Martin Enterprises wrote: There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are auth...orized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
IF you have NEVER been a rancher/farmer....someone who literally produces the food that
YOU eat.....(not some corporation conglomerate)....you will never understand the "stand"
that was taken....ranching/farming is a HARD way to make a living....I APPLAUD this
rancher and his FIRM stand against being railroaded.....JMO
Isn't it amazing that none of the other ranchers in Nevada had problems paying their taxes for 20 years, (which gave the Bundy deadbeat a business advantage).
Someone who simply decides to say "I don't acknowledge the Government" shouldn't get to hide behind it. This scum used the services; this scum owes the taxes. Amazing how none of the others had that problem. But hey, if you can use "liberty" and "freedom" in a sentence then somehow it's okay...
I repeat:
Sovereign Citizen/Vigilante/Militia/Domestic Terrorists Improving their skills at waging an armed conflict with lawful Government representatives
Isn't it nice that it gives the Sovereign Citizen/Militia/domestic-terrorist wackos a chance to go out and wave their guns around and play "anti-government" for a day and use "patriot" in a sentence.
It just makes my heart go pitty-pat to see how these knuckle-dragging morons--oh, sorry..."patriots"--are ready to ambush lawful Government representatives from a coward's sniper position. God, I'm soooo impressed..... It's time for the Government to start dealing with home-grown terrorists...They're way more dangerous than the Islamists.
Family heritage of RANCHING ON THE WESTERN SLOPE.......(Kansas Mesa, Maroon Bells,Plateau
City, Molina, Colbran,Grand Mesa are SOME of the areas...dating back to the late 1800's/1900's)
Altho personally I did not live on a ranch....I was a "helper" during hay season and the annual
cattle drive to bring them down from Maroon Bells for the winter.....it's a hard life (REWARDING)
BUT HARD.....so, my POV is different from yours LJ.....the government is NOT a friend to the
rancher.
The question is NOT whether or not "the government is a friend to the rancher", but why this particular rancher thinks he gets to play by a different set of rules than all the other ranchers simply by declaring that he doesn't recognize the right of the Government. I don't care "how rewarding" or "hard" it is.
I would answer with this....REREAD Martin's post above.....some individuals will acquiesce because
they don't have the "stomach" to take a stand....it's like a "whistle blower" vs. a NON whistle
blower.....from a purely psychological POV.....you can take the "excrement" or you CAN'T.....it's
a VERY personal choice (and I speak from a position of KNOWING).......
