Cliven Bundy Ranch Standoff

[GoSkins561]

"Public" meaning owned by the government and available for public use. But not necessarily free public use, right? There are admission fees to public national parks, mostly to pay to maintain them. If his cattle grazing are causing wear and tear to the public lands, should he not have to pay grazing fees to compensate? 

 

I'm no legal expert, but what about Beneficial Use?

 

[Larry]

yeah, but it will be interesting to see if it helps move the returning federal land to the states movement.

 

hopefully things don't get out of hand

 

What do you mean, "returning" federal land to the states? 

 

Did this land used to be owned by the state, and the feds took it?  Without paying for it? 

What about the 1st Amendment Zone?  Do people actually think this is okay?

Just speaking for myself, but no, it's not OK. (Well, not the way it's typically implemented, IMO.) It's something I would expect to see (and have seen, in Daily Show reports) in Russia.

However, it is something that's been going on for decades, and near as I can tell, the courts seem to be upholding it.

Me, I think it's treason, to so much as propose it. But my opinion don;t seem to count, much.

[Dan T.]

Why doesn't Bundy use own his ranch for grazing, instead of demanding free use of government land?

 

He sounds like another welfare dependent socialist, sucking on the government teat.

[GoSkins561]

Why doesn't Bundy use own his ranch for grazing, instead of demanding free use of government land?

 

He sounds like another welfare dependent socialist, sucking on the government teat.

 

Because the public land provides the water his cattle need to survive which his family has been using for 130 years.

 

Unfortunately, he hasn't been paying his rent, which waters down his entire argument.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Ok, from a laymana point of view some 3000 and odd miles away; this 'First Amandment Zone' thing ..... Y'all live in a democratic society right? And by association shouldn't freedom of speech be allowed EVERYWHERE?

Now I appreciate the connotations of that but it seems more like a dictatorship mascarading as democracy.

Someone like your 16th President must be fair spinning in his grave at such states of affairs.

Hail.

[twa]

 

What do you mean, "returning" federal land to the states? 

 

Did this land used to be owned by the state, and the feds took it?  Without paying for it? 

 

 

Ask them, I live in a different land(a former republic)

it is a big movement out west in the former territories

 

next the redskins will be wanting some

[Destino]

The entire concept if a free speech zone is ridiculous, but these days every high minded well intentioned person thinks that compromise is the only way to solve anything. All rights have been eroded steadily to the point where a free speech zone makes perfect sense. Search and siezure? Doesn't cover modern forms of communication and your person and papers are far from secure if they'd prefer they not be. Due process? If you're deemed a legal citizen and the patriot act isn't rightly (or wrongly, there are no consequences) applied. Free speech in an assigned area fits right in. I think each state should set asside one field for free speech wherever they find convenient.

[Dan T.]

I thought they canceled the free speech zones, which were set up because people were interfering with the rangers.  Now people can protest wherever as long as they don't obstruct operations.

[Predicto]

Gibbs Hog Heaven, the purpose of free speech zones it to protect the safety of the speakers, especially in situations where guns are present or where there is a risk that the disagreements can get physical.  You want people to be able to express their views but you don't want violence or interference with law enforcement operations.

 

I'm not saying they are using the concept correctly here, but that is what they are for.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Interesting tale, but the Cliven character is 100% in the wrong. 

[Larry]

Ask them, I live in a different land(a former republic)

it is a big movement out west in the former territories

 

next the redskins will be wanting some

Well, at least they do have the fact that they used to own it, going for them.

Gibbs Hog Heaven, the purpose of free speech zones it to protect the safety of the speakers, especially in situations where guns are present or where there is a risk that the disagreements can get physical.  You want people to be able to express their views but you don't want violence or interference with law enforcement operations.

 

I'm not saying they are using the concept correctly here, but that is what they are for.

I disagree.

That may be the line that's used to try to justify them. But at least from what I've read, the practice is that "anybody who agrees with the government is allowed to stand anywhere they want. Anybody who disagrees with the government must go to this secluded back alley that's located five miles from the scene, and five miles from the cameras."

[Bliz]

I'm no legal expert, but what about Beneficial Use?

 

 

You can't trespass to do something you think is helpful.  You couldn't come onto my property to mow the lawn without my permission just because it's benefiting the property (though if you do, I promise I won't call the cops ).  Or, the fact that you've been benefiting from my land for decades doesn't mean you have higher rights than I do as a property owner (without getting into an extended discussion on adverse possession, which is irrelevant here since you can't acquire rights in government land by adverse possession anyway).

 

Beneficial use might come into a play as an element in a scenario like, say you owned a bunch of cattle and wanted them to be able to graze on someone else's land.  And that someone else says you can do that, but you have to pay for it.  And so you let the cattle on their land, but tell them "I ain't paying."  The someone else could sue you for the reasonable value of your access.  You knew that this person expected to be paid if you accessed the land, you did access it, and you accepted the benefits of accessing it.  Accepting that benefit, with the knowledge the other guy expected to be paid, undercuts your argument that you never agreed to pay. 

[Larry]

I could see how beneficial use might be a defense, if somebody were suing you for damages. 

 

It's the "there are no damages" defense. 

 

But I don't see it working if they're suing you for not paying rent. 

[Predicto]

 

I disagree.

That may be the line that's used to try to justify them. But at least from what I've read, the practice is that "anybody who agrees with the government is allowed to stand anywhere they want. Anybody who disagrees with the government must go to this secluded back alley that's located five miles from the scene, and five miles from the cameras."

 

 

That is how free speech zones have been misused at times.  

 

But a lot of the time, they are used more reasonably.   For example, when the gay marriages began at SF City Hall, people were lined up around the block to get married.   The Westboro Church showed up to protest and they were put in a free speech zone on the other side of the the street, so that they could be heard but also so that they wouldn't get their faces punched in.    Or when protestors come to an abortion clinic, they will be kept 15 feet away from the door so that the people entering the building don't have to run a gauntlet of signs to go in.  Or when you want to protest actions by a City Council, you don't get to stand in the council chambers with a bullhorn and drown out the proceedings.  

 

There have always been reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the exercise of free speech.   The devil is in the details.

[Destino]

That is how free speech zones have been misused at times.

But a lot of the time, they are used more reasonably. For example, when the gay marriages began at SF City Hall, people were lined up around the block to get married. The Westboro Church showed up to protest and they were put in a free speech zone on the other side of the the street, so that they could be heard but also so that they wouldn't get their faces punched in. Or when protestors come to an abortion clinic, they will be kept 15 feet away from the door so that the people entering the building don't have to run a gauntlet of signs to go in. Or when you want to protest actions by a City Council, you don't get to stand in the council chambers with a bullhorn and drown out the proceedings.

There have always been reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the exercise of free speech. The devil is in the details.

I think there is a difference between something like keeping across the street from a building so as not to physically interfere and a free speech "zone". Symbols are powerful things and when you create a box for the people that disagree to stand apart from everyone else, it sends a message. Safety is important but not to the point where rights are scaled back so significantly that they cease to be rights. The point of a protest is to demand something or communicate a grievance it's not supposed to be so clean that it becomes pointless.

[TheGoodBits]

I think there is a difference between something like keeping across the street from a building so as not to physically interfere and a free speech "zone". 

 

I think that's actually exactly what a "free speech zone" is. 

 

No problem with the implementation in this case. Judging from the video, it's desperately needed so that conflicts are not further escalated. 

[GoSkins561]

I think that's actually exactly what a "free speech zone" is. 

 

No problem with the implementation in this case. Judging from the video, it's desperately needed so that conflicts are not further escalated. 

 

So, what gives the government the "right" to confiscate this mans cattle? 

[Destino]

I think that's actually exactly what a "free speech zone" is.

No problem with the implementation in this case. Judging from the video, it's desperately needed so that conflicts are not further escalated.

Does the conflict you saw serve no purpose? When I look at history many protests got confrontational and violent. Some of those being terribly important. I'm sure it would have been easier on the government and the status quo if they could have roped off the protestors in a nice park where they wouldn't bother anyone.

[GoSkins561]

I'm still confused on why the Bureau of Land Management has Swat Teams/Snipers????

[Larry]

So, what gives the government the "right" to confiscate this mans cattle?

You mean, asside from the fact that they're on my lawn?

[The 12th Commandment]

I've appraised my share of western 'public land' ranches and no entity gives you forage for free. You don't pay the bill they confiscate your property (the cattle instead of your couch).  Same as any other landlord.  They gave him all the time in the world to comply and he threw a tantrum.  That doesn't work with the electric company and it doesn't work with the feds.  BLM (most of the federally managed public land, i.e. most of the west) is dirt cheap forage, and don't let any rancher tell you the cost of fencing or road/stock tank maintenance is putting him out of business.  It's pathetic that so many people would side with this guy.  He's stealing from every one of them.  

 

Never mind that the carrying capacity for this land is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 acres to feed a single cow for a year. Desert land around me is 80 acre so I'm being conservative.  No business grazing cattle on land that marginal they should be in Kansas or Nebraska instead of ethanol kern.

 

BLM has law enforcement because they manage land out in the middle of nowhere (literally) and there's no other law to call.  They're like game wardens they have the police power but it's only used when it's relevant to their job.

[Larry]

I'm still confused on why the Bureau of Land Management has Swat Teams/Snipers????

In case they have to fight a militia? (Or a drug cartel, using public land to grow their crop?).

[TheGoodBits]

So, what gives the government the "right" to confiscate this mans cattle?

They weren't on his land and he wasn't paying for them to be where they were. Pretty simple.

Does the conflict you saw serve no purpose? When I look at history many protests got confrontational and violent. Some of those being terribly important. I'm sure it would have been easier on the government and the status quo if they could have roped off the protestors in a nice park where they wouldn't bother anyone.

Sure, I mean if you think some that this issue is worth people escalating the conflict to violence then by all means... I saw a bunch of law enforcement officials doing a hell of a job holding onto control of that situation, but it would not have taken much for it to boil over.

[AdamB]

So, what gives the government the "right" to confiscate this mans cattle? 

 

 

Well, based on the article you posted in the op, I would imagine it is the $1,000,000 in unpaid grazing fees over the past 20 years plus his failure to remove his cattle on his own.

 

I'm still confused on why the Bureau of Land Management has Swat Teams/Snipers????

 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/law_enforcement.html

 

 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages a wide variety of resources spread over 245 million acres of public lands and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate.  These public land resources include timber, forage, energy and minerals, recreation, wild horse and burro herds, fish and wildlife habitat, wilderness areas, and archaeological and paleontological sites.  The BLM has been given specific resource protection and law enforcement responsibilities that relate to its resource management mission.  There are many federal laws and regulations that relate to public lands and resources.  These laws and regulations are often quite unique in that they apply only to federal lands and have no counterparts in state law.

 

The BLM fields a force of approximately 200 Law Enforcement Rangers (uniformed officers) and 70 Special Agents (criminal investigators) who enforce a wide range of laws and regulations in the prevention, detection, and investigation of crimes affecting public lands resources.  These crimes include mineral resource theft; wilderness area violations; hazardous materials dumping; archaeological and paleontological resource theft and vandalism; cultivation, manufacture, smuggling, and use of illegal drugs; timber, forest product, and native plant theft; off-highway vehicle use; alcohol related crimes; and wildland arson.

 

 

Basically, in addition to other crimes, if you are trafficking drugs across BLM land or running a meth lab, it is part of their responsibilities to respond. I would imagine a special response team might be handy when there are no other law enforcement available due to being in remote areas.

[GoSkins561]

Again, I'm not a legal expert, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as "because they're on my lawn" and "he owes me a million". 

Well, based on the article you posted in the op, I would imagine it is the $1,000,000 in unpaid grazing fees over the past 20 years plus his failure to remove his cattle on his own.

 

 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/law_enforcement.html

 

 

 

 

Basically, in addition to other crimes, if you are trafficking drugs across BLM land or running a meth lab, it is part of their responsibilities to respond. I would imagine a special response team might be handy when there are no other law enforcement available due to being in remote areas.

 

 

Hmmm, seems like another huge waist of tax payer money to me considering the FBI and ATF are sitting around with their thumbs up their butts.