Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
4 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
Modulous
Member (Idle past 98 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 250 of 254 (815818)
07-24-2017 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 3:31 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
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.
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."
Bundy's version is 'that's bullshit - I ain't beholden to no stinking Feds'.
Then 15 years or so goes by and they're all: "Now you owe us a million dollars".
Well actually a few years went by when courts finally made explicit he was engaging in prohibited behaviour and ordered him to cease with a fine. then followed 15 years or so of orders and fines which he ignored - which amounted to $1,000,000 of him refusing to engage with them.
In 1995 during tensions between the government and the ranchers, the Forest Service was attacked by a bomb. At this time, people that worked for the government were harassed, as were their children over the matter. Stores refused service to people. Bitter tensions were already building - workers were advised to travel in pairs due to safety concerns. Bundy had $31,000 in fines around this time.
In the background, States and Counties in the area were trying to assert ownership and control over the land over the Federal government.
In 1996, two more terrorist attacks - pipe bombs - against the Forest Service.
And so it went - signs prohibiting grazing were chainsawed down, filled with bullet holes, and basically ignored.
Far from this coming from nowhere - this was a long standing situation which Bundy was aware of from the outset - he even represented himself in court so ignorance of the court's instructions cannot be claimed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...and-the-federal-government
In 1998 Bundy received more prohibitions along with the fine of "$200.00 per day per head for any livestock belonging to Bundy remaining on the Bunkerville Allotment after November 30, 1998." 200 x 15 x 365 = approximately $1,000,000. That's for one cow being present every day. I expect his herds amounted to more than this - he claimed a maximum of 500 I believe.
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.16 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 3:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2017 1:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 98 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 252 of 254 (815858)
07-25-2017 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by New Cat's Eye
07-25-2017 1:08 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.
Heh - tell me about it. One jolt of curiosity later and I'm knee deep in it
Turns out, the fee actually went down, so I dunno what the issue is there - but I don't really care.
As near as I can tell - the main change was 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's attitude was of the sort of 'hey - my great grandparents have been grazing on these lands forever, so I have every right to continue grazing my cattle here - Federal regulations be damned.' So not only did he continue to graze in prohibited areas, but he also stopped paying the fees and so was also grazing without a permit.
I really don't care about the Bundy's in particular and have no interested in defending them.
Bundy in particular aside - the same reasoning seems to apply to the other ranchers in the area - including the terrorists.
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...
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.
Sounds similar to other situations where fees are applied, right?
First off, the grazing fees are not the primary source for maintenance costs.
Which means, from the ranchers point of view - they should be seen as a bargain, right? Though it is also probably also true that not all damage, wear and tear and so on is down to cattle grazing. There is talk in the same documents about off-road vehicles causing damage, for instance. Naturally some of this will be ranchers vehicles - but I expect there are also recreational vehicles causing damage too.
So it's a bit complicated
Who'd have thought government funding systems could be so complex?
For completeness we should probably also look to the Transit system funding. A cursory glance shows they generally lose money on a ticket vs costs look - and also rely on subsidies to avoid the loss making trips from being eliminated. But that's as much detail as I care to go into that can of worms
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2017 1:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2017 2:20 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