The Bundys and the Armed Occupation of a National Wildlife Refuge

As a member of the public, the only "own" a share of that land, and the land is operated by the government for the benefit of all the shareholders = all the citizens of the USofA.They can go to shareholder meetings (elections and town halls) to voice their thoughts on how things should be managed. A gun is not a vote.Enjoy

Just because somebody complains about it doesn't mean it is wrong.

When you are grazing cattle on public lands you are using up resources, polluting, and destroying native habitats. If you have ever tried to walk across high plains deserts where cattle have grazed you will quickly come to realize what kind of impact they have when you can't walk 50 feet without stepping in a "land mine".An analogous situation would be a mining operation moving in and digging a huge, ugly pit mine right in your favorite picturesque mountain meadow. You also wouldn't go into a public park and take a tree out to plant in your own yard. You wouldn't go into a pubic restroom in that park and shit all over the place.We ALL own that land, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with people paying a user fee for using the resources on that public land, especially when it costs tax payer money to protect and repair those public lands.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So you are complaining that there is no fence up? You can just walk onto a national park too. Are you surprised that you cannot shoot Yogi the Bear?This has gotten beyond silly. I yield.You are right. A seven-year-old might think he had the right not to pay fees to use public land for his commercial enterprise.ABE:But what if I consider calling my cows back from public land speech. Isn't it an infringement on my first amendment rights not to let my cows graze over there so I can call them back later? And since it is my land, if the army comes onto it, aren't they violating the third amendment?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If we're paying for the protection and repair of our land with our taxes then what are our user fees for?

Taxes are for the good of everybody. User fees are for the good of the users. If you get more use, you pay more.

That's a nice platitude, but it doesn't match reality. We don't charge user fees for public highways and schools, and we all pay taxes for that stuff. Why is land usage different?

Sure we do. There are toll roads, toll bridges, etc. We "tax" gasoline, which is a form of user fee. Schools charge users for "extras" like art supplies. Etc.

The same thing. It is just like public transportation where there are user fees (bus fare) as well as tax money that fund public transit. You wouldn't go on a bus and demand that you can drive it anywhere you want because it is publically owned. You also would pay the bus fare just like everyone else, even though your tax dollars also pay for that bus.

3 of the local golf courses where I live are owned by the local government, and we still pay green fees. We pay bus fares for publically funded and publically owned public transit. Events pay a user fee to use local parks. People pay user fees to enter parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite. People pay for deer and elk tags. People pay for tree tags when they want fire wood off of public lands. There are tons of examples of user fees for publically held land and property resources.

Others have given examples of many some things we do pay user fees for. I'll add one more. You do pay tolls to drive on some roads. If Bundy was simply claiming not to know better, he was told differently by the government. He pressed his case in court and lost. Yet he continued not to pay. He has yet to pay.Edited by NoNukes, : add info

So it's not the same thing. Grazing requires a permit, and the permit holders are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the land.It'd be like me having to buy a permit to ride the bus, and then I'm responsible for changing the oil and checking the tires, and then on top of that I have to pay a usage fee (despite the costs being subsidized by taxes).Bus fares pay for the operational cost of the buses. The operational costs of the grazing lands is the responsibility of the permit holders.It sounds like you're just making stuff up - our taxes pay for the maintenance. Er, the usage fees pay for the maintenance.Apparently, the permit holders pay for pay for the maintenanceIf you're not just making this stuff up, where are you getting your information?

Well, it was claimed that it was purely greed driving this and that is the point I was responding to.Bundy is one of those sovereign citizen wackos who thinks the feds don't have any authority on this one - I was pointing out that they may be standing by a principle (as misguided as they may be), and that it might not actually be about greed in this case.

Given that the "point of principle" is not paying money, and that the "Sovereign Citizen" movement is heavily into tax evasion and dubious legal manoeuvring to get out of debts it seems very, very likely that greed is behind it.I think it more likely that the "Sovereign Citizen" stupidity is behind the assertion that. Indy is being denied access to lawyers. It's entirely possible that that comes down to Bundy rejecting lawyers who give him sensible advice rather than going along with the crazy cargo cult law he prefers..

It is purely greed. The claims of constitutional violations are just a fig leaf.