Bundy vs. BLM

Drudge has a link up to a video (made by an InfoWars "reporter").

It wasn't an "end to operations". It really was a retreat.

Thankfully federal authorities didn't open fire on protestors over grazing fees, but wow, they backed up and left, and the cattle that had been rounded up was released.

The whole operation was a waste of time and money, and accomplished nothing.

 

Which of course makes the odds the video is complete bullshit abput 98.4%.

 

Well, granted, InfoWars is a propaganda site, but the video looks legit.

You can judge for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bD61YFxUga4

 

The issue, as I understand it, is that Bundy believes the BLM stole a portion of his property, which had been in his family for generations, and has no expectation of justice from the federal court system, which he believes is rigged to simply rubber-stamp federal policy. As to the fees he's "required" to pay, his contention is that he shouldn't have to pay a fee to graze cattle on his own land.

 

I'm not an expert on this case, or land use in general, but I think you're a little off.

My understanding is that Bundy believes it is state (or maybe county) land, not federal land. He also says his family has been grazing on this land for over 100 years; since before the creation of the BLM. He believes his rights predate any changes made by the BLM.

I believe he also says he's paid grazing fees to the state.

 

In other words, "laws don't apply to me."

 

I don't believe eminent domain is in play here.

The land in question was always public land. The question (in Bundy's mind, at least) is which government entity owns it, and what rights do ranchers have to use it.

 

Yeah, I deleted that post after reading a little further from a different source.

Stop linking to The Review-Journal. What horrific, agenda-driven reporting.

 

Well, now I want to read what they have to say!

 

This is a comment from a LVRJ story:

Now, I don't know if this is accurate, but I did hear it as one of Bundy's arguments.

 

That sounds an awful lot like a guy who has just decided not to pay taxes.

 

Well, if the fees are supposed to be used to maintain the land, and they aren't being used that way, then the "contract" is already in default.

And, if he did spend his own money to maintain it when the BLM dropped the ball then it's not like he saved any money.