most of the folks I knew who were personally affected were the "small government, no welfare, too much government waste" types, but when their land leases were up they certainly weren't in favor of government opening things up to the highest bidder! Purchasing the land at market value didn't seem to be a very popular option, either. Everyone wanted to keep that $300 per year lease going.

Another situation going on just a few miles south of us is the Crescent Bar recreation area. Everyone's lease is up in the next few years and the Grant County PUD, which owns the land, received a legal opinion that they needed to convert the island back to public use because the leases are way too cheap to even begin to say that they are getting the public the biggest return on their investment.

Both of these issues have as their primary argument that their families have been using these lands for several generations, implying that despite the requirement that the land be leased for the maximum amount that the government can get, the leaseholders somehow "own" the land.
Titan1
Posts
8622
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT US
4/9/2014 4:52pm Edited Date/Time 4/11/2014 1:44pm
Shiftfaced wrote:
Take every single one of his cattle. He is trespassing on MY land. I think the show of force is appropriate. He can either comply with...
Take every single one of his cattle. He is trespassing on MY land.

I think the show of force is appropriate. He can either comply with the law, or face the consequences.

These kinds of people ONLY know force. If you try to "reason" with them, they laugh at you.

His choice. Comply with the permitting process; get his cattle off MY public lands; or deal with force.

No crying about the outcome. It is ALL up to him.
It's HIS land too...He is an American after all. The land doesn't just belong to the Americans that want to use it in ways you approve of...

He is going about fighting this battle all the wrong way...he should hash it out in the courts and abide the law in the mean time.
Titan1
Posts
8622
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT US
4/9/2014 4:57pm
MT MX wrote:
He's been told multiple times to remove his property (cattle) and he won't comply. That's the reason for the excessive force. If any of that cattle...
He's been told multiple times to remove his property (cattle) and he won't comply. That's the reason for the excessive force. If any of that cattle get injured or damage is caused on non-grazing public land a whole new worse shitstorm would errupt.
It all boils down to he just doesn't want to pay for what everyone else is already paying for, because his daddy and granddaddy didn't have to pay for it. This cowboy needs to realize it isn't the 'ol West anymore.
It's not that he doesn't want to pay...he does, and has tried for decades to pay.

The issue lies in who-constitutionally speaking-SHOULD own the land-who he should be paying for it-he feels the Feds can't-constitutionally-own the land so he refuses to pay them for it.
Titan1
Posts
8622
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT US
4/9/2014 5:02pm
Shiree Bundy Cox
"I have had people ask me to explain my dad's stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the servival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights. Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repaires and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money's against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they're own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes. In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn't work, they used the indangered species card. You've already heard about the desert tortis. Well that didn't work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now their desperate. It's come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything their doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America. Now you may be saying," how sad, but what does this have to do with me?" Well, I'll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it's Utah's turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there's the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn't paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even exsisted. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad's signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Aucion and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks"
APLMAN99
Posts
10108
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Dallas, TX US
4/9/2014 6:07pm
MT MX wrote:
He's been told multiple times to remove his property (cattle) and he won't comply. That's the reason for the excessive force. If any of that cattle...
He's been told multiple times to remove his property (cattle) and he won't comply. That's the reason for the excessive force. If any of that cattle get injured or damage is caused on non-grazing public land a whole new worse shitstorm would errupt.
It all boils down to he just doesn't want to pay for what everyone else is already paying for, because his daddy and granddaddy didn't have to pay for it. This cowboy needs to realize it isn't the 'ol West anymore.
Titan1 wrote:
It's not that he doesn't want to pay...he does, and has tried for decades to pay. The issue lies in who-constitutionally speaking-SHOULD own the land-who he...
It's not that he doesn't want to pay...he does, and has tried for decades to pay.

The issue lies in who-constitutionally speaking-SHOULD own the land-who he should be paying for it-he feels the Feds can't-constitutionally-own the land so he refuses to pay them for it.
The one constant that always occurs with these self-educated constitutional scholars is their picking and choosing over which passages of the Constitution they choose to remember and attempt to interpret. It seems like all of them completely "forget" that there is a process spelled out in the document itself that determines how disputes about the constitutionality of issues. This case appears to follow that pattern.
Titan1
Posts
8622
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT US
4/9/2014 6:15pm
MT MX wrote:
He's been told multiple times to remove his property (cattle) and he won't comply. That's the reason for the excessive force. If any of that cattle...
He's been told multiple times to remove his property (cattle) and he won't comply. That's the reason for the excessive force. If any of that cattle get injured or damage is caused on non-grazing public land a whole new worse shitstorm would errupt.
It all boils down to he just doesn't want to pay for what everyone else is already paying for, because his daddy and granddaddy didn't have to pay for it. This cowboy needs to realize it isn't the 'ol West anymore.
Titan1 wrote:
It's not that he doesn't want to pay...he does, and has tried for decades to pay. The issue lies in who-constitutionally speaking-SHOULD own the land-who he...
It's not that he doesn't want to pay...he does, and has tried for decades to pay.

The issue lies in who-constitutionally speaking-SHOULD own the land-who he should be paying for it-he feels the Feds can't-constitutionally-own the land so he refuses to pay them for it.
APLMAN99 wrote:
The one constant that always occurs with these self-educated constitutional scholars is their picking and choosing over which passages of the Constitution they choose to remember...
The one constant that always occurs with these self-educated constitutional scholars is their picking and choosing over which passages of the Constitution they choose to remember and attempt to interpret. It seems like all of them completely "forget" that there is a process spelled out in the document itself that determines how disputes about the constitutionality of issues. This case appears to follow that pattern.
Yup...I agree...he is fighting this battle the wrong way.
APLMAN99
Posts
10108
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Dallas, TX US
4/9/2014 6:34pm
Titan1 wrote:
It's not that he doesn't want to pay...he does, and has tried for decades to pay. The issue lies in who-constitutionally speaking-SHOULD own the land-who he...
It's not that he doesn't want to pay...he does, and has tried for decades to pay.

The issue lies in who-constitutionally speaking-SHOULD own the land-who he should be paying for it-he feels the Feds can't-constitutionally-own the land so he refuses to pay them for it.
APLMAN99 wrote:
The one constant that always occurs with these self-educated constitutional scholars is their picking and choosing over which passages of the Constitution they choose to remember...
The one constant that always occurs with these self-educated constitutional scholars is their picking and choosing over which passages of the Constitution they choose to remember and attempt to interpret. It seems like all of them completely "forget" that there is a process spelled out in the document itself that determines how disputes about the constitutionality of issues. This case appears to follow that pattern.
Titan1 wrote:
Yup...I agree...he is fighting this battle the wrong way.
He's already fought it in the courts. He just doesn't like the outcome so now he's trying to divert the real issue of his not wanting to abide by the law.

He owes over $300K in back grazing fees. That's a chunk of change. Chances are that the cattle will be sold to settle that debt.
Titan1
Posts
8622
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT US
4/9/2014 6:52pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
The one constant that always occurs with these self-educated constitutional scholars is their picking and choosing over which passages of the Constitution they choose to remember...
The one constant that always occurs with these self-educated constitutional scholars is their picking and choosing over which passages of the Constitution they choose to remember and attempt to interpret. It seems like all of them completely "forget" that there is a process spelled out in the document itself that determines how disputes about the constitutionality of issues. This case appears to follow that pattern.
Titan1 wrote:
Yup...I agree...he is fighting this battle the wrong way.
APLMAN99 wrote:
He's already fought it in the courts. He just doesn't like the outcome so now he's trying to divert the real issue of his not wanting...
He's already fought it in the courts. He just doesn't like the outcome so now he's trying to divert the real issue of his not wanting to abide by the law.

He owes over $300K in back grazing fees. That's a chunk of change. Chances are that the cattle will be sold to settle that debt.
It hasn't gone to the Supreme Court and so he hasn't finished the battle in court.

And we haven't even mentioned the "first amendment areas" the BLM set up, well out of sight of what they were doing...and arresting some family members for driving on a county road and video taping the round up...
thesadguy
Posts
607
Joined
6/30/2012
Location
ATL, GA US
4/9/2014 7:45pm
Titan1 wrote:
It hasn't gone to the Supreme Court and so he hasn't finished the battle in court. And we haven't even mentioned the "first amendment areas" the...
It hasn't gone to the Supreme Court and so he hasn't finished the battle in court.

And we haven't even mentioned the "first amendment areas" the BLM set up, well out of sight of what they were doing...and arresting some family members for driving on a county road and video taping the round up...
Yea. First Amendment Areas are complete bull shit.
4/10/2014 9:37am Edited Date/Time 4/10/2014 9:39am
Fuck the feds, those cattle aren't hurting anything. They are railroading this guy out of his living.

Asshole environmentalist behind it gloating on twitter
https://twitter.com/ecorob6
4/10/2014 10:21am
I do not believe the Federal government should own any property but I don't really get how a guy can assume use of the property that he doesn't own. He can use it along as they let him use it, it's not his property and never was.

Those desert tortoise's are really cool. When I was a kid my family would camp/ride out in the Kern County/California City area. My brother and I would sneak tortoise's home when we would find them. We would have three or four at a time in our back yard. Don't tell the enviro-terrorists on me.
Sandberm
Posts
5847
Joined
3/27/2009
Location
Pasco, WA US
4/10/2014 10:25am
I do not believe the Federal government should own any property but I don't really get how a guy can assume use of the property that...
I do not believe the Federal government should own any property but I don't really get how a guy can assume use of the property that he doesn't own. He can use it along as they let him use it, it's not his property and never was.

Those desert tortoise's are really cool. When I was a kid my family would camp/ride out in the Kern County/California City area. My brother and I would sneak tortoise's home when we would find them. We would have three or four at a time in our back yard. Don't tell the enviro-terrorists on me.
Really? You dont think the gov should own any property?
4/10/2014 10:50am
I do not believe the Federal government should own any property but I don't really get how a guy can assume use of the property that...
I do not believe the Federal government should own any property but I don't really get how a guy can assume use of the property that he doesn't own. He can use it along as they let him use it, it's not his property and never was.

Those desert tortoise's are really cool. When I was a kid my family would camp/ride out in the Kern County/California City area. My brother and I would sneak tortoise's home when we would find them. We would have three or four at a time in our back yard. Don't tell the enviro-terrorists on me.
Sandberm wrote:
Really? You dont think the gov should own any property?
No, I think public property should belong to the states.
Titan1
Posts
8622
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT US
4/10/2014 11:35am
I do not believe the Federal government should own any property but I don't really get how a guy can assume use of the property that...
I do not believe the Federal government should own any property but I don't really get how a guy can assume use of the property that he doesn't own. He can use it along as they let him use it, it's not his property and never was.

Those desert tortoise's are really cool. When I was a kid my family would camp/ride out in the Kern County/California City area. My brother and I would sneak tortoise's home when we would find them. We would have three or four at a time in our back yard. Don't tell the enviro-terrorists on me.
Sandberm wrote:
Really? You dont think the gov should own any property?
No, I think public property should belong to the states.
X2
4/10/2014 12:32pm Edited Date/Time 4/10/2014 12:33pm
There is a beef shortage, beef prices are at an all time high. This cattle rancher does more for society than any BLM fed fuck will ever do.
thesadguy
Posts
607
Joined
6/30/2012
Location
ATL, GA US
4/10/2014 12:38pm Edited Date/Time 4/10/2014 12:39pm
There is a beef shortage, beef prices are at an all time high. This cattle rancher does more for society than any BLM fed fuck will...
There is a beef shortage, beef prices are at an all time high. This cattle rancher does more for society than any BLM fed fuck will ever do.
I also love how it is all for some endangered species lol. Are they not hurting them by parking their SUVs all over the desert and flying helicopters on it as well? lol the hypocrisy stinks on this one.
4/10/2014 2:00pm
thesadguy wrote:
I also love how it is all for some endangered species lol. Are they not hurting them by parking their SUVs all over the desert and...
I also love how it is all for some endangered species lol. Are they not hurting them by parking their SUVs all over the desert and flying helicopters on it as well? lol the hypocrisy stinks on this one.
Not to mention the backhoes brought in to bury the dead ones.
Crash82
Posts
8990
Joined
9/16/2006
Location
MONTGOMERY, AL US
Fantasy
1986th
4/10/2014 2:53pm
There is a beef shortage, beef prices are at an all time high. This cattle rancher does more for society than any BLM fed fuck will...
There is a beef shortage, beef prices are at an all time high. This cattle rancher does more for society than any BLM fed fuck will ever do.
thesadguy wrote:
I also love how it is all for some endangered species lol. Are they not hurting them by parking their SUVs all over the desert and...
I also love how it is all for some endangered species lol. Are they not hurting them by parking their SUVs all over the desert and flying helicopters on it as well? lol the hypocrisy stinks on this one.
Haha seriously man, so obvious but I didn't think of that.
Titan1
Posts
8622
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT US
4/10/2014 7:00pm
Titan1 wrote:
Speaking of the ENDANGERED desert tortoise...

http://www.kpho.com/story/23252455/desert-tortoise-faces-threat-from-it…

Nothing to see here....move along folks...

This entire debacle stinks to high heaven!
thesadguy wrote:
maybe there is another reason they want this land? It is obvious they dont give a shit about the animal
The government-and their unknowing pawns, the environmentalists-simply want all Americans off of the land...they want to lock up all the natural resources, which will destroy rural economies and force people to heavily urbanized areas (for work) where they are easier to control and eventually begin voting for more government (which is what they want) to protect them from the ills of society that surround them.

(Sorry...I will take my tin foil hat off now.) lol

Post a reply to: Next Waco/Ruby Ridge?

The Latest