Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 loki old fart wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It will be interesting to see what happens in the other western states. There is already more support for booting the feds.

I thought the BLM were park rangers, do they have the power of arrest then?

So it would seem:

http://www.jeffersonminingdistrict.com/legal-news/BLM-to-Idaho-Miner-We-Supercede-The-Constitution.html

Legal comments on this case in Idaho:

http://americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org/Call_For_Help_Urgent_about165.html

 Jihadin wrote:

So you're aware of every single legal battle going on?

Kan


I let you figure in what context I put that in. From the sound of it Kan you were aware of it from 98 on up to 2014. You "Clark Kent"?

Actually the point was more that even such a "big case" like this, there's hundreds of similar cases going on.

I love when these things make the news as it's always interesting to see how it gets perceived or how the "historical rewrites" tend to go.

To comply with the order, would suggest you think the other side is possibly correct.
If you believe you are right, why would you comply.

Loki

First off. I am only siding with him just to see how far he can take it. I know he is going to get hammered regardless of outcome. Yet he broke the laws. Same as OWS yet we, well the government did not crack down on them. Yet he broke the laws and everyone wants to crush him because he broke the "LAWS" I called Double Standards.

So all those instances of police brutality against OWS protests were just imagined?

The government did crack down on some of the protests when they got really, really out of hand. Did they deal with some of the crimes that occurred during the protests/at the protest sites? Not necessarily--but it doesn't mean that they just ignored them.

Why should Bundy not have to comply with the court order?

KillKrazy

He doesn't have to being its his choice. A Court Order issued needs to be details as I mention earlier to prevent a "Loop Hole". The Court Order issued has a Loop Hole in it being "Impounded". Now the situation open up more over a slew of legal issues. If they have updated last year with a IAW clause then "Bingo" BLM is totally in the right.

Right now with the situation the BLM put themselves in due to the actions of two Park Rangers they are the bad guys. Right now with the wording of the Court Order BLM violated the Court Order.

Even if they try to sell the cattle that are healthy in the state many other ranchers fear to being "Black Listed" for having the perception of buying "stolen cattle"

Only thing BLM can do to make this go away and resolve the issue is to "Fence" off the Federal lands. Put a lien on Bundy house. Bundy tax returns for Federal is held.

If this continue with confrontation with BLM and other Federal Agency with Bundy someone going to get "stupid" and fire a real round.

What ranchers are going to be in "fear of being blacklisted" for buying cattle from the BLM?

Bundy's a toolbag and as mentioned has not kept the cattle properly up to date with health, etc---so did it ever occur to you that might be the reason why they don't want to buy the cattle instead?

Relapse wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It will be interesting to see what happens in the other western states. There is already more support for booting the feds.

I thought the BLM were park rangers, do they have the power of arrest then?

So it would seem:

http://www.jeffersonminingdistrict.com/legal-news/BLM-to-Idaho-Miner-We-Supercede-The-Constitution.html

Legal comments on this case in Idaho:

http://americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org/Call_For_Help_Urgent_about165.html

Really I'm amazed, they would be stupid enough to say that.
Maybe the BBc has it right.

 Kanluwen wrote:

What ranchers are going to be in "fear of being blacklisted" for buying cattle from the BLM?

Bundy's a toolbag and as mentioned has not kept the cattle properly up to date with health, etc---so did it ever occur to you that might be the reason why they don't want to buy the cattle instead?

Which leads to the one of the point I have been making throughout this thread at the arrogance of the BLM in breaking the law and risking healthy herds by trying to sell cattle they did not have documentation on. Real nice of them putting law abiding ranchers livlihoods at risk with potentialy diseased cattle.

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

What ranchers are going to be in "fear of being blacklisted" for buying cattle from the BLM?

Bundy's a toolbag and as mentioned has not kept the cattle properly up to date with health, etc---so did it ever occur to you that might be the reason why they don't want to buy the cattle instead?

Which leads to the one of the point I have been making throughout this thread at the arrogance of the BLM in breaking the law and risking healthy herds by trying to sell cattle they did not have documentation on. Real nice of them putting law abiding ranchers livlihoods at risk with potentialy diseased cattle.

So now the ranchers are being forced to buy the cattle?

First it was "wasteful" that they were killing off the "potentially diseased cattle", now it's irresponsible to "put law abiding ranchers' livelihoods at risk"?

What ranchers are going to be in "fear of being blacklisted" for buying cattle from the BLM?

At the sell a Vet has to sign off on them I believe. So documentation and free health care, not aimed at ACA, is provided by the government for the cattle being sold.

I posted a few pages back that its a Integrity check when cattle are sold between ranchers. They pretty much enforce it themselves. For if I was a Rancher in that area I be quite leery on buying up Bundy cattle.

Only relevant example I can compare it to is Washington and Colorado legal "Marijuana Growers" and not being able to keep their money in banks being the Federal Government consider Marijuana growing a crime. Banks do not want to be caught in the battle. Unless the government change their stance on State Legal Marijuana growers lately

Edit

So now the ranchers are being forced to buy the cattle?

First it was "wasteful" that they were killing off the "potentially diseased cattle", now it's irresponsible to "put law abiding ranchers' livelihoods at risk"?

Nevada Governor stopped that attempt citing that reason. So BLM has an option to either hold on to them in impound or execute them all. Cheaper to turn them back on Bundy property.

Feral cattle though....unbranded....no idea how much one can fetch in Auction after certified. Feral in not having a "Brand" on them. US Military have Vets who can certify live stock so no unGodly amount of cash to a contractor. Light Bulbs anyone?

You inspect the cattle before it is shipped, unless it is one of he situations agreed to by federal and state laws that doesn't require inspection. I have yet to see how they were breaking any regulations or risking animal health.

 d-usa wrote:
You inspect the cattle before it is shipped, unless it is one of he situations agreed to by federal and state laws that doesn't require inspection. I have yet to see how they were breaking any regulations or risking animal health.

No documentation, for one, and when you are getting cattle under those circumstances, you want to quarantine them for a couple of weeks at least. The BLM was attempting to go straight from the range to auction. Plus they were leaving dead cattle to rot.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I love dogs but I'm not about to say you can't try to defend yourself from one if it attacks you (or, even worse, that you should be executed for doing so

If you assault a police officer doing his job, then the police is legally justified to escalate that force to make you stop. You get to kick a dog that is attacking you, you don't get to kick a police officer that is taking you down. You get to defend yourself from a guy punching you, you don't get to fight back against a police officer that is taking you down.

I've actually been pretty consistent with that across multiple threads and multiple different examples. The time to fight an unlawful arrest or excessive force is in court after the arrest. Because whatever bullcrap reason they had for arresting you or setting the dog on you, once you act like that they have a valid "resisting arrest", "assaulting an officer", and "obstructing justice" charge on you.

Comply, don't dig yourself a hole, cash settlement check once everything is said and done.

Kick the police dog, and they are legally justified to defend him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You inspect the cattle before it is shipped, unless it is one of he situations agreed to by federal and state laws that doesn't require inspection. I have yet to see how they were breaking any regulations or risking animal health.

No documentation, for one, and when you are getting cattle under those circumstances, you want to quarantine them for a couple of weeks at least. The BLM was attempting to go straight from the range to auction. Plus they were leaving dead cattle to rot.

They had all the required documentation per federal regulation. How did they not have documentation?

Feral Cattle

maybe

Mad Cattle Disease

CYA regardless

 d-usa wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I love dogs but I'm not about to say you can't try to defend yourself from one if it attacks you (or, even worse, that you should be executed for doing so

If you assault a police officer doing his job, then the police is legally justified to escalate that force to make you stop. You get to kick a dog that is attacking you, you don't get to kick a police officer that is taking you down. You get to defend yourself from a guy punching you, you don't get to fight back against a police officer that is taking you down.

I've actually been pretty consistent with that across multiple threads and multiple different examples. The time to fight an unlawful arrest or excessive force is in court after the arrest. Because whatever bullcrap reason they had for arresting you or setting the dog on you, once you act like that they have a valid "resisting arrest", "assaulting an officer", and "obstructing justice" charge on you.

Comply, don't dig yourself a hole, cash settlement check once everything is said and done.

Kick the police dog, and they are legally justified to defend him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You inspect the cattle before it is shipped, unless it is one of he situations agreed to by federal and state laws that doesn't require inspection. I have yet to see how they were breaking any regulations or risking animal health.

No documentation, for one, and when you are getting cattle under those circumstances, you want to quarantine them for a couple of weeks at least. The BLM was attempting to go straight from the range to auction. Plus they were leaving dead cattle to rot.

They had all the required documentation per federal regulation. How did they not have documentation?

If they were feral. not documented disease free. You wouldn't want them mixed with certified cattle, because of cross contamination.
They would have to be quarantined and checked by a vet, to be certified before sale and mixing with other stock.

They were almost all branded, so they were documented. You inspect them and issue an ICVI before transport, unless it is one of the exempted options for selling them. They had rounded them up, none of them were crossing state lines yet. They had not done anything to violate regulations. This is like accusing me of not giving my daughter her 12 month shots even though she is only 8 months old. They had all the documentation on these cattle that they were required to have at this point, at least that is what my reading of the regulations leads me to believe.

That is how the tracking works, if Bundy were to sell them he wouldn't provide every piece of paper to the seller. He would get them inspected prior to shipping them same as the Feds would have had to do. If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.

If all these "you could never sell these cattle" arguments are true then Bundy looks even dumber for racking up fines and organizing an armed uprising for worthless cattle that he can never sell. What a horrible business model, raising cattle that can never be sold.

 d-usa wrote:
They were almost all branded, so they were documented. You inspect them and issue an ICVI before transport, unless it is one of the exempted options for selling them. They had rounded them up, none of them were crossing state lines yet. They had not done anything to violate regulations. This is like accusing me of not giving my daughter her 12 month shots even though she is only 8 months old. They had all the documentation on these cattle that they were required to have at this point, at least that is what my reading of the regulations leads me to believe.

That is how the tracking works, if Bundy were to sell them he wouldn't provide every piece of paper to the seller. He would get them inspected prior to shipping them same as the Feds would have had to do. If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.

If all these "you could never sell these cattle" arguments are true then Bundy looks even dumber for racking up fines and organizing an armed uprising for worthless cattle that he can never sell. What a horrible business model, raising cattle that can never be sold.

From the Salt Lake Tribune. There were health concerns, but the BLM attempted to sell anyway.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57792018-90/utah-cattle-county-blm.html.csp

 d-usa wrote:


If all these "you could never sell these cattle" arguments are true then Bundy looks even dumber for racking up fines and organizing an armed uprising for worthless cattle that he can never sell. What a horrible business model, raising cattle that can never be sold.

That's an interesting point. What's all the rage about people taking his cattle, if he could never have used them for anything productive. Was he keeping cattle on this land illegally as pets? Because that's basically the only reason to keep them if they can't be sold at all.

So no evidence whatsoever of any sort of disease, just an excuse to not have to deal with this?

I assume that Bundy will have to kill every single one of these animals since he can never sell any of them?

Sounds like a crappy business model to mobilize a militia for...

 d-usa wrote:


That is how the tracking works,.

For most things maybe. But TVs don't etc infect other goods.

 d-usa wrote:


If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.

.

you inspect for sick cattle before they enter the system not after.

 d-usa wrote:
So no evidence whatsoever of any sort of disease, just an excuse to not have to deal with this?

I assume that Bundy will have to kill every single one of these animals since he can never sell any of them?

Sounds like a crappy business model to mobilize a militia for...

I think we aren't understanding his business. It isn't cattle, it's freedom(tm).

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


That is how the tracking works,.

For most things maybe. But TVs don't etc infect other goods.

 d-usa wrote:


If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.

.

you inspect for sick cattle before they enter the system not after.

You inspect then before they cross state lines. None had crossed yet, so there was no need for a vet to inspect them yet.

Utah even has legal provisions for transporting cattle into the state without requiring an ICVI.

They BLM was following all the regulation. Utah didn't want to deal with militias showing up on their door because of this so they went "crapcrapcrap...something something disease?" to avoid having to deal with this.

It will be interesting if any of the "it's a health risk" crowds will throw a fit when they are sold by Bundy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse has posted the relevant regulations. If you can show me the sections that were violated please go ahead.

 d-usa wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


That is how the tracking works,.

For most things maybe. But TVs don't etc infect other goods.

 d-usa wrote:


If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.

.

you inspect for sick cattle before they enter the system not after.

You inspect then before they cross state lines. None had crossed yet, so there was no need for a vet to inspect them yet.

Utah even has legal provisions for transporting cattle into the state without requiring an ICVI.

They BLM was following all the regulation. Utah didn't want to deal with militias showing up on their door because of this so they went "crapcrapcrap...something something disease?" to avoid having to deal with this.

It will be interesting if any of the "it's a health risk" crowds will throw a fit when they are sold by Bundy.

No you inspect before mixing with any other cattle, You put 30 cattle in with 70 known and certified cattle. And 2 get sick, you now have 100 cattle to check again and re certify.
Bundy would have taken them back to his ranch, corralled them observed them for 2 weeks, a vet may have been called. Before letting them near any other cattle. Even the branded stock would need to be re checked.

 motyak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So no evidence whatsoever of any sort of disease, just an excuse to not have to deal with this?

I assume that Bundy will have to kill every single one of these animals since he can never sell any of them?

Sounds like a crappy business model to mobilize a militia for...

I think we aren't understanding his business. It isn't cattle, it's freedom(tm).

Suddenly I have this image of a particular scene from Braveheart...

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


That is how the tracking works,.

For most things maybe. But TVs don't etc infect other goods.

 d-usa wrote:


If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.

.

you inspect for sick cattle before they enter the system not after.

You inspect then before they cross state lines. None had crossed yet, so there was no need for a vet to inspect them yet.

Utah even has legal provisions for transporting cattle into the state without requiring an ICVI.

They BLM was following all the regulation. Utah didn't want to deal with militias showing up on their door because of this so they went "crapcrapcrap...something something disease?" to avoid having to deal with this.

It will be interesting if any of the "it's a health risk" crowds will throw a fit when they are sold by Bundy.

No you inspect before mixing with any other cattle, You put 30 cattle in with 70 known and certified cattle. And 2 get sick, you now have 100 cattle to check again and re certify.

And none of the cattle were mixed, no rule was violated, regulations were followed.

By the admission from everybody Bundy is so horrible at keeping track of his cattle that they are pretty much feral, how would he make them un-feral now?

Bundy would have taken them back to his ranch, corralled them observed them for 2 weeks, a vet may have been called. Before letting them near any other cattle. Even the branded stock would need to be re checked.

Bundy will never be able to sell any of his cattle for the same reasons the Feds were not able to sell them.

Unless people are liars of course.

If Bundy transport the cattle himself then its on him and the buyer. If a Trans Company was contracted to transport the cattle to the buyer then the Trans company is at fault for not verifying the proper documentation IE "Clean Bill of Health whatever" are attach to the pile of documentation. Your all at the beginning and of the end of movement phase.

 d-usa wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


That is how the tracking works,.

For most things maybe. But TVs don't etc infect other goods.

 d-usa wrote:


If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.

.

you inspect for sick cattle before they enter the system not after.

You inspect then before they cross state lines. None had crossed yet, so there was no need for a vet to inspect them yet.

Utah even has legal provisions for transporting cattle into the state without requiring an ICVI.

They BLM was following all the regulation. Utah didn't want to deal with militias showing up on their door because of this so they went "crapcrapcrap...something something disease?" to avoid having to deal with this.

It will be interesting if any of the "it's a health risk" crowds will throw a fit when they are sold by Bundy.

No you inspect before mixing with any other cattle, You put 30 cattle in with 70 known and certified cattle. And 2 get sick, you now have 100 cattle to check again and re certify.

And none of the cattle were mixed, no rule was violated, regulations were followed.

By the admission from everybody Bundy is so horrible at keeping track of his cattle that they are pretty much feral, how would he make them un-feral now?

Bundy would have taken them back to his ranch, corralled them observed them for 2 weeks, a vet may have been called. Before letting them near any other cattle. Even the branded stock would need to be re checked.

Bundy will never be able to sell any of his cattle for the same reasons the Feds were not able to sell them.

Unless people are liars of course.

Bundy would keep the cattle penned for 2 weeks before moving then instate, let alone across state lines.

It's like you being a good parent, taking your child for all their needles, and when they start school, some idiot take a child into class with chicken pox. Every parent will check their children for a couple of weeks worrying if they got chicken pox.

Bundy had the cattle for years, and according to Utah they are a public health risk due to him not watching them. The government can't sell them, even though there has not been any evidence of them breaking a single regulations. But the guy who has not tracked them and turned them feral can un-feral them by sticking them somewhere for two weeks.

The idiot who made this cattle worthless can fix it just like that, but a government agency will kill all the cattle in Nevada or Utah by doing the same.

That's why the claim is pretty silly.

 d-usa wrote:
Bundy had the cattle for years, and according to Utah they are a public health risk due to him not watching them. The government can't sell them, even though there has not been any evidence of them breaking a single regulations. But the guy who has not tracked them and turned them feral can un-feral them by sticking them somewhere for two weeks.

The idiot who made this cattle worthless can fix it just like that, but a government agency will kill all the cattle in Nevada or Utah by doing the same.

That's why the claim is pretty silly.

NO the government would have to follow the same procedure. The BLM didn't

BLM was stopped before they committed to the sale.

 Jihadin wrote:
BLM was stopped before they committed to the sale.

Which makes this whole discussion ridiculous.

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Bundy had the cattle for years, and according to Utah they are a public health risk due to him not watching them. The government can't sell them, even though there has not been any evidence of them breaking a single regulations. But the guy who has not tracked them and turned them feral can un-feral them by sticking them somewhere for two weeks.

The idiot who made this cattle worthless can fix it just like that, but a government agency will kill all the cattle in Nevada or Utah by doing the same.

That's why the claim is pretty silly.

NO the government would have to follow the same procedure. The BLM didn't

They did.

There has not been a single piece of evidence in this thread that they didn't. They didn't mix them, they didn't transport them, they didn't violate a single regulation.

The only evidence for why it can't be sold has been from Utah, and even they didn't accuse the BLM of violating regulations. Instead Utah basically said that they are all feral cattle and can never be sold, not because of what the BLM did but because of what Bundy did.

 Jihadin wrote:
BLM was stopped before they committed to the sale.

Cattle seized from public land in Nevada were once headed to Richfield for auction — but federal officials have changed their plans after Utah leaders argued the animals would threaten the state’s $1 billion livestock industry.

Translated as we don't know these un certified cattle. your not putting them with our prime beef herds. Sod them off, and put them back where you found them.


But the BLM’s plan to ship the cows 200 miles to a Sevier County auction yard sparked even more controversy. Herbert and other Utah political leaders say the cows should remain in Nevada.

Planing in selling them there =/= cattle were on a truck headed for the state line.

All the evidence we have seems to show that the cattle remained pretty close to the area during the entire time.