04-10-2014, 02:29 PM
keystone183 Wrote:Apart from these ridiculous tactics, i don't see what this guy's leg to stand on is? The land isn't his, and if someone tells him to get off....he needs to get off. If he holds water rights, that is another issue, but i don't see those being made an issue?
What I see this being about is who has a bigger stick in laying claims to the land, and changing the rules (their rules) as time progressed. This family has let their cattle graze on the land since the late 1800's, well before FDR pulled the Homestead Act on us. What has happened is that what was once locally-owned land, is now claimed by the Federal Government, who "allowed" this family to let their cattle graze on the land after they had been doing, then charged a fee for it, then said they have exceeded their allotment of cattle per square mile, then said they need to make payments to them, then said they are in non-compliance.
It's an issue of sovereignty and encroachment on individual rights, as well as Federal overstep into rural lands where they have no business, but were moved to act by an environmental/animal rights organization, even though the enforcement agencies just wanted the case to go away because they knew the rulings were morally and ethically wrong, and this family was getting shafted bigtime.
Or you could look at it as unruly peasants, refusing to obey the orders of their Federal overlords, and they should just submit already. It all boils down to how you view individual rights, the 10th Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the principles the US was founded on.
