# Cliven Bundy?



## #1DEER 1-I

After seeing Phil Lyman will get his punishment sentence tomorrow, which I hope fits the crime and carelessness for a public official to insight and participate in such hillbilly action, I got thinking about the mess in Nevada that occurred in April of 2014. 

I searched the issue up and it seems it still hasn't been resolved, or even seemed to be worked on. In fact it may have gotten worse with other articles saying other cattlemen have disregarded BLM cutting grazing because of drought. 

Now I'm not for getting back into the situation it escalated into a year and a half ago, because we were a trigger pull away from a real bloodbath and scary issue. However, when is this guy and his family accountable to the 320,000,000 Americans he is ripping off? We can't stand for things like this forever? People don't have to like the BLM but disregarding the law and the agency is not how our civilized country works. There are ways to convey your opinions and freedoms, but disregarding the law and punishment thereof is determined in a court of law. I mean with all the tensions on public land IMO the BLM at some point has to take care of things like this. Losing control isn't exactly going to strengthen their case in land management.

I don't agree with everything the BLM does, or all their policies. They are however the manager of these lands and their policies on these lands are the law. Public comment is open to almost everything they do at some point. The states are just as much to blame as the BLM for tensions that currently exist. They've been made an enemy that they really aren't by state officials in the mind of some public who don't want regulations on land we all own. 

I mean to get this solved does the public getting ripped off need to go protest in support and protection of the officers that need to take care of this problem? The BLM was too aggressive and it incited a lot of issues here, but are we just going to pretend it's not going on from here on out?


----------



## lunkerhunter2

Its isnt going to matter after they are stripped of their firearms. It will be open season when all they have are batons and mace.
As for Bundy, hang that sum beech at the town square and make an example of him.


----------



## kailey29us

One of the things that made me kind of chuckle when this was going on. One of the media outlets said he had overwhelming support from local citizens. This was an absolute bunch of bull, he had the support of anti government militia.....that's it. The locals all think he should pay the money he owes for the land he used. The Bundy family and the militia said it had nothing to do with cattle being rounded up but about right and wrong, the first thing they do is set the cattle free. I hope they throw the Bundy's in jail and confiscate his cattle. The Bundy' have made bunches of money by not paying the grazing fees, get a warrant and seize bank accounts, tax returns etc.


----------



## LostLouisianian

One of his claims is that the feds didn't own the land and he should pay the grazing fees to the sheriff of the county....well if that's the case, pay the sheriff and let the sheriff turn it over to the BLM....but has he paid the sheriff one red cent....NOPE


----------



## GaryFish

He is also relatively connected with the Sheriff's office, so they are unwilling to serve arrest warrants. Which is why the dude won't step foot out of his own county. If he were to even drive into Clark County, he'd be arrested. Dude is now a prisoner in his own house so to speak. 

The difference between Bundy and Lyman, is that Lyman is a reasonable and rational person. He knew what he was doing was illegal, and that he'd face the ramifications, and he made the choice. But he admittedly knew it was wrong. Bundy is not rational or reasonable, and really doesn't see that he is wrong. It's like trying to reason with people that thought it was their God given right to enslave other people - you are the one that is wrong for telling them they are wrong. Lyman knew exactly what he was doing. Bundy thinks all the world is against him. 

And what that translates to, is the deal will end when he dies, and his estate is settled, or through violence. BLM isn't going to do what they did last time. My guess is they just play it out and wait for the old dude to kick off. Because really, that crap land down there isn't worth losing a life over, any life. And as crazy as some of those folks are, BLM isn't going to put their guys into the cross-hairs of a trigger happy looney.


----------



## Badin

The Blm area he runs his cattle has some quail and a few chukar. I met one of his kin at a stock water hole while looking for bird sign. I do not know if he thought we were rustlers or just did not like us on public land, but let's just say it was not a friendly meeting. I also had the misfortune to be crossing the I-15 bridge during the insurrection. We were one of the last to cross before traffic was blocked. If you would have seen some of the screwballs running around with assault weapons you might have come away with a reevaluation on whatever your thoughts are one gun control. I did.
i have crossed that area off my list of bird hunting spots until the Feds clean things up.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I love how these BLM agents were considered some type of "federal army" during this situation. They were land management officers going to protect the rest of the American public from someone costing us a large chunk of change. IMO watching the videos the BLM agents aced pretty good when things stared getting out of hand. They had thugs pointing assault rifles at them, people screaming threats and slures, and even some of these that ran into their vehicles. In most cases the perpetrators of all these crimes against federal officers would not go so easily punished.


----------



## Badin

This is not "crap" country, game is just a little sparse, that's all. You get use to fly fishing for lizards.


----------



## plottrunner

Hmmm, I thought politics were forbidden on the UWN...guess oneI is exempt...It is enjoyable to see that he continues to talk out his back side about things he knows nothing about.....


----------



## plottrunner

GaryFish said:


> He is also relatively connected with the Sheriff's office, so they are unwilling to serve arrest warrants. Which is why the dude won't step foot out of his own county. If he were to even drive into Clark County, he'd be arrested. Dude is now a prisoner in his own house so to speak.
> 
> The difference between Bundy and Lyman, is that Lyman is a reasonable and rational person. He knew what he was doing was illegal, and that he'd face the ramifications, and he made the choice. But he admittedly knew it was wrong. Bundy is not rational or reasonable, and really doesn't see that he is wrong. It's like trying to reason with people that thought it was their God given right to enslave other people - you are the one that is wrong for telling them they are wrong. Lyman knew exactly what he was doing. Bundy thinks all the world is against him.
> 
> And what that translates to, is the deal will end when he dies, and his estate is settled, or through violence. BLM isn't going to do what they did last time. My guess is they just play it out and wait for the old dude to kick off. Because really, that crap land down there isn't worth losing a life over, any life. And as crazy as some of those folks are, BLM isn't going to put their guys into the cross-hairs of a trigger happy looney.


Hmm so you personally know Cliven? How about Ryan or Ammon? Since Cliven was in Cedar City a few weeks ago, I guess your statement about a prisoner in his own home is off too.....


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

plottrunner said:


> Hmmm, I thought politics were forbidden on the UWN...guess oneI is exempt...It is enjoyable to see that he continues to talk out his back side about things he knows nothing about.....


You're right, it's good plot runner the knower of all good is here to chime in with nothing but antagonistic comments. And yes I already know I give my fair share as well.


----------



## plottrunner

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You're right, it's good plot runner the knower of all good is here to chime in with nothing but antagonistic comments. And yes I already know I give my fair share as well.


Just checking to see if politics were now allowed to be discussed on UWN. And I see that you side with the Feds on this matter, just wondering if you know the Bundy's or if you know any of the people personally that spent some time in Bunkerville last April stopping the Federal Government from imposing their will on a cattleman or if you having nothing better to do as usual are bringing this matter up because of a self imposed keeper of the galaxy mentality? Maybe you should have done a poll.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

plottrunner said:


> Just checking to see if politics were now allowed to be discussed on UWN. And I see that you side with the Feds on this matter, just wondering if you know the Bundy's or if you know any of the people personally that spent some time in Bunkerville last April stopping the Federal Government from imposing their will on a cattleman or if you having nothing better to do as usual are bringing this matter up because of a self imposed keeper of the galaxy mentality? Maybe you should have done a poll.


I've got better things to do than argue that the government doesn't control the land that they absolutely do. I also am not a welfare case living off the American taxpayers dime and convieniently convincing myself I don't have to pay fees for using Americans public lands. I never said I fully agree with the BLM on every issue, but I sure as heck don't associate myself with welfare hillbillys trying to start the next revolutionary war and making Americans look like uncivilized barbarians. You don't have to agree with the law, and you can protest it or do what you want, however don't expect there to be no consequences for your actions. You and I can disagree with each other on the issue, but the law doesn't side with Mr. Bundy. I knew a great BLM agent once and some people really hated him. Guess who they were? The people breaking the law. He fined a few people for underage drinking, littering, smoking pot, and a few DUIs. He wasn't a "fed" out to get people. He was an officer doing his job. Strange how criminals have so much distaste for the law enforcement who do their job right.


----------



## lunkerhunter2

Eating popcorn waiting for this to get good....


----------



## lunkerhunter2

My vote is on the plotmeister:grin:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I'm sorry lunkerhunter I can't like your other post, yore betting against me.


----------



## plottrunner

You're going to be waiting along time lunker, arguing with 1eye is pointless and that wasn't my intent...my intent was to find out if politics were allowed on UWN again...I happen to consider some of the Bundy's as friend's and to see an internet hero like 1eye, that I'm guessing doesn't know them, attack them online with no instigation and then I see a mod who is very vocal about this sort of thing according to the posts in the Hall of Shame, jump on board, I was just seeking clarification.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

plottrunner said:


> You're going to be waiting along time lunker, arguing with 1eye is pointless and that wasn't my intent...my intent was to find out if politics were allowed on UWN again...I happen to consider some of the Bundy's as friend's and to see an internet hero like 1eye, that I'm guessing doesn't know them, attack them online with no instigation and then I see a mod who is very vocal about this sort of thing according to the posts in the Hall of Shame, jump on board, I was just seeking clarification.


You can come after me for what you want plot, I'm cool with it. We disagree, I do that with a lot of people. I don't believe they are terrible people, but I do believe they are sucking the teat of the taxpayer and are breaking the law. The BLM can overstep sometimes, but a court of law is where we decide those things, that's what make us a civilized culture. They may be the nicest people in the world, but that doesn't mean I am going to give them a pass for breaking the law and denying the law.


----------



## plottrunner

The fact that you brought up an event that is 18 months in the past along with all your other posts today show's me that you have nothing better to do than sit around all day and troll the internet. You go from suing the federal government to talking smack on the Bundy's to trying to stir up crap with the Expo tags. Are you really that board or are you just the guardian of the galaxy...you are missing my point..I was just trying to clarify that politics were now allowed on UWN. Still waiting for a mod to chime in...If so I would love to see some of the old crew like fatbass, pro, berg, yonni, Artoxx, Wiley Wapiti and a few more jump back on the old UWN and let er rip....


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

plottrunner said:


> The fact that you brought up an event that is 18 months in the past along with all your other posts today show's me that you have nothing better to do than sit around all day and troll the internet. You go from suing the federal government to talking smack on the Bundy's to trying to stir up crap with the Expo tags. Are you really that board or are you just the guardian of the galaxy...you are missing my point..I was just trying to clarify that politics were now allowed on UWN. Still waiting for a mod to chime in...If so I would love to see some of the old crew like fatbass, pro, berg, yonni, Artoxx, Wiley Wapiti and a few more jump back on the old UWN and let er rip....


I brought it up because nothing has been done about it still.


----------



## Kwalk3

As outdoorsmen/women, we would be doing ourselves a disservice to not mention politics regarding the land that we recreate on. So long as it's outdoor related I don't see any harm in it.



Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk


----------



## massmanute

plottrunner said:


> Hmmm, I thought politics were forbidden on the UWN...


My interpretation of the discussion of this thread is that it is more a discussion of lawbreaking than a discussion of politics.


----------



## Bax*

I am going to agree that this post is getting too political. 

Rather than lock it down, please redirect to align with the forum rules.

The discussion on law breaking doesn't seem to be an issue from my perspective, but the topic of collusion and corruption does walk a fine line into politicking.


----------



## massmanute

Bax* said:


> I am going to agree that this post is getting too political.
> 
> Rather than lock it down, please redirect to align with the forum rules.
> 
> The discussion on law breaking doesn't seem to be an issue from my perspective, but the topic of collusion and corruption does walk a fine line into politicking.


Although the rules of the site do not seem to exclude discussions of politics if they relate to the outdoors or wildlife:

"Please do not make posts about politics, sexual orientation or religion that have little to do with the outdoors or wildlife. Experience tells us that these threads too often become heated, offensive and detrimental to the forum."

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the rule.

Thanks.


----------



## redleg

George Washington and the boys broke the law and took A LOT of land from the crown and we were all better off for it.


----------



## Idratherbehunting

redleg said:


> George Washington and the boys broke the law and took A LOT of land from the crown and we were all better off for it.


Very true. And if they lost, their actions were treason and they would have been hanged. I'm not sure if you're calling Cliven Bundy a modern day George Washington, but if so, I will respectfully disagree.

As far as the original post, I do not anticipate that anything will happen with the Bundy's until he passes away and the estate is being settled, or the federal government decides that it cares enough that they are willing to enforce the law at all costs. At this point, I don't think the Bundy's are going to back down.


----------



## Badin

If a guy wants to be like "George Washington" he can take his own cattle or sheep down there and turn them out, assuming he also denies that there is no law on the matter. A chance for outdoor adventure not seen since the days of free grazers, range wars, and the like of Tom Horn. Land management practices would sure be different. Not sure these patriots would let us have access to chase game, Like the way ranchers in northern Nevada have blocked access to public lands, but you never know.


----------



## LostLouisianian

redleg said:


> George Washington and the boys broke the law and took A LOT of land from the crown and we were all better off for it.


Wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll my ancestors actually fought in the revolutionary war, quite a few of them in fact. I'm a documented Son of the American Revolution. My wife's ancestor actually wrote the Constitution. She's a member of the Madison family. If she had been alive at the same time, James Madison would have been her 2nd cousin. I have a realllllllllly hard time equating Cliven to Madison, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson or any of my ancestors that picked up muskets and marched hundreds of miles for years fighting the British. I think you might want to read the Declaration of Independence again and see what beefs the colonists had with the British crown before you go comparing Cliven to the revolutionists. Cattle and land had nothing to do with it.


----------



## plottrunner

Well as someone with a minor in US History, I am very familiar with the reasons the founding fathers did what they did. The Declaration was written to tell King George that the people had enough taxation without representation. Things like the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, etc. caused the people to say enough. Now I am not suggesting we break the law but Cliven is basically protesting Washington on the same principles. He thinks the fees imposed by the BLM are essentially taxation without representation. The BLM does nothing to improve the habitat, they regulate the rancher to death because of things like the desert tortoise and whatever other animal they want to claim endangered and they do nothing to take care of the land other than collect money that Washington pisses away. I am not saying that he is right. My whole beef with this post is that One I in his typical negative fashion, came on here bashing people he knows nothing about. Post a fishing or hunting report or something instead of spending your entire life complaining about everyone else already....


----------



## LostLouisianian

It wasn't just about taxation....that might have been the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak but....

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. 
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. 
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: 
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. 
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


----------



## plottrunner

Yes Lost I agree with you that it was a culmination of things but I think if you read through that list you just posted, our own federal government could be at times guilty of a number of those same complaints.....


----------



## wyogoob

LostLouisianian said:


> It wasn't just about taxation....that might have been the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak but....
> 
> He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
> He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
> He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
> He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
> He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
> He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
> He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
> He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
> He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
> He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
> He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
> He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
> He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
> For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
> For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
> For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
> For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
> For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
> For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
> For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
> For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
> For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
> He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
> He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
> He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
> He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
> He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


That's a great list, little of which is outdoor-related.

.


----------



## Loke

But quite a few could apply to our current administration.


----------



## Critter

I wouldn't just say the administration but the whole congress. 

I have just recently started to study the Constitution in depth and the more that I get into it the more impressed I am with the men that wrote it. Mr Bundy couldn't even light a candle or even think of walking in ones shadow of one of them in my opinion.


----------



## bowgy

LostLouisianian said:


> One of his claims is that the feds didn't own the land and he should pay the grazing fees to the sheriff of the county....well if that's the case, pay the sheriff and let the sheriff turn it over to the BLM....but has he paid the sheriff one red cent....NOPE


Not what I remember when it was first in the news.

He had started paying the State of Nevada if I remember right, for more than a year, but the state just held it because they didn't know what to do with it and then later returned it to him.

I thought at that time if the state would have just entered an agreement with the BLM and just worked as a middle man and passed the money on to them the whole thing could have been avoided.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

plottrunner said:


> Well as someone with a minor in US History, I am very familiar with the reasons the founding fathers did what they did. The Declaration was written to tell King George that the people had enough taxation without representation. Things like the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, etc. caused the people to say enough. Now I am not suggesting we break the law but Cliven is basically protesting Washington on the same principles. He thinks the fees imposed by the BLM are essentially taxation without representation. The BLM does nothing to improve the habitat, they regulate the rancher to death because of things like the desert tortoise and whatever other animal they want to claim endangered and they do nothing to take care of the land other than collect money that Washington pisses away. I am not saying that he is right. My whole beef with this post is that One I in his typical negative fashion, came on here bashing people he knows nothing about. Post a fishing or hunting report or something instead of spending your entire life complaining about everyone else already....


Tell Cliven to pay his **** fees and I'll lose my beef with him. I do know he hasn't paid his fees, I don't really care why. If you don't want to and choose not to, then deal with the consequences that come along with it. As I said earlier you don't have to agree with the law, you can protest the law, but be a man and deal with the consequences that come along with it. Cliven is a coward IMO. If the Feds wanted this to end, it would be ended in a finger snap, the problem is it would end in plenty of bloodshed and they are choosing the wise action in the situation by not creating a very deadly mess over a welfare farmer refusing to pay for grazing on public land each of us owns. I have just as much right to freely voice my opinion of him as he does about the federal government, if you don't like it, I hope you find other things to bother you than someone wanting legal action taken against someone breaking the law. As for his disagreement with the way the Feds spend money, I'm not pleased with most of it either, but this guy is no hero to me. Also the BLM does millions of dollars of improvements on range they own every year, they operate on the budget they are given. Congress is what blocks decent land management by not fixing policies and funding to let these agencies do what they do better.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Critter said:


> I wouldn't just say the administration but the whole congress.
> 
> I have just recently started to study the Constitution in depth and the more that I get into it the more impressed I am with the men that wrote it. Mr Bundy couldn't even light a candle or even think of walking in ones shadow of one of them in my opinion.


In the fall of 2008 we took a trip back east. During part of the trip we visited George Washington's home, I can't tell you how inspiring and humbling that was. Then we went to Montpelier, the home of James Madison, my wife's relative. As you know James wrote the Constitution. I was very humbled to stand in the exact spot the Constitution was penned and to be able to reach down and touch the 3 ink stains on the wood floor where James had spilled his ink when penning the Constitution. Those stains are now covered up with a rug over the floor. It just so happened that we lucked out and visited the home during it's restoration so we got to see parts of the home and touch parts of history that you cannot touch and see any longer. The tour guide had no idea we were family of Madison until we told him at the end...he brought us back in for a private tour to areas off limits. Most humbling trip of our lives.


----------



## Fowlmouth

So, now 2 of Bundy's sons are in Oregon organizing another militia to help 2 convicted felon ranchers. They had a peaceful rally followed by a takeover of a federal wildlife building. I don't think this one is going to turn out quite like the last one. :-?


----------



## RandomElk16

Fowlmouth said:


> So, now 2 of Bundy's sons are in Oregon organizing another militia to help 2 convicted felon ranchers. They had a peaceful rally followed by a takeover of a federal wildlife building. I don't think this one is going to turn out quite like the last one. :-?


Yeah, all this defense for them on this thread... fact of the matter is they are criminals. This is appropriate for the forum because it is affecting wildlife. You may get shot hunting the PUBLIC land in Nevada and now a wildlife building being taken over. This isn't some modern revolution. These are bored free loading criminals.


----------



## wyogoob

RandomElk16 said:


> .....................This is appropriate for the forum because it is affecting wildlife. You may get shot hunting the PUBLIC land in Nevada and now a wildlife building being taken over..........................


Yeah, I have to agree. I have been to Burns on a number of occasions and did some bird watching in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Burns, a small town in the middle of no where, has more quail than any place I have ever been to. I'm involved in the Christmas Bird Counts (CBC) held throughout America. They have one in Burns, at Malheur. The number of quail counted in the 15-mile diameter circle each year on the Burns CBC is phenomenal. I always wanted to participate in the Burns CBC.

You couldn't find nicer people than in Burns but the last time I was there some individuals were pretty angry with the government, angry about the suppressed logging and the shutdown of the local sawmill, among other things.

I wish someone would start a separate thread on this issue. I think its much different than the Clive Bundy thread(s).

thanks


----------



## gdog

Bundy is a piece of work and should be in jail. Entitlement with these people is bewildering. Now his half wit sons are camping out in OR with their little militia of equal half wits (excuse to break out their GI Joe outfits). Watching a few interviews with these geniusis and their supporters only confirms we should probably give them their little piece of desert with a big high fence around it...and 3 meals a day. Just watching an interview with the OR rancher...."Bundy's do not represent us..nor their views".....


----------



## bowgy

Interesting update, looks like Bundy's won
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...se-against-cliven-bundy-and-sons-bars-retrial


----------



## gdog

I guess you could say "won", but really the Feds screwed themselves and the case was dropped do to mishandling the case. Someone(s) should be losing their jobs for this.

Now what about all the grazing fee's the Bundy's never paid and which started all of this? Shouldn't Cliven still be sitting in jail due to this?


----------



## bowgy

Well, won this case I should have said, they can't be tried again for the same thing. It will be interesting how the feds will handle it from here on out. 

They sure spent a lot of money trying to get $300,000 plus interest. 

Oh well, I just sent the BLM a check for well over $10,000 for my leases.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Wasn't it dismissed because evidence withheld by the state would've helped the defense and thereby Bundy could not recieve his due process with right to a fair trial?

Does this constitute double jeopardy or could it be opened again and prosecuted because a trial never happened in the first place with no verdict given?


----------



## bowgy

High Desert Elk said:


> Wasn't it dismissed because evidence withheld by the state would've helped the defense and thereby Bundy could not recieve his due process with right to a fair trial?
> 
> Does this constitute double jeopardy* or could it be opened again* and prosecuted because a trial never happened in the first place with no verdict given?


No, it was dismissed with prejudice, which means it can not be tried again.


----------



## High Desert Elk

bowgy said:


> No, it was dismissed with prejudice, which means it can not be tried again.


Ok - thanks


----------



## grizzly

It may be via seizure of his estate upon his death... but those government judgements don't just go away.


----------



## bowgy

Here is some info to keep this thread about public lands and wildlife.

*President Donald Trump today requested a $1.1 billion Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) budget for the Bureau of Land Management*
https://www.blm.gov/press-release/president-proposes-11-billion-budget-blm-fiscal-year-2018

"The President's budget gives the BLM the resources needed to carry out our multiple-use and sustained yield mission, which includes promoting American energy and mineral production on Federal lands and supporting local economies," said BLM Acting Director Mike Nedd. "The proposed budget will allow us to continue working with our non-Federal partners and strengthen these vital relationships in order to be good neighbors in the communities we serve. BLM lands create jobs in local communities, and the *President's budget supports traditional land uses such as timber harvesting, responsible energy development, grazing and recreation including hunting and fishing."*

The proposed budget calls for $67.8 million for the Rangeland Management program for monitoring and evaluating the health of the public grazing lands, administering grazing use, managing invasive weeds, and other activities. In addition, the budget proposes $75.1 million for the Wildlife Management program, which conserves and restores wildlife habitat as an essential part of BLM's mission. More than 3,000 species of wildlife live on BLM-managed lands. The budget request also funds the Threatened and Endangered Species Management program at $20.3 million. Priority will be given to recovering federally-listed species; conservation and other pre-emptive actions will continue on a smaller scale.


----------



## plottrunner

Well if a bunch of clod kicking hillbilly's defending themselves can beat the wide reach of the federal government in their own arena...I would have to say the Bundy's were right and the BLM as well as all the armchair grazing right authorities on UWN were wrong.... LOL


----------



## backcountry

To be fair, the previous rulings on their illegal grazing were never in question in this case. This was about the "standoff" and ultimately how a subset of the federal government botched enforcement and then violated due process. Two very different issues being talked about here.


----------



## High Desert Elk

The illegal grazing is what started it all - a domino effect.


----------



## Catherder

I've never been a fan for what the Bundy crowd espouses, but the way this played out, the Federal government could not look any worse than they did in handling this case.


----------



## bowgy

The Bundy's had already lost court cases involving the grazing issues. The standoff occured when the BLM started to round up the trespassing cattle.

It appears that the Feds would have lost the case if they would have given the Bundy's Lawyers all the info so they withheld it and got caught so they lost anyway.

The Bundy's are in the cattle business, I don't think they raised them as pets, so they bought and sold cattle, I think it would have been wiser to put a lien on the cattle and their personal and real property. It sure would have been cheaper and safer. JMHO


----------



## BPturkeys

It's my understanding that there are huge liens against virtually everything the Bundys own. With these liens in place, it would be almost impossible for them to sell this property, or even get a bank loan. I don't know if you can put a lien against cattle.


----------



## High Desert Elk

You can impound them, which started the second half of the debacle.


----------



## PBH

Can't the ruling be appealed, and then re-tried?


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

PBH, the case was "dismissed without prejudice", which means the case can be brought back before the court after meeting certain criteria. I would imagine in this case that means providing all of the info to the defense. Although with the mess this has turned into I'm not sure they will try it.


----------



## PBH

USMarine -- I would agree. We probably won't see it again.

Too bad. This certainly sets a bad precedence, and will further embolden other groups follow suit with breaking the law. I know I've got my eye on a few parcels of BLM land....


----------



## bowgy

PBH said:


> The case was dismissed with prejudice.
> 
> 
> 
> PBH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't the ruling be appealed, and then re-tried?
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is yes, it can only be re-tried if they appeal it and win the appeal. It can't be retried without the appeal since it was dismissed with prejudice.
Click to expand...


----------



## bowgy

PBH said:


> USMarine -- I would agree. We probably won't see it again.
> 
> Too bad. This certainly sets a bad precedence, and will further embolden other groups follow suit with breaking the law. I know I've got my eye on a few parcels of BLM land....


Not me man, one man dead and 2 years in prison..... no thanks, I will continue to pay my BLM lease fees.


----------



## Vanilla

bowgy said:


> It appears that the Feds would have lost the case if they would have given the Bundy's Lawyers all the info so they withheld it and got caught so they lost anyway.


Not necessarily. The decision was based upon a due process violation, and the prosecutors messed up here big time, but the information only "could have" helped the defense, meaning it had the potential to. The ruling was not that it "would have." It may seem like splitting hairs, but in this world of court rooms, words matter and they mean different things.

Either way, ultimately it does not matter, because the case is gone and this segment of the community is now emboldened to act in an even more reckless matter that will put more lives in jeopardy. I seriously doubt the Bundys will come out of this thinking, "Wow, that was a close one. We learned our lesson. Let's follow the law now to avoid any future problems." This whole situation is a cluster. There are many people that should have some explaining to do.


----------



## bowgy

Vanilla said:


> Not necessarily. The decision was based upon a due process violation, and the prosecutors messed up here big time, but the information only "could have" helped the defense, meaning it had the potential to. The ruling was not that it "would have." It may seem like splitting hairs, but in this world of court rooms, words matter and they mean different things.
> 
> Either way, ultimately it does not matter, because the case is gone and this segment of the community is now emboldened to act in an even more reckless matter that will put more lives in jeopardy. I seriously doubt the Bundys will come out of this thinking, "Wow, that was a close one. We learned our lesson. Let's follow the law now to avoid any future problems." This whole situation is a cluster. There are many people that should have some explaining to do.


I was just going by what one of the things that the judge indicated. Also if they thought that they would win the case I don't think that they would have withheld evidence. One of the big things was the weapons charges and the Bundy's were careful not to carry there weapons down there and I think that the FBI videos that were withheld showed that.

But you are right, it will embolden them more, Cliven even indicated that when he was leaving the court house. He said that he will still graze his cattle on county land and had no contract with the Federal Government.

I'm sure we haven't heard the end of it.


----------



## PBH

bowgy said:


> ...it will embolden them more, Cliven even indicated that when he was leaving the court house. He said that he will still graze his cattle on county land and had no contract with the Federal Government.
> 
> I'm sure we haven't heard the end of it.


I would imagine we'll see some issues on the Monroe come summer....


----------



## HighNDry

One of my ancestors (yes he was here first to do this) had a toll road up one of the canyons. I'm not sure how the Forest Service got control of the canyon, but I'd like to get it back. I mean my ancestor was there first. There is a nice little river running down the canyon and I'd still allow fishing on it. In fact, if I can get the whole canyon back, that would allow fishing even on the portions that are privately owned. Anyone who believes in this kind of law please respond so we can get the ball rolling. Thank you for your consideration.


----------

