Hammonds, Cliven Bundy, BLM ranchers, BLM

[Cross-7]

Why does it matter to us ?

Bundy was wronged in my opinion as well as the 50 other ranchers that lost their BLM ranches
I think the endangered species act was just a tool to remove them same as the sentence on the Hammonds and them having to agree to give the BLM first option to buy if they have to sell.
The BLM knows that will continue to apply pressure the Hammonds will be forced to sell.

Why does any of this matter to me ?

Because of the direction I think the government headed
I feel like they are/will use the epa and the other creative ways to pick us off one by one.
If you stand up and fight back you face federal charges and called a nut

How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time and that's what think is happening

 

[dun]

Why does it matter to us ?

Bundy was wronged in my opinion as well as the 50 other ranchers that lost their BLM ranches
I think the endangered species act was just a tool to remove them same as the sentence on the Hammonds and them having to agree to give the BLM first option to buy if they have to sell.
The BLM knows that will continue to apply pressure the Hammonds will be forced to sell.

Why does any of this matter to me ?

Because of the direction I think the government headed
I feel like they are/will use the epa and the other creative ways to pick us off one by one.
If you stand up and fight back you face federal charges and called a nut

How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time and that's what think is happening

Great post!

 

[greybeard]

It ain't the first bite and it won't be the last. Like those old Lays potato chips commercials--none of them can eat just one.
This long long ago, stopped being about left vs right. It's about The People vs Govt.

 

[bball]

2 really truthful posts in one thread (really 3, because dun is right too). It's happening, every single day. The slow and steady march, one step at a time. As long as it doesn't directly effect people (or more accurately; people don't actually recognize the effects) the march continues on. This is how idea wars are fought and won. One day at a time, moment to moment, the slow dissolution of what is, while the 'new' takes its place and becomes 'the norm'. The military uses it quite effectively for training along with other government agencies that utilize it in training as well. It works on the masses as well, just a less intense, more refined version.
I like duns other thread about JFKs quote pertaining to Dems vs. Reps.
Democrat or Republican are merely speeds now on a vehicle with a single destination. When the people will tolerate it, the vehicle is throttled up. When the people become anxious with the rate, the vehicle is throttled back. All the while staying it's course. And we are all asleep in the backseat, or busy fighting each other like small children on a long car ride. And "dear ol dad" is ok with that, because we aren't distracting him from driving us to the 'destination'.

 

[farmguy]

As our country grows and changes the Federal government reflects the desires and needs of the entire population. Forget the whole federal ownership of land question, that was decided many times by the Supreme court. It's beating a dead horse. The Federal land was rented to ranchers for years usually on a several year lease. Now the desires of the people have changed and grazing is not a priority. Reading the Taylor grazing acts states no right to land beyond the lease period. I can sympathize with those who desire to continue their way of life and that of their parents. I too have rented land and we have also had rental property so I know both sides. The only way to me seems to try to work with the federal government knowing full well who owns the land or leave. This is reality.

 

[True Grit Farms]

As our country grows and changes the Federal government reflects the desires and needs of the entire population. Forget the whole federal ownership of land question, that was decided many times by the Supreme court. It's beating a dead horse. The Federal land was rented to ranchers for years usually on a several year lease. Now the desires of the people have changed and grazing is not a priority. Reading the Taylor grazing acts states no right to land beyond the lease period. I can sympathize with those who desire to continue their way of life and that of their parents. I too have rented land and we have also had rental property so I know both sides. The only way to me seems to try to work with the federal government knowing full well who owns the land or leave. This is reality.

All this is very true, but how about on private property that you own? If all the BLM land was put up to be homestead the government would get it all back. The restrictions put forth by the EPA and all the other government agencies has made it impossible.

 

[bball]

As our country grows and changes the Federal government reflects the desires and needs of the entire population. Forget the whole federal ownership of land question, that was decided many times by the Supreme court. It's beating a dead horse. The Federal land was rented to ranchers for years usually on a several year lease. Now the desires of the people have changed and grazing is not a priority. Reading the Taylor grazing acts states no right to land beyond the lease period. I can sympathize with those who desire to continue their way of life and that of their parents. I too have rented land and we have also had rental property so I know both sides. The only way to me seems to try to work with the federal government knowing full well who owns the land or leave. This is reality.

Could not disagree more with this statement. It's a nice thought, but not truth. It is how it should be, but not accurate today. Can't use words like entire, needs ,etc when speaking of federal govt. Plenty of folks on here alone who have made it quite clear that the federal govt does not represent their needs or desires.

 

[farmguy]

"If all the BLM land was put up to be homestead the government would get it all back"

I do not understand. Could you explain further? Thank You.

"Could not disagree more with this statement. It's a nice thought, but not truth. It is how it should be, but not accurate today. Can't use words like entire, needs ,etc when speaking of federal govt. Plenty of folks on here alone who have made it quite clear that the federal govt does not represent their needs or desires."

In a democracy or a republic no one should be completely happy. We have many different opinions and desires. That is why we have elections and the majority elect people that agree with their goals and thus public policy is created. I too am not completely happy with our country. What should I do? We either have a rule of law or we have what we see in the Mideast. I for one would prefer the former. farmguy

 

[bball]

"If all the BLM land was put up to be homestead the government would get it all back"

I do not understand. Could you explain further? Thank You.

"Could not disagree more with this statement. It's a nice thought, but not truth. It is how it should be, but not accurate today. Can't use words like entire, needs ,etc when speaking of federal govt. Plenty of folks on here alone who have made it quite clear that the federal govt does not represent their needs or desires."

In a democracy or a republic no one should be completely happy. We have many different opinions and desires. That is why we have elections and the majority elect people that agree with their goals and thus public policy is created. I too am not completely happy with our country. What should I do? We either have a rule of law or we have what we see in the Mideast. I for one would prefer the former. farmguy

Point is this, history has proven time and time again, when govt of any kind becomes too large or too obtrusive, the people revolt. You can insert 'rule of law' for big govt, but when the people have had enough, they have had enough. You are free to trade your Liberty forthe safety of rule of law, but there is a happy medium in there. This country used to have that balance, not so long ago. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.

 

[dun]

It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.

Swinging from one extreme to the other is how averages are derived.

 

[branguscowgirl]

Why does it matter to us ?

Bundy was wronged in my opinion as well as the 50 other ranchers that lost their BLM ranches
I think the endangered species act was just a tool to remove them same as the sentence on the Hammonds and them having to agree to give the BLM first option to buy if they have to sell.
The BLM knows that will continue to apply pressure the Hammonds will be forced to sell.

Why does any of this matter to me ?

Because of the direction I think the government headed
I feel like they are/will use the epa and the other creative ways to pick us off one by one.
If you stand up and fight back you face federal charges and called a nut

How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time and that's what think is happening

Why does it matter to me?
Because there is a very deep and sinister motive behind all of it with the Federal Government that we do not know about yet. The Governments plan is much bigger than what the media reports, the "endangered species act" or any kind of conservation! It is so big that they will imprison or murder anyone that gets in their way. They are using unjust force and fear to get people out of their way.
LaVoy could have been arrested and tried for his "crimes", yet they chose to gun him down in cold blood. Did he know something that they did not want him to know?
Everything they have fed us is just a smoke screen covering something much bigger, and likely very bad!

 

[bball]

It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.

Swinging from one extreme to the other is how averages are derived.

True dun. I think there is enough history to show we don't need to live the oppression of big govt or the anarchy of no govt to understand the damage that comes from either end of the spectrum. My point being, there was a time when this country had a balance between liberty and govt. It doesn't have to be all big govt or all anarchy like the mideast. It requires personal responsibility and people accepting the reality that they have a role and obligation to take care of themselves and their own. No such thing as a free lunch. Somewhere, somebody paid for it.

 

[1wlimo]

As our country grows and changes the Federal government reflects the desires and needs of the entire population. Forget the whole federal ownership of land question, that was decided many times by the Supreme court. It's beating a dead horse. The Federal land was rented to ranchers for years usually on a several year lease. Now the desires of the people have changed and grazing is not a priority. Reading the Taylor grazing acts states no right to land beyond the lease period. I can sympathize with those who desire to continue their way of life and that of their parents. I too have rented land and we have also had rental property so I know both sides. The only way to me seems to try to work with the federal government knowing full well who owns the land or leave. This is reality.

Taking grazing animals off the land destroys it, just like removing the small logging companies from the forests in turn leads to increased fries that destroy them. You do not need the BLM, but a smaller properly run operation that could even make money.

There may be a few older ranchers that are kind of stuck in their ways, but the correct educator working with them would be better than removing most of them from the area. Some one from the city shown the picture of a cute animal votes for the animal. They do not understand the complex ecosystem that is required to maintain it's habitat. In nearly all open and lightly timbered ground in the word that is grazing.

People do not want timber production due to large scale clear cut. Small companies that do not clear cut have been removed, so tree populations have increased up to 50 times and hence there is more fuel and a fire is not normal, but now devastating.

 

[CottageFarm]

As our country grows and changes the Federal government reflects the desires and needs of the entire population. Forget the whole federal ownership of land question, that was decided many times by the Supreme court. It's beating a dead horse. The Federal land was rented to ranchers for years usually on a several year lease. Now the desires of the people have changed and grazing is not a priority. Reading the Taylor grazing acts states no right to land beyond the lease period. I can sympathize with those who desire to continue their way of life and that of their parents. I too have rented land and we have also had rental property so I know both sides. The only way to me seems to try to work with the federal government knowing full well who owns the land or leave. This is reality.

Ummm, thats would be why we are a democratic republic and not a democracy. The intent was precisely that the people of say...Pennsylvania, didn't get to dictate to the people of ...say...Virginia what they could and could not do at the local level. And why the people of Minnesocold, today, should not dictate to the people of Nevada what happens on 80% of the land in their own state. Sure, maybe ,100 some odd years ago, there might have been a valid reason for the US gov to retain ownership of lands within the new Western states. Those reasons are certainly no longer valid today. Let the respective states decide the fate of the current BLM lands. If the voters of Oregon decide they want the Feds to continue ownership, so be it. If Nevada decides they want to control the other 80 percent of land within their state, they should have that right. If the citizens of a state want to turn the whole damm thing into a wildlife refuge that should be their prerogative. If they want to lease it to ranchers and oil companies, that should be their prerogative as well.

 

[Anonymous]

Very good article about how more land grabs are coming. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... tive-order

 

[hurleyjd]

As our country grows and changes the Federal government reflects the desires and needs of the entire population. Forget the whole federal ownership of land question, that was decided many times by the Supreme court. It's beating a dead horse. The Federal land was rented to ranchers for years usually on a several year lease. Now the desires of the people have changed and grazing is not a priority. Reading the Taylor grazing acts states no right to land beyond the lease period. I can sympathize with those who desire to continue their way of life and that of their parents. I too have rented land and we have also had rental property so I know both sides. The only way to me seems to try to work with the federal government knowing full well who owns the land or leave. This is reality.

Taking grazing animals off the land destroys it, just like removing the small logging companies from the forests in turn leads to increased fries that destroy them. You do not need the BLM, but a smaller properly run operation that could even make money.

There may be a few older ranchers that are kind of stuck in their ways, but the correct educator working with them would be better than removing most of them from the area. Some one from the city shown the picture of a cute animal votes for the animal. They do not understand the complex ecosystem that is required to maintain it's habitat. In nearly all open and lightly timbered ground in the word that is grazing.

People do not want timber production due to large scale clear cut. Small companies that do not clear cut have been removed, so tree populations have increased up to 50 times and hence there is more fuel and a fire is not normal, but now devastating.

Grazing animals has to be in a rotational plan to improve grazing. You cannot just throw as many out there that destroys all grazing plants.

 

[greybeard]

Govt expansion has not been for no reason.
If you want to control a population and ensure your own longevity, you keep as many employees as possible to influence elections.

Govt employee population in the USA last year-2015 (fed, state, local) exceeded 21,995,000.
That, is 9 million more than the total US non govt manufacturing work force--12,329,000.
Margin of victory for the 2012 national election "big govt" candidate over the 2nd closest "smaller govt" rival? About 5 million votes. Self fulfilling.

 

[Caustic Burno]

We started down this road when Lincoln shredded the constitution .
The government got a good running start uphill in the sixties we were starting to loose
the last generation that were willing to die for our freedoms. After the old guard was almost completely gone by the eighties the government has had a full head of steam downhill.

 

[True Grit Farms]

My uncle use to always tell me, that hippies are no good for nothing. He was right, now we're paying the price as a country.

 

[bball]

Govt expansion has not been for no reason.
If you want to control a population and ensure your own longevity, you keep as many employees as possible to influence elections.

Govt employee population in the USA last year-2015 (fed, state, local) exceeded 21,995,000.
That, is 9 million more than the total US non govt manufacturing work force--12,329,000.
Margin of victory for the 2012 national election "big govt" candidate over the 2nd closest "smaller govt" rival? About 5 million votes. Self fulfilling.

Wow. Those numbers are staggering. I had no idea.