Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,209 Year: 5,466/9,624 Month: 491/323 Week: 131/204 Day: 1/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bundys and the Armed Occupation of a National Wildlife Refuge
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 205 of 254 (815451)
07-20-2017 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Diomedes
07-20-2017 10:04 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Diomedes, posted 07-20-2017 10:04 AM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by NoNukes, posted 07-20-2017 11:23 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 254 (815522)
07-20-2017 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Taq
07-20-2017 5:19 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
Allow me to advocate for the devil here:
Confiscation of property to pay court ordered fees is well within the law.
He is nothing more than a greedy cheapskate.
I don't know or care about him personally, but I do see where there's room for a principle to stand by in this general case.
If I am hungry and find a lake on public property, and I fish a meal out of it, it is well within the law for the state to confiscate my property (money) in the form of a fine for fishing without a license.
But is it right?
In principle, public land should be available to me to use for my general welfare without the state hassling me about it. I understand that regulating fishing to prevent over-doing it can be warranted, but I see the other side of the coin too.
A particular judgement is on a case-by-case basis, and I have no interest in debating the Bundy case, itself.
I just wanted to make a counter-point to there being "nothing more" than greed, in the general sense of opposition to legal court ordered property confiscation. 'Cause there's the principle too.
Granted: if they say that it's not about the money, then you know that it is about the money

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 07-20-2017 5:19 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2017 1:45 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 219 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 10:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 254 (815563)
07-21-2017 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by NoNukes
07-21-2017 1:45 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
There is no justification for a principle that property that is kept up at public expense can be confiscated by a single member of the public for free.
As a member of the public, they also own that land.
That principle you are trying to invoke is called the stealing principle.
If I can't use the land I own to feed myself, then in what way do I own it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2017 1:45 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2017 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2017 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 254 (815599)
07-21-2017 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Taq
07-21-2017 10:41 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
Yes, it is right. Those regulations were put in place by our elected officials. It is the public determining how they want their public lands run through their democratically elected officials.
Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 10:41 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 254 (815600)
07-21-2017 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by NoNukes
07-21-2017 11:32 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
You have the same say on how the land is used as you do a fighter jet bought with public money.
I can just walk into public land, I can't do that with a fighter jet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2017 11:32 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 229 by NoNukes, posted 07-22-2017 12:53 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 254 (815768)
07-24-2017 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Taq
07-21-2017 3:28 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
We ALL own that land, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with people paying a user fee for using the resources on that public land, especially when it costs tax payer money to protect and repair those public lands.
If we're paying for the protection and repair of our land with our taxes then what are our user fees for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 3:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 07-24-2017 12:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 12:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 254 (815782)
07-24-2017 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by ringo
07-24-2017 12:06 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
That's a nice platitude, but it doesn't match reality. We don't charge user fees for public highways and schools, and we all pay taxes for that stuff. Why is land usage different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 07-24-2017 12:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by ringo, posted 07-24-2017 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 235 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 236 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2017 2:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 254 (815794)
07-24-2017 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Taq
07-24-2017 12:51 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:
If we're paying for the protection and repair of our land with our taxes then what are our user fees for?
The same thing. It is just like public transportation where there are user fees (bus fare) as well as tax money that fund public transit.
So it's not the same thing. Grazing requires a permit, and the permit holders are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the land.
It'd be like me having to buy a permit to ride the bus, and then I'm responsible for changing the oil and checking the tires, and then on top of that I have to pay a usage fee (despite the costs being subsidized by taxes).
Bus fares pay for the operational cost of the buses. The operational costs of the grazing lands is the responsibility of the permit holders.
It sounds like you're just making stuff up - our taxes pay for the maintenance. Er, the usage fees pay for the maintenance.
Apparently, the permit holders pay for pay for the maintenance
If you're not just making this stuff up, where are you getting your information?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 12:51 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 249 by 14174dm, posted 07-24-2017 6:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 254 (815795)
07-24-2017 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by NoNukes
07-24-2017 2:30 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
If Bundy was simply claiming not to know better, he was told differently by the government. He pressed his case in court and lost. Yet he continued not to pay. He has yet to pay.
Well, it was claimed that it was purely greed driving this and that is the point I was responding to.
Bundy is one of those sovereign citizen wackos who thinks the feds don't have any authority on this one - I was pointing out that they may be standing by a principle (as misguided as they may be), and that it might not actually be about greed in this case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2017 2:30 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2017 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 240 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 3:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 254 (815802)
07-24-2017 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by PaulK
07-24-2017 3:13 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
Given that the "point of principle" is not paying money, and that the "Sovereign Citizen" movement is heavily into tax evasion and dubious legal manoeuvring to get out of debts it seems very, very likely that greed is behind it.
Do you know what the "change" was in 1993 that Bundy was reacting to? Something changed with the fees but I dunno what.
It seems to me like this was all a response to those changes in the form of: "that's bullshit, I ain't paying for that."
Then 15 years or so goes by and they're all: "Now you owe us a million dollars".
"Fuck that" is an understandable response - depending on the circumstances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2017 3:13 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2017 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 245 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 3:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 250 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2017 6:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 254 (815803)
07-24-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Taq
07-24-2017 3:27 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
You asked why there would be user fees for something that is public.
No, I asked you what the user fees for grazing lands was used for.
And you made something up and I called you out on it and now you're backpeddling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 3:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 3:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 254 (815813)
07-24-2017 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Taq
07-24-2017 3:48 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
The truth of the matter is that grazing fees on public lands are a fraction of what they are on private land. The cost for public lands is $1.35 per animal per month.
On public land, the permit holder is responsible for maintenance. On private land, the land owner is responsible.
What did I make up?
That the grazing fees are the same thing as bus fares.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 3:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 4:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 254 (815853)
07-25-2017 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Modulous
07-24-2017 6:24 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
Thanks Mod. I didn't really want to get into reading a bunch of legal crap on federal grazing laws, but here I am.
Thanks for the link, it was informative.
Do you know what the "change" was in 1993 that Bundy was reacting to? Something changed with the fees but I dunno what.
The principle changes were about limiting grazing in certain areas to protect certain wildlife (ie., desert tortoise), limiting the amount of cattle to allow areas to recover from wildfire etc. Bundy ignored these limitations and grazed where he pleased and refused to pay grazing fees.
So there was a "Grazing Fee Task Group Study of 1992" that resulted in the 1993 fee changes.
From:
Grazing Costs: What’s the Current Situation?
Prepared by University of Idaho Extension Agricultural Economist, Neil Rimbey, L. Allen Torell
Agricultural Economics Extension Series No 2011-02, March 22, 2011
quote:
Grazing Fee Task Group Study of 1992
In 1991-92, the authors, Tom Bartlett, Professor at Colorado State University (at that time) and Larry VanTassell, Professor at University of Wyoming (at that time), were asked by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (FS) to take another look at the grazing fee issue. We decided that we needed to do what we could to repeat the 1966 study, given the sound theoretical basis of that study. Given budgetary constraints and areas that could be covered by project staff, we chose to study those costs in New Mexico, Wyoming and Idaho. Random samples of private and public grazers were drawn in each state and face-to-face interviews conducted with permittees/lessees of public and private forage resources during 1991-92. Several publications summarize the findings of this study (Torell, et al. 1993; Bartlett, et al. 1994; Rimbey, et al. 1994; VanTassell, et al. 1997). It was enlightening and surprising to the authors and others involved in the project to find that the cost differential between public and private lands had declined to $0.13/AUM in 1992 in the three study states. The study also indicated changes in cost structure between 1966 and 1992, with higher proportion of costs associated with items such as herding, meetings and less relative cost associated with veterinary and depreciation of improvements (Table 2).
Turns out, the fee actually went down, so I dunno what the issue is there - but I don't really care.
Bundy's version is 'that's bullshit - I ain't beholden to no stinking Feds'.
I really don't care about the Bundy's in particular and have no interested in defending them.
No, I asked you what the user fees for grazing lands was used for.
quote:
Fifty percent of grazing fees collected by each agency, or $10.0 millionwhichever is greatergo to a range betterment fund in the Treasury. The BLM and FS grazing receipts are deposited separately.15 Monies in the fund are subject to appropriations. The BLM typically has requested and received an annual appropriation of $10.0 million for the fund. However, for FY2016, the appropriation was $9.3 million, due to a sequester of funds. In recent years, the FS has been requesting and receiving an appropriation that is less than the $10.0 million minimum authorized in law. For instance, for each of FY2015 and FY2016, the agency requested and received an appropriation of $2.3 million, roughly half the fees collected.
The fund is used for range rehabilitation, protection, and improvement, including grass seeding and reseeding, fence construction, weed control, water development, and fish and wildlife habitat. Under law, one-half of the fund is to be used as directed by the Secretary of the Interior or of Agriculture, and the other half is authorized to be spent in the district, region, or forest that generated the fees, as the Secretary determines after consultation with user representatives.17 Agency regulations contain additional detail. For example, BLM regulations provide that half of the fund is to be allocated by the Secretary on a priority basis, and the rest is to be spent in the state and district where derived. Forest Service regulations provide that half of the monies are to be used in the national forest where derived, and the rest in the FS region where the forest is located. In general, the FS returns all range betterment funds to the forest that generated them.
The agencies allocate the remaining 50% of the collections differently. For the FS, 25% of the funds are deposited in the Treasury and 25% are given to the states (16 U.S.C. 500; see Figure 1).18 For the BLM, states receive 12.5% of monies collected from lands defined in Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act and 37.5% is deposited in the Treasury.19 Section 3 lands are those within grazing districts for which the BLM issues grazing permits. (See Figure 2.) By contrast, states receive 50% of fees collected from BLM lands defined in Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act. Section 15 lands are those outside grazing districts for which the BLM leases grazing allotments. (See Figure 3.) For both agencies, any state share is to be used to benefit the counties that generated the receipts.
Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues - EveryCRSReport.com
So some of the fee money is used on maintenance. Digging through the links in your link, I found some interesting information.
First off, the grazing fees are not the primary source for maintenance costs. Also, they spend about half their money on administrative costs.
From your link:
quote:
The BLM and FS are charging a grazing fee of $2.11 per AUM through February 28, 2017. BLM and the FS typically spend more managing their grazing programs than they collect in grazing fees. For example, $79.0 million was appropriated to BLM for rangeland management in FY2015. Of that amount, $36.2 million was used for administration of livestock grazing, according to the agency. The remainder was used for other range activities, including weed management, habitat improvement, and water development.9 For the same fiscal year, BLM collected $14.5 million in grazing fees. The FY2015 appropriation for the FS for grazing management was $55.4 million. The funds are used primarily for grazing permit administration and planning. The FS collected $6.5 million in grazing fees during FY2015.
From the Government Accountability Office I found:
quote:
The 10 federal agencies managed more than 22.6 million AUMs on about 235 million acres of federal lands for grazing and land management in fiscal year 2004. Of this total, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service managed more than 98 percent of the lands used for grazing. The agencies manage their grazing programs under different authorities and for different purposes. For BLM lands and western Forest Service lands, grazing is a major program; the eight other agencies generally use grazing as a tool to achieve their primary land management goals. In fiscal year 2004, federal agencies spent a total of at least $144 million. The 10 federal agencies spent at least $135.9 million, with the Forest Service and BLM accounting for the majority. Other federal agencies have grazing-related activities, such as pest control, and spent at least $8.4 million in fiscal year 2004. The 10 federal agencies' grazing fees generated about $21 million in fiscal year 2004--less than one-sixth of the expenditures to manage grazing. Of that amount, the agencies distributed about $5.7 million to states and counties in which grazing occurred, returned about $3.8 million to the Treasury, and deposited at least $11.7 million in separate Treasury accounts to help pay for agency programs, among other things. The amounts each agency distributed varied, depending on the agencies' differing authorities. Fees charged in 2004 by the 10 federal agencies, as well as state land agencies and private ranchers, vary widely.
Regarding comparative costs between federal and private land, also from your link:
quote:
Grazing fees have been contentious since their introduction. Generally, livestock producers who use federal lands want to keep fees low. They assert that federal fees are not comparable to fees for leasing private rangelands because public lands often are less productive; must be shared with other public users; and often lack water, fencing, or other amenities, thereby increasing operating costs.
So it's a bit complicated

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2017 6:24 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2017 1:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 254 (815860)
07-25-2017 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Modulous
07-25-2017 1:55 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
That said - you have seen the title of the thread you are in, right? It does seem to be about Bundy and you've contributed directly to 5% of this topics posts and replies to your posts constitute 9% of this thread...
Discounting the joke I posted first, in my original post I wrote:
quote:
A particular judgement is on a case-by-case basis, and I have no interest in debating the Bundy case, itself.
I just wanted to make a counter-point to there being "nothing more" than greed, in the general sense of opposition to legal court ordered property confiscation. 'Cause there's the principle too.
I think I've made that point, so I'll stop there.
I certainly won't read about bus fares - I don't even remember the last time I took public transportation.
Which means, from the ranchers point of view - they should be seen as a bargain, right?
The ranchers claim the cost to them is more on federal land vs. private land - despite the fee being lower.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2017 1:55 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024