5 Taxpayer Handouts the Bundys Receive While Railing Against Government “Tyranny”With the caveat that I won't have time to research the claims and that I'm totally shooting from the hip, here's my gut reaction:
1. It looks like Ammon did take out an SBA loan. What I don't know is if government actions in terms of taxes and regulations made that more of a defensive response than hypocrisy. If it was the latter, I won't make excuses for him.
2. and 3. Government has presumed control over a lot of land under "powers" not specifically defined and delegated.
4. The accuser presents no evidence the Bundys availed themselves of this.
5. Leave it to government to spend tens of millions of dollars on hunting predators when it could be a money-making venture. Again no evidence is presented that the Bundys benefited from this, and the likelihood is, had they or someone at their direction just gone out and shot some of the listed animals, they'd have been setting themselves up for federal charges.
So my thoughts are, without a lot more substantiation, this looks like another pile-on hit piece. Right now, only one out of five appears to be partially sticking.
3 comments:
The US government owns none of the land on which the Bundy's grazed their cattle, most of the "BLM land" does not belong to the US government. The states in which the land lies are the legitimate controlling government.
The article IS a hit piece, plain and simple. But I'll address item #2, as it's the subject I can speak of with some expertise.
The amount paid to the feds does seem like nothing compared to what might be charged by a private land owner. But in return for that low lease price the rancher is responsible for maintaining his cattle on the allotment, which is not easy on open range. It might require building temporary fences, and it definitely requires the rancher to maintain existing fences, all at his cost. The rancher is also responsible for maintaining or developing water sources for his animals, or might require keeping them out of wet areas that the lessor doesn't want them to be in. Worst of all when dealing with the feds, they can jack you around eight ways to Sunday if they want, and in most cases there are certain time frames when a guy is allowed to graze. They tell you when to start, when to move them from area to area and when to get out.
Also, don't forget Nevada rangeland, and most BLM land in general, isn't exactly irrigated pasture. It might require several hundred acres per head just to keep your critters in any kind of condition.
I'm lucky that my beeves run on my land. I don't have to screw with a lease. And I can guarantee you I would have zero patience in dealing with a BLM Range Specialist. Back in the old days they were on your side. Now they're just obeying the whims of the bureaucrats above them, and some of the district people can be complete anti-grazing control freaks.
And of course one thing that is never mentioned is that there are environmental benefits of grazing. But I don't think you'll be hearing that little factoid anytime soon from anyone working for this administration. All they want to talk about is that bovine flatulence is destroying the planet.
The linked article seems to be several good arguments as to why federal control and operation of public lands is a bad idea.
None of the commenters have picked up on it.
Post a Comment