|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bundys and the Armed Occupation of a National Wildlife Refuge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
New Cat's Eye writes: 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. That screeching sound you hear is the goalposts as you drag them across the field. You asked why there would be user fees for something that is public. I gave you an example in this post, and in other posts. It is actually a very common thing to charge user fees for using public resources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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. Do you know what the "change" was in 1993 that Bundy was reacting to? Something changed with the fees but I dunno what. It seems to me like this was all a response to those changes in the form of: "that's bullshit, I ain't paying for that." Then 15 years or so goes by and they're all: "Now you owe us a million dollars". "Fuck that" is an understandable response - depending on the circumstances.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You asked why there would be user fees for something that is public. No, I asked you what the user fees for grazing lands was used for. And you made something up and I called you out on it and now you're backpeddling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: From what I read the fees were still below the market rate.
quote: I very much doubt that. More likely after 15 years of trying everything else to get him to pay his debts, they finally take him to court.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
New Cat's Eye writes: Do you know what the "change" was in 1993 that Bundy was reacting to? Something changed with the fees but I dunno what. It seems to me like this was all a response to those changes in the form of: "that's bullshit, I ain't paying for that." Then 15 years or so goes by and they're all: "Now you owe us a million dollars". "Fuck that" is an understandable response - depending on the circumstances.
Just goes to show what it is really about: money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
New Cat's Eye writes:
No, I asked you what the user fees for grazing lands was used for. And you made something up and I called you out on it and now you're backpeddling.
What did I make up? Private citizens charge grazing fees to use their private land. Why? Because grazing land IS A RESOURCE. Why shouldn't people pay when they use resources on public lands as well? The truth of the matter is that grazing fees on public lands are a fraction of what they are on private land. The cost for public lands is $1.35 per animal per month. That's about $15 bucks per animal per year. A 600 pound steer sells for almost $1000. If someone says that the government is charging them so much they can no longer afford to raise cattle, just know that they are full of bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The truth of the matter is that grazing fees on public lands are a fraction of what they are on private land. The cost for public lands is $1.35 per animal per month. On public land, the permit holder is responsible for maintenance. On private land, the land owner is responsible.
What did I make up? That the grazing fees are the same thing as bus fares.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
New Cat's Eye writes: On public land, the permit holder is responsible for maintenance. They never repair everything they damage. There is still damage left over that BLM and other agencies have to fix.
That the grazing fees are the same thing as bus fares. They are the same. When you are on the bus, you are responsible for cleaning up after yourself and not tearing the bus apart. Still, damages occur to the bus anyway, and those fees along with public tax dollars pay for those damages. It is exactly the same. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14174dm Member (Idle past 1135 days) Posts: 161 From: Cincinnati OH Joined: |
I will try to the referencep later but my memory of all the Bundy crap is that not only are they not paying but that the federal rates are below private and state land rates. That's why the locals were against the take over of the refuge to try to turn it over to the states.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Do you know what the "change" was in 1993 that Bundy was reacting to? Something changed with the fees but I dunno what. The principle changes were about limiting grazing in certain areas to protect certain wildlife (ie., desert tortoise), limiting the amount of cattle to allow areas to recover from wildfire etc. Bundy ignored these limitations and grazed where he pleased and refused to pay grazing fees.
It seems to me like this was all a response to those changes in the form of: "that's bullshit, I ain't paying for that." Bundy's version is 'that's bullshit - I ain't beholden to no stinking Feds'.
Then 15 years or so goes by and they're all: "Now you owe us a million dollars". Well actually a few years went by when courts finally made explicit he was engaging in prohibited behaviour and ordered him to cease with a fine. then followed 15 years or so of orders and fines which he ignored - which amounted to $1,000,000 of him refusing to engage with them. In 1995 during tensions between the government and the ranchers, the Forest Service was attacked by a bomb. At this time, people that worked for the government were harassed, as were their children over the matter. Stores refused service to people. Bitter tensions were already building - workers were advised to travel in pairs due to safety concerns. Bundy had $31,000 in fines around this time. In the background, States and Counties in the area were trying to assert ownership and control over the land over the Federal government. In 1996, two more terrorist attacks - pipe bombs - against the Forest Service. And so it went - signs prohibiting grazing were chainsawed down, filled with bullet holes, and basically ignored. Far from this coming from nowhere - this was a long standing situation which Bundy was aware of from the outset - he even represented himself in court so ignorance of the court's instructions cannot be claimed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/...and-the-federal-government In 1998 Bundy received more prohibitions along with the fine of "$200.00 per day per head for any livestock belonging to Bundy remaining on the Bunkerville Allotment after November 30, 1998." 200 x 15 x 365 = approximately $1,000,000. That's for one cow being present every day. I expect his herds amounted to more than this - he claimed a maximum of 500 I believe.
No, I asked you what the user fees for grazing lands was used for. quote: Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues - EveryCRSReport.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Thanks Mod. I didn't really want to get into reading a bunch of legal crap on federal grazing laws, but here I am.
Thanks for the link, it was informative.
Do you know what the "change" was in 1993 that Bundy was reacting to? Something changed with the fees but I dunno what. The principle changes were about limiting grazing in certain areas to protect certain wildlife (ie., desert tortoise), limiting the amount of cattle to allow areas to recover from wildfire etc. Bundy ignored these limitations and grazed where he pleased and refused to pay grazing fees. So there was a "Grazing Fee Task Group Study of 1992" that resulted in the 1993 fee changes. From:Grazing Costs: What’s the Current Situation? Prepared by University of Idaho Extension Agricultural Economist, Neil Rimbey, L. Allen Torell Agricultural Economics Extension Series No 2011-02, March 22, 2011 quote: Turns out, the fee actually went down, so I dunno what the issue is there - but I don't really care.
Bundy's version is 'that's bullshit - I ain't beholden to no stinking Feds'. I really don't care about the Bundy's in particular and have no interested in defending them.
No, I asked you what the user fees for grazing lands was used for. quote: Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues - EveryCRSReport.com So some of the fee money is used on maintenance. Digging through the links in your link, I found some interesting information. First off, the grazing fees are not the primary source for maintenance costs. Also, they spend about half their money on administrative costs. From your link:
quote: From the Government Accountability Office I found:
quote: Regarding comparative costs between federal and private land, also from your link:
quote: So it's a bit complicated
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Thanks Mod. I didn't really want to get into reading a bunch of legal crap on federal grazing laws, but here I am. Heh - tell me about it. One jolt of curiosity later and I'm knee deep in it
Turns out, the fee actually went down, so I dunno what the issue is there - but I don't really care. As near as I can tell - the main change was limiting grazing in certain areas to protect certain wildlife (ie., desert tortoise), limiting the amount of cattle to allow areas to recover from wildfire etc. Bundy's attitude was of the sort of 'hey - my great grandparents have been grazing on these lands forever, so I have every right to continue grazing my cattle here - Federal regulations be damned.' So not only did he continue to graze in prohibited areas, but he also stopped paying the fees and so was also grazing without a permit.
I really don't care about the Bundy's in particular and have no interested in defending them. Bundy in particular aside - the same reasoning seems to apply to the other ranchers in the area - including the terrorists. That said - you have seen the title of the thread you are in, right? It does seem to be about Bundy and you've contributed directly to 5% of this topics posts and replies to your posts constitute 9% of this thread...
So some of the fee money is used on maintenance. Digging through the links in your link, I found some interesting information. First off, the grazing fees are not the primary source for maintenance costs. Also, they spend about half their money on administrative costs. Sounds similar to other situations where fees are applied, right?
First off, the grazing fees are not the primary source for maintenance costs. Which means, from the ranchers point of view - they should be seen as a bargain, right? Though it is also probably also true that not all damage, wear and tear and so on is down to cattle grazing. There is talk in the same documents about off-road vehicles causing damage, for instance. Naturally some of this will be ranchers vehicles - but I expect there are also recreational vehicles causing damage too.
So it's a bit complicated Who'd have thought government funding systems could be so complex? For completeness we should probably also look to the Transit system funding. A cursory glance shows they generally lose money on a ticket vs costs look - and also rely on subsidies to avoid the loss making trips from being eliminated. But that's as much detail as I care to go into that can of worms Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That said - you have seen the title of the thread you are in, right? It does seem to be about Bundy and you've contributed directly to 5% of this topics posts and replies to your posts constitute 9% of this thread... Discounting the joke I posted first, in my original post I wrote:
quote: I think I've made that point, so I'll stop there. I certainly won't read about bus fares - I don't even remember the last time I took public transportation.
Which means, from the ranchers point of view - they should be seen as a bargain, right? The ranchers claim the cost to them is more on federal land vs. private land - despite the fee being lower.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 638 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
https://www.yahoo.com/...ison-nevada-standoff-204538586.html
A federal judge sentenced a Phoenix man Wednesday to 68 years in prison for his role as a gunman in a standoff that stopped federal agents from rounding up cattle near the Nevada ranch of anti-government activist Cliven Bundy three years ago. Prosecutors had sought a maximum sentence of 73 years for Gregory Burleson after he was convicted of threatening and assaulting a federal officer, obstruction and traveling across state lines in aid of extortion.
(More at the link)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024