Do you have something on your mind and want to write your own online editorial?
Click here to get started!


Endangered Species


Date posted - April 16, 2014


What is going down in Nevada now is similar to what happened to hog farmers twenty years ago. Regulators decided that hog producers had to build confinements with sewage treatment plants. Only producers owned by politically connected feed companies and investors had the money to build these facilities; family farmers went into debt and then out of business. Ten years ago, the same happened for dairy and cattle farmers, with the same results. Now, in the middle of a drought, regulators are forcing ranchers off public lands and out of business. These regulations are not intended to “Save the Environment”; they are designed to put the competition “Out of Business”. What we have is an abuse of executive power intended to make everyone dependent on and controlled by government. If we are to remain a free people and not an endangered species we must elect politicians who will decentralize government power.

Michael McCarty

Print Friendly

27 Responses to “Endangered Species”

  1. TM says:

    how decentralize do you want it. People complain about gay marrage and what to outlaw it. Some states say its OK some don’t. People complain about weed and what to outlaw it. Some states say its OK some don’t. People complain about abortion and what to outlaw it. Some states say its OK some don’t. People complain about keystone pipe lane and what to outlaw it. Some states say its OK some don’t. People complain about the size of chicken cages and what to outlaw it. Some states say its OK some don’t. People complain about blind people having guns and what to outlaw it. Some states say its OK some don’t. Do you see a trend we need a stronger fed goverment to lay down some form of laws other wise we end up with 50 differnt nations each passing there own laws that are the exactly difernet from there neighbors. Im tired of reading opinions here they are so back wards. In Is History Repeating Itself? people are complaing the goverment isn’t stong enught. Now on this one you are going to have 20-30 people talk about how the goverment is over reaching. Pick a side and keep it. You all are starting to soung like abunch of flip floper. I for one wish the politions would het to work and fix these problues. They wait for it to go court and then complain about the outcome. Maybe if we could meat in the middle about something insed of acting like a 5 year old and saying my way or no way this great country would be great again. Its not one person fault or anotheer that things around here are going to s#$t. It’s all of ours. The sulotion stats in the miror.

    • mc says:

      maybe you should learn how to spell

      • Lee Ann says:

        You need to use more punctuation. Instead of insulting someone for their spelling, maybe you should be trying to debate the issues that TM is talking about. There’s no reason to be rude, just because someone doesn’t spell well.

  2. sassy says:

    Well said, as usual, Michael McCarty — Here’s my two cents worth: What will fix this nation has nothing to do with politics. What we need in this nation to fix this nation is one thing: We need a revolution of entrepreneurship. See – it’s not about Romney vs Obama, and it’s not about Republican vs Democratic. It’s about an employee, consumer, security mindset vs an entrepreneur, producer, freedom mindset. That is the battleground for freedom. That is why this overreaching government wants to take out independent entrepreneurs like farmers and ranchers – WAKE UP! Things are about to get a lot worse before they get better.

  3. Lee Ann says:

    They used to allow free cattle grazing in the west. But as more and more cattle were grazing, they were ruining streambeds, over grazing, messing up gravel roads with large trucks, etc. That’s why back in the 40s, they decided to charge a small amount. to fix the problems caused by grazing cattle. Everybody knew why they charged it and while they didn’t like it, everybody knew there was a reason for it.

    In my opinion, the only thing the BLM did wrong was wait so long before refusing to allow him to graze without paying, which has been what? 20 years?

    Everybody else is paying like they are supposed to. I cannot see why this guy thinks he needs a special privilege. And why he sees fit to tell the journalists, “All the sheriffs should disarm the federal agents and bring their guns to me.” WTF?

    He is the problem that the militias want to use as an example. They don’t care about his problems, they just want him to use. Because the BLM backed off, does not mean it will be settled. It will get worse and worse, just like Waco.

    I cannot be sympathetic towards someone that went to court and lost, and still continues in contempt of court.

  4. dsa says:

    It is illegal for the federal government to own land other than what is necessary for national defense. This is what the constitution says. If we want the fed to own land to protect endangered species, or to rent to ranchers, or whatever, we need to amend the constitution.

    • Lee Ann says:

      The Federal government doesn’t own any land, except for national parks, a la Teddy Roosevelt. The land we are talking about here is land that is owned by the people in the US. The department that takes care of and manages OUR land is called the Bureau of Land Management. They need those grazing fees to fix streambeds that cattle have ruined, gravel roads that the big trucks have damaged, and to fix any over grazing. That’s called management. Not ownership.

      • Free Man says:

        Agenda 21 in action.

      • dsa says:

        The constitution and the declaration of independence are the basis of all our law. It’s important to understand these documents if you are going to discuss these matters. The constitution doesn’t allow for the federal government to manage land for the purposes you listed . That power belongs to the states or the people. It lists 18 powers granted to the congress, the only place law can be made. The tenth amendment says that all other powers, not listed, belong to the states or the people. It’s to protect the little guy.

      • Doug says:

        The government if fixing gravel roads and stream beds in the desert? Are they restoring ocean front property out there too? The only damaged caused in this area, was by the BLM.

        If they were concerned about harm to the desert environment, they’d be down at the border with all of those automatic weapons, stopping the flow of illegals and drugs, and/or extracting a fee from the illegals, and charging the cartels for all of the garbage they leave in the desert out there.

        The federal government’s purpose is to protect the people. Not legislate regulations unequally on individuals.

        • Lee Ann says:

          Well, it can’t be a desert. The cattle has to drink somewhere. You cannot dump a load of cattle in the desert, and hope they find enough water to live. They have streams through the area, they make gravel road for the semis to bring the cattle in.

  5. Harriet Oleson says:

    Curious as to how all the parties involved in one of the headline stories all purchased homes within a short time of each other after the incident occurred…….

  6. Jon says:

    The problem always has to do with what constitutes being a good steward of the land and a good neighbor. In this case, the problem has to do with overgrazing while recognizing a need for grazing. In order for the delicate balance of grassland to exist in this area, there is a need for careful management. On the one hand, grazing is necessary for the grass to thrive. On the other, over-grazing of the land threatens to turn these feeding grounds into desert. We must also be careful about what we are to do with government ground and how it is to be managed. Some on here maintain that the federal government shouldn’t own property, as the constitution does not allow it. However, those of you who live in Sheldon or really anywhere between the Mississippi and the Rockies live on property that was once purchased and owned by the government. Without government’s ability to own and control property, this country simply would not exist. You might easily argue that the government bought the property with the purpose of selling and ceding the property to private owners, and you’d be right. The fact of the matter is that Bundy doesn’t even recognize the federal government as legitimate, though he claims to recognize the “sovereign state of Nevada.” Of course, the constitution of Nevada reads in article 1, section 2: “But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” So, clearly there is a disconnect. Some maintain that the federal government shouldn’t own property, and yet over a quarter of the property in this country IS owned and managed by the government. And, since the government owns and manages this property, there is a responsibility to manage it well (which it doesn’t always do). In this case, they addressed the problem of over-grazing by charging for grazing on public lands. I would say that there is a better solution that would still allow for management without the necessity of payment. However, those of you who raise animals and actually pay for your feed, buy your own property for grazing lands, and manage your own pastures and fields, ask yourselves how much of your costs of raising animals go into procuring feed. Here is a man asserting his “right” to not have to pay for any of that cost. How nice for him to take advantage of public property that he does not have to care for that he does not own, feed his cattle, and not have to pay a dime for it. Perhaps the best option might be to sell this land to private owners. For those who work hard to pay to feed their animals and raise their livestock, Bundy is a man who doesn’t want to do this work, who doesn’t want to assume responsibility for the grazing his cattle do on land that essentially belongs to us, that we are trying to preserve as grassland so that it does not turn into a desert wasteland. Every other rancher is paying the associated fees and adhering to the regulations. Only Bundy is resorting to anarchy. Of course we can ask questions of regulations, and we need to make sure that what we are doing respects the needs, rights, and responsibilities of all our citizens to the very best of our abilities. Certainly, the government often oversteps its bounds, but the behavior of Bundy is NOT patriotic in the least and amounts to nothing more than a temper tantrum.

    • Doug says:

      I don’t think all of the facts of the case going back to the 1880′s have been disclosed, and may or may not apply depending on how you stand as far as being a fan or foe of big government. As a rule, farmers and ranchers are the best stewards of the land in the first place because they know first and foremost that mismanagement will put them out of business. And as we all also know, big brother must be involved in every sector and ever waking second of our lives.

      I believe there are three or less ranchers in that area that are left due to the BLM squeezing them out.

      When the government allotted land to graze in the 1800′s, ranchers purchased rights to graze their cattle, and also rights to water, and these rights were passed down through the generations, or sold off to other ranchers as time passed. The ranchers also built waters/wells, fences, and roads all with their own money, not with tax dollars.

      Then along came the BLM (aka: wolf) to assist ranchers (aka: sheep) with managing the ranges, who started charging an annual fee, that was to pay BLM wages, and help pay for improvements and repairs to the ranches.

      When the land was declared sacred in the name of a desert tortoise, the BLM started dictating the rules and severely limiting ranchers herds by declaring how many AUM’s, animal units per month the permit allowed. And so the squeeze began.

      Now this tortoise, I can only imagine has survived millions of years all by itself. And has obviously survived life amongst cattle since the 1880′s. The kicker though, is that since being declared “endangered” and sporting a protective BLM hat and t-shirt since 1993, the government has had to euthanize over a thousand of them.

      Let’s talk about why those automatic weapons aren’t down on the border protecting “our” BLM land down there.

      Or what Harry Reid, his development buddies, wind farms, and the Chinese have to do with Cliven Bundy’s ranching livelihood.

      Benghazi: Spontaneous Protest
      Fort Hood attack:

  7. Jon says:

    It is interesting to me how people defend this man’s right to what amounts his right to nothing more than government subsistence. It is ironic that here is a “taker” in the true sense of the word, who has no qualms about exploiting public lands for his own economic benefit. I also, however, understand his frustration. For many years, the government allowed these ranchers to graze their cattle on public ground for free. They got used to this handout and in fact exploited to the point that there were concerns over the long-term viability of these grazing lands as they became over-grazed and poorly managed both by the federal government AND by the ranchers taking advantage of their ability to feed their cattle for free. Thus, a system of fees was instituted. That is the real problem, expecting these ranchers to actually pay for what they had previously gotten at no cost to them, and in part because both the ranchers and the government proved to be poor stewards of the land. I know that there is a better solution than what we have now, and I think that there were steps that the government might have taken to encourage stewardship of the land without needing to levy huge fees on the ranchers…after all, it would seem to be in the best interest of the ranchers to want to work with land management people to make sure that there is still grass to graze on. It also seems, however, that other ranchers don’t suffer the same sense of insurrection as Bundy, who insist that property he doesn’t actually own except inasmuch as he is a taxpayer is his to do with as he pleases, no matter who else might own it. Again, the same people defending this man’s right to trespass on lands without permission are the ones that would defend someone’s right to shoot an intruder on someone’s property with no questions asked. There has to be a middle ground. There has to be something that is more equitable, but using the very definition of a “taker” with an entitlement mentality as a poster child to me seems ironic to say the least.

  8. Harriet Oleson says:

    Anybody else ever get dirty boogers in their nose after being in the field all day? Pa Ingalls just came into the Mercantile and did a “farmer blow”. I swear a piece of dirt the size of a small potato came out……

    • Lee Ann says:

      I’m sorry, Free Man. I did watch the youtube, then I started checking out the next news network. 1. Chicago will be under military rule, 2. They will put microchips in people that don’t like our government, 3. There’s a secret military base just outside of Las Vegas that will help Reid. I think this youtube is about as accurate as Infowars, sorry to say.

      • Free Man says:

        Nothing about the information from the former BLM employee and whistle blower who was interviewed on the You Tube clip, instead it’s attack the messenger and mention Info Wars, which had nothing to do with the video.

        Who said this in the Obamacare 2 cents?

        “Huffington Post is one of my favorite sites to read. But a lot of our conservative friends will blast it because it is a liberal media paper.”

        Now we have one of our leftist friends blasting the source instead of the content.

        • Lee Ann says:

          Simply put, I have nothing against Conservative newspapers and sites. However, I do believe that Infowars and next news network are not merely conservative sites. These two are “off the chart” sites for news. Every possible conspiracy, hateful remark is there.

          Anything can be made into a youtube video, every interview, every event. It doesn’t make it true.

    • Doug says:

      Imagine that, Harry Reid is in the thick of it.

  9. Jon says:

    Cliven Bundy Facts:

    I. He and his Family has never owned or had any Rights to the Disputed Land.

    1. Bundy Claims his family has owned the land since 1877, long before the BLM even existed and before grazing permits were required.

    2. However, Clark County property records show Bundy bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948. The purchase did not include any right to the adjacent BLM land.

    The Bundys didn’t start grazing on the land until 1954.

    3. The land is part of the Las Vegas Grazing District, which was established under the Taylor Grazing Act on Nov. 3, 1936. This was 10 years before the Bundys owned the land and 18 years before the Bundys started grazing the land.

    4. The BLM was founded in 1946, two years before they bought the land and eight years before they started grazing.

    http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/depts/dcp/Pages/Curre
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/22/property-rec
    http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ance
    http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbrevia

    II. Ranch Welfare. Bundy has received $7.1 million in services from the Tax Payers.

    1. Bundy Refuses to pay $1.35 per head, per month to graze his cattle on Federal Land.

    2. He says that the land belongs to the states and the Federal Government is not allowed to own any land except land for military bases and certain government facilities.

    3. If the land in question were state land, Nevada charges $15.50. That means instead of owing $1.1 million to the Federal Government, Bundy would owe the state $12.6 million.

    4. Even if it was State Land, in 1993, the State of Nevada retired all grazing rights in the area because of over grazing and range damage.

    5. Private land leasing fees average between $14.50 and $20 per head. If Bundy had to pay the private market rate for grazing, it could cost him between $11.8 and $16.3 million.

    6. The government spends million maintaining the land and keeping it suitable for grazing. The Government routinely kills preditors, removes trees to create more grazing land, drills wells, builds dams, controls weeds spread by cattle, fights fires and builds roads to access the land.

    7. According to the Government Accounting Office, it cost the government $8.10 per head to maintain the land. That means that, even if Bundy paid the grazing fees he owes, he’d still be receiving $7.1 million in services paid for by the tax payers.

    If Bundy pays nothing, as he wants, he would be receiving $8.2 million in services courtesy of the Tax Payers.

    http://beefmagazine.com/business/rising-lease-rate
    http://mesquitelocalnews.com/sections/opinion/edit
    http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html
    http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Grazing_F
    http://npaper-wehaa.com/western-livestock-journal/
    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22704766/federal

    III. Court Case. The court case against Cliven Bundy was heard by Senior United States District Judge Larry R. Hicks a Republican appointed by George W. Bush. The judge invalidated all Bundy’s arguments.

    http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/fiel

    • Doug says:

      Please copy and past all of the innumerable reasons the BLM ran off every other rancher in that area.

      Do you think if Mr Bundy ceased grazing his livestock on that property, the BLM would have let another rancher bring their herd in?

      I haven’t seen any other ranchers complaining they would like to take that property over. Free or otherwise.

      The $1.35 fee you cite, does not include the $4.78 Nevada surcharge. The federal grazing fee is reviewed annually and determined by a formula that factors in the current private lease rate, beef cattle prices and the cost of livestock production.

  10. Jon says:

    And just to top it all off, apparently the “negros” were better off as slaves. Ironic how he can point out very easily those he sees as “dependent on government” when he himself has been free-loading off the teet of land he doesn’t own and making sure he, unlike most farmers and ranchers, gets to feed his cattle without costing him a dime. Must be nice to sit up on that high horse complaining about the “negro” while you’re taking your cattle to eat off the government’s land.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/cliven-bundy-racist_n_5204821.html

    It doesn’t even really matter, though, that these comments are racist. The fact that they are hypocritical, though, is very interesting. Other ranchers and farmers pay for their feed, they pay for their grazing land, they purchase their own grazing land. Not Cliven.

  11. Doug says:

    Double Bump

Leave a Reply

Sheldon Broadcasting Company, Inc. appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language.
2. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem (personal) attacks.
3. Threats are treated seriously and will be reported to law enforcement.
4. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Sheldon Broadcasting Company, Inc. or its advertisers agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the selected staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email walt@kiwaradio.com.


Back to:Endangered Species