Nevada BLM actions background

Pages

682 posts / 0 new
Last post
pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08

Looks like the link takes you to an archive list which you will need to click on April and then go to April 22 to find the interview.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

ron, early o in tis discussion it was readily admitted that Mr. Bundy may not be the most articulate spokesman for the ranchers plight.

If you goback to the original post, it was not to defend Bundy or claim he was Thomas Jefferson of the ranching community, but to point out the ties and fraud that was a part of these actions.

you repeatedly denied that connection and influence. Going so far as to infer anyone that believed this was a "dumb ass" ( is Allen West a "dumb ass" ron? )

Wayne Hage, whom you said once again is in the right seems to be supporting Mr. Bundy in his attempts to deal with this issue. Perhaps he knows something even YOU with all your "reading" does not.

Perhaps Mr Bundy does not have the financial abiloity ot pursue this thru the courts. (Wayne Hage in testifying before Congress suggested that was a HUGE part of why ranchers do not fight these unjust actions by these Federal agencies. (funny how the nonprofits like  NWF an have the tax payers pay for their lawsuits over these land use issues but the rancher has to pony up out of his own pocket,. kind of a David vs. Goliath situation)

So ron I will ask you once again.

When the Federal govt breaks an agreement and the Federal courts will not uphold their (the Feds) responsibility to honor that agreement, and your Federal representative happens to be the one behind the govt breaking their agreement, what redress do you have left???

Please explain this for us.


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Longshot Said:

gst Said:

Longshot Said:

gst Said:
So saying someone is wiling to over looking something now equates to claiming that person approves of it now?

That remedial English class is starting to fill up boys.

So you mean overlook as in you wanting to overlook any wrong doing by Bundy right?  gst don't you get tired of having the liberal victim mentality.  The typical liberal who cannot claim any resposibility and can only blaim everyone esle. 

So then if you wish to "claim responsibility of wrong doing lnogshot, does that same responsibility apply to the Federal govt or not?
You and a few others seem to wish to completely ignore the Federal govts "wrong doing" when they moved to end the multiple use agreements these alnds were held under because of lawsuits form the "sportsmen/enviromental"  groups you support.
gst please show the quote where I said the government did not do any wrong doing.  Stop making things up.  This still does not make Bundy's action right.

So longshot should the Federal govt accept responsibility for the wrong doing in removing these ranchers from these lands in violation of the multiple use agreeements these lands were held under for generations??  I would think so.

So longshot how or when or where is that happening???

There are court cases pending all over the west over this very thing. And despite rons legal crystal ball, the Wayne Hage case set a precedence never before set that may open some peoples eyes a bit. (at least those that want tobe opened)

 

That may be gst, but obviously the judge in Bundy's case didn't believe it applied.  You keep asking what people know about water rights.  Let me tell you that no matter what you may think or what your opinions are the final say are the courts.  The judge makes the decision on what case law applies Perhaos he made the ruling inbetween vists with Sen Reid in DC.  Again you want to infre this without proof.  I thought you only wanted the facts.

I admit I forgot the little winky guy icon. My bad.
and if you don't like the judgment you have the right to appeal.  Bundy hasn't appealed and instead decides since he doesn't like the decision he will ignore it.  Regardless of anyone else's wrong doing he broke the law by ignoring the courts.
 Exactly what was the case the judge ruled against Bundy for longshot?  I don't know that answer, do you.  It realy doesn't matter if Bundry doesn't agree he has the right to appeal.The case was whether the grazing fees were paid to the Federal govt  or not, nothing more. Why would Bundy appeal that when he admits he has not

Boy go to a meeting for a couple hours and things get interesting!

I answered your questions gst now answer mine.  You don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

It simply is not the same longshot. Perhaps if you understood a bit better.

Under western law in Nevada the rancher has to continue to "prove up" his water rights to maintain them. So in  that essence they are not automatically perpetual. They have to show a benefit and usage to keep them.

In the perpetual easement with the govt you wish to have happen there are no such requirements and the govt itself in most cases retains the ability ot alter the terms of the perpetual easement and the other party has no recourse but to file a "takings" case if this occurs. As seen with the Hage case, these "takings" cases take years/decades and millions of dollars to resolve.

So if one wishes to be honest here, you are trying to compare apples to oranges to prove a point. I think most would see that difference

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Longshot said,

  You don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

 

Lloyd Jones US Fish and Wildlife Service said the fed/gov reserves the right to change things in the contract concerning perpetual easements.

Land uses change. In the Hage case it took 100 years but the fed/gov decided they wanted his cattle off.

As land uses change, 100 years from now or less those perpetual easements may make this cattle issue look minor.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Longshot Said:

gst Said:

Longshot Said:

Fritz the Cat Said:
Longshot,

You missed one. If you sign a perpetual easement with the fed/gov they will ceratinly go to the register of deeds office and record it.

Split title.

You may own the naked ground (possession) but somebody else owns the "use". 

Now apply it in reverse and take a look see at what those ranchers own. 

Plainsman Dick Monson Ron Gilmore have been arguing for years that a willing seller should be able to sell a perpetual easement to the fed/gov if they want to.  

The fed/gov entered into a contract with these ranchers years ago. Now they want to reneg.

Isn't it funny how things come full circle.

An easement being either permanent, temporary, or designated time frame in only an interest in real property.  I didn't miss anything.  You can subdivide real property, but you cannot spit title.  If someone owns the use of the property it's an easement.  That person's name is not on the title nor can it be split.  You either own it or you don't and an easement to someone or group is not ownership.  Now I know you and gst don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

longshot what do you know about water rights in these western lands?

We've been through this already.  Again, we can all have out opinion, but the courts are the final say.  You don't seem to understand that.  I do have some experience with water rights, but my opinion is just that, an opinion.  Just as you have your opinion and so do the attorneys who argue their opinion.  The judge has the final judgment which has already been made.  Now how about answering my question in my last post.

longshot these western water rights laws are not "opinions". you do realize that right?

If you have this"experience" with water rights you must have known the difference between western lands and the eastern states right?

So when people are forming their "opinions" should they have the right information or not?

longshot did you bother to read the links I shared about western water rights? Did you see where the water rights couldbe sold and

After all, you would not want to provide wrongful information to people forming their own "opinion" would you?

"The legal details vary from state to state; however, the general principle is that water rights are unconnected to land ownership, and can be sold or mortgaged like other property. The first person to use a quantity of water from a water source for a beneficial use has the right to continue to use that quantity of water for that purpose. "

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08

EVERYONE REALLY NEEDS TO LISTEN TO WAYNE HAGE'S INTERVIEW.  HE WAS AT THE BUNDY RANCH WHEN THE BLM STANDOFF WENT DOWN. 

www1.gcnlive.com/CMS/index.php/archivespage

You will need to click on April in the archive list and go to April 22 and then go to around the 05:40 mark to start the interveiw.  He does not talk about the standoff though until the very end of the interview. 

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

gst Said:

Longshot Said:

gst Said:

Longshot Said:

gst Said:
So saying someone is wiling to over looking something now equates to claiming that person approves of it now?

That remedial English class is starting to fill up boys.

So you mean overlook as in you wanting to overlook any wrong doing by Bundy right?  gst don't you get tired of having the liberal victim mentality.  The typical liberal who cannot claim any resposibility and can only blaim everyone esle. 

So then if you wish to "claim responsibility of wrong doing lnogshot, does that same responsibility apply to the Federal govt or not?
You and a few others seem to wish to completely ignore the Federal govts "wrong doing" when they moved to end the multiple use agreements these alnds were held under because of lawsuits form the "sportsmen/enviromental"  groups you support.
gst please show the quote where I said the government did not do any wrong doing.  Stop making things up.  This still does not make Bundy's action right.

So longshot should the Federal govt accept responsibility for the wrong doing in removing these ranchers from these lands in violation of the multiple use agreeements these lands were held under for generations??  I would think so.

So longshot how or when or where is that happening???

There are court cases pending all over the west over this very thing. And despite rons legal crystal ball, the Wayne Hage case set a precedence never before set that may open some peoples eyes a bit. (at least those that want tobe opened)

 

That may be gst, but obviously the judge in Bundy's case didn't believe it applied.  You keep asking what people know about water rights.  Let me tell you that no matter what you may think or what your opinions are the final say are the courts.  The judge makes the decision on what case law applies Perhaos he made the ruling inbetween vists with Sen Reid in DC.  Again you want to infre this without proof.  I thought you only wanted the facts.

I admit I forgot the little winky guy icon. My bad.
and if you don't like the judgment you have the right to appeal.  Bundy hasn't appealed and instead decides since he doesn't like the decision he will ignore it.  Regardless of anyone else's wrong doing he broke the law by ignoring the courts.
 Exactly what was the case the judge ruled against Bundy for longshot?  I don't know that answer, do you.  It realy doesn't matter if Bundry doesn't agree he has the right to appeal.The case was whether the grazing fees were paid to the Federal govt  or not, nothing more. Why would Bundy appeal that when he admits he has not

Boy go to a meeting for a couple hours and things get interesting!

I answered your questions gst now answer mine.  You don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

It simply is not the same longshot. Perhaps if you understood a bit better.

Under western law in Nevada the rancher has to continue to "prove up" his water rights to maintain them. So in  that essence they are not automatically perpetual. They have to show a benefit and usage to keep them.

In the perpetual easement with the govt you wish to have happen there are no such requirements and the govt itself in most cases retains the ability ot alter the terms of the perpetual easement and the other party has no recourse but to file a "takings" case if this occurs. As seen with the Hage case, these "takings" cases take years/decades and millions of dollars to resolve.

So if one wishes to be honest here, you are trying to compare apples to oranges to prove a point. I think most would see that difference

Yes I do understand it and yes it is comparable.  A perpetual use vs a perpetual use. 

gst, maybe you have a reading problem, but nowhere in my question did it pertain to water rights.  It was about grazing.  Avoiding another question?  Having a smiley doesn't negate what you're trying to infer/imply.

Db's picture
Db
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 9/11/09

I appreciate cow calf man and girls. (women)
They take care of the cow that produces that calf that turns into a steer that ends up on my plate as a steak.
What ever they want is fine by me.  db

Db

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

It seems not every one is ready to cave to the Federal take over as ron wish us to believe.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/texas-ag-abbot-come-and-get-it-mol...

After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.

“I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.

“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote.

“The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions.

Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country.

And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”

Note the emboldened comment.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

It seems not every one is ready to cave to the Federal take over as ron wish us to believe.

I can't find that anywhere Hardwaterman said anything like that.  Would you quote  and highlight it for me?  Thanks

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"Do you recognize the United States and it's constitution?"

Does OBOZO and his ordained brown shirts recognize the United States AND it's Constitution?  OBOZO and his band of merry thieves do not represent the United States our forefathers gave us.  They are in the process of undermining and destroying it.  Who is the enemy of the people?   Of the Constitution?

What the AG of Texas is doing is what every state needs to do, what every American needs to do.  Nobody should stand still for the socialist take over and destruction of our Constitution and once great country. 

 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I was in Texas this winter and sure liked what I heard about their AG.  I asked the question because I can't understand supporting Bundy.  The guy talks out of both sides of his mouth.  Some on here want all or nothing, but I will not support Bundy.
What I agree with Alpine is this and it's been stated many times:
Bundy is wrong
Hage was right
The BLM blew it and are wrong
The judge who ruled against Bundy was right
Harry Reid should go to prison
Cattle grazing land is better than idle land unless the environment is to fragile to support a cow.
I may have left something out.

Like preserving out second amendment our brain is still our best weapon.  Lets not present ourselves to the rest of the nation as a bunch of Bundy/Gordon Kahls.   It's a PR battle since we will never win a shootout against those with night vision, infrared, heavy weapons etc.  We need social revolt at the ballot box, and we need to present ourselves as thinking people. 

As ticked as we get at liberals Alpine I think you can agree with me on these things. 

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08
Plainsman Stated:  Bundy is wrong
Hage was right
The BLM blew it and are wrong
The judge who ruled against Bundy was right

Did you even listen to the interview I posted with Wayne Hage?  I don't believe Wayne Hage would agree with you!  He was at the Bundy ranch and supporting him.  LISTEN to the interview!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gst again wrongs by one do not excuse wrongs by another!! Simple as that and the courts have and did look at Bundy and his claims and he lost because he could not prove his claims. Hage is supporting Bundy to a point, that was clear from the get go. That said, Hage is the face that everyone who wants a change in the current BLM practices that needs to be in the forefront not Bundy.

To address your question, gst about what is he suppose to do, well maybe just maybe the courts have it right and he is not within his rights. After all many a people think they are right only to be shown otherwise in a court of law.

I noticed you have been quick to post up things but have never posted up any of the court summary's regarding Bundy, as I have in links. Read them, and come back and dispute them. NOT VERY LIKELY THAT YOU CAN!!!!!

So piss and moan away, because the reality is that as a poster boy, Bundy is like PETA to a hunter or animal owner!!! You hear the name and immediately know!!!!

So instead of thinking people like myself are for the actions of the BLM and EPA, stop and look and listen!! We are not, but we also are not in favor of others acting wrongly and using a wrong against them as an excuse.

A good comparison would be one land owner going past his land boundary and planting or cutting a bit of his neighbors stuff. That would not mean the affected neighbor can then harvest the entire quarter of land of the encroacher because of the wrong against him. You and others have a real issue in dealing with this fact. When confronted with it you try and deflect away.

Courts have ruled against BUNDY because he could not prove his claims, no documentation to back it up. His refusal to continue to pay grazing fees and his attempt to give that payment to others negated his ablity to seek recourse for wrongs against him. AGAIN the courts tell him your wrong act is not offset by the wrong acts of the BLM which the courts have indicated as well where present.

NOT TO FRIGGING HARD TO UNDERSTAND!!!! JUST DOES NOT FIT YOUR NARRATIVE SO YOU IGNORE IT!!!!

Instead you have lied and insinuated all sorts of BS but have never addressed the court decisions. The courts had no choice but to dismiss his claims because like any court they need proof and he could not produce it!!!

So he lost because of his own actions, not some slick lawyer or who voted on the judge, it was his own making!! 

I know why you refuse to acknowledge this vital fact, it takes away all your whine material!!

So have the balls to address the court findings on their merit!! I listed the link that had them when you asked if I knew he did not have the documentation, Now tell us oh soothsayer of cowshit that he has not had a fair chance to make his case!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

 I am on Bundys side just because i like his brother Al...


 Adn

notnr103's picture
notnr103
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/27/13

I missed the last 23 pages of this thread, can somebody summarize for me or same old arguing?

 

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

pber Said:

Plainsman Stated:  Bundy is wrong
Hage was right
The BLM blew it and are wrong
The judge who ruled against Bundy was right

Did you even listen to the interview I posted with Wayne Hage?  I don't believe Wayne Hage would agree with you!  He was at the Bundy ranch and supporting him.  LISTEN to the interview!

pber, what I think you are missing is that, at least in my opinion, Bundy's actions were wrong.  Just like the BLM's actions were wrong.  If Bundy does have rights to this land (through water rights he claims he has but we have not seen the documentation) then he needs to pursue that in court.  If he can prove he did (or his predecessor) have water rights prior to 1905 than the courts should rule so.  There have been a lot of claims here and there with no proof. 

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Go to the J Stewart video a few pages back.  The guy obviously is trying to get enough free diapers for his daughter Shanika's six babies via the cow grazing welfare system.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

GSt -Do you think this  free grazing is right?  Do you think Shanika will be thankful for the diapers or  just expect it ?  HOw do you stand on the righteous gun wielding Bundy supporters using their wives and daughters as human shields from the Feds?  Do you openly support a welfare cattle state?  Are your  doggies on assistance?  Are you still in the twilight  zone?

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"As ticked as we get at liberals Alpine I think you can agree with me on these things."

I can live with everything you said and fly the flag for most of it.  
If I must err towards the actions of OBOZO or the actions of Bundy I'll err to the side of citizen Bundy. 

 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Alpine Said:
"As ticked as we get at liberals Alpine I think you can agree with me on these things."

I can live with everything you said and fly the flag for most of it.  
If I must err towards the actions of OBOZO or the actions of Bundy I'll err to the side of citizen Bundy. 

For me I do not see either side being right!! I would normally agree with the sentiment had I not read the court summary's. BLM is wrong, but so is Bundy! That sums it up!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08

Wayne Hage seems to think Mr. Bundy has the water rights.  I can't tell from the court proceedings if this was even addressed.  It looks like the issue addressed was whether the federal government owned the land as opposed to the state, and this is what Bundy seems to be basing his standing on.  I do think if Bundy would have agreed to signing the contract in 1993, he would have long been out of business as Mr. Hage stated in the interview. 

Rowdie's picture
Rowdie
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/14/02

"Once you've wrestled, everything else in life is easy.".     Dan Gabel

Rowdie's picture
Rowdie
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/14/02

GST

Answer one Question YES or NO only.   Any other reply = IDK

DOES the US states EXIST?

"Once you've wrestled, everything else in life is easy.".     Dan Gabel

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Alpine Said:
"As ticked as we get at liberals Alpine I think you can agree with me on these things."

I can live with everything you said and fly the flag for most of it.  
If I must err towards the actions of OBOZO or the actions of Bundy I'll err to the side of citizen Bundy. 

If it's Obama or Bundy I'll go Bundy too, but I don't think this country is so far gone we have to back either pile of crap. 

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

gst Said:

Longshot Said:

Fritz the Cat Said:
Longshot,

You missed one. If you sign a perpetual easement with the fed/gov they will ceratinly go to the register of deeds office and record it.

Split title.

You may own the naked ground (possession) but somebody else owns the "use". 

Now apply it in reverse and take a look see at what those ranchers own. 

Plainsman Dick Monson Ron Gilmore have been arguing for years that a willing seller should be able to sell a perpetual easement to the fed/gov if they want to.  

The fed/gov entered into a contract with these ranchers years ago. Now they want to reneg.

Isn't it funny how things come full circle.

An easement being either permanent, temporary, or designated time frame in only an interest in real property.  I didn't miss anything.  You can subdivide real property, but you cannot spit title.  If someone owns the use of the property it's an easement.  That person's name is not on the title nor can it be split.  You either own it or you don't and an easement to someone or group is not ownership.  Now I know you and gst don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

longshot a bit of reading for you and others.

Note the difference between eastern lands and western lands water rights here in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_right

Now from that link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_appropriation_water_rights

Overview

The legal details vary from state to state; however, the general principle is that water rights are unconnected to land ownership, and can be sold or mortgaged like other property. The first person to use a quantity of water from a water source for a beneficial use has the right to continue to use that quantity of water for that purpose. Subsequent users can use the remaining water for their own beneficial purposes provided that they do not impinge on the rights of previous users.

Beneficial use is commonly defined as agricultural, industrial or household use. Ecological purposes, such as maintaining a natural body of water and the wildlife that depends on it, were not initially deemed as beneficial uses in some Western states but have been accepted in some jurisdictions. The extent to which private parties may own such rights varies among the states.[4]


gst, I read your post about water rights.  This is nothing new to me, but still good information. 

The Wikapedia link also has this;

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

gst if you are looking for more information this is a better reference than your link;
The History of Water Law in Nevada and Western States  http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Publications/Bkground/BP03-02.pdf

However gst, water rights aside, this does not answer my previous quesiton.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

It seems not every one is ready to cave to the Federal take over as ron wish us to believe.

I can't find that anywhere Hardwaterman said anything like that.  Would you quote  and highlight it for me?  Thanks

Just as soon as you answer the question below in red Bruce.

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

I watched that Jimmy Sengen or whatever clip.  The lady that was on was from a ranching background so she isn't any more of a answer to end all questions than you or gst. Bruce can you prove what she says wrong????

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Rowdie Said:

Yup, the USA doesn't exist.  Give him his grazing welfare.  He's a patriot.  He supports the constitution.  He supports the law (as long as they follow his directive).   He doesn't understand who owns the land he grazes.  He thinks he is in the sovereign nation of Nevada.
This guy is the poster boy for all who oppose us.  Throw yourself behind him and you endanger many things including grazing rights of other ranchers.  Nothing could be a much worse public relation disaster for ranchers.  If you want to make ranchers look unreasonable and dishonest just keep holding old Bundy up for the public to observe. 

Bruce can you prove what she says wrong???? 
 

I'm not going to waste my time trying to find the legal terms to prove what the average doorknob already understands. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

pber Said:
Wayne Hage seems to think Mr. Bundy has the water rights.  I can't tell from the court proceedings if this was even addressed.  It looks like the issue addressed was whether the federal government owned the land as opposed to the state, and this is what Bundy seems to be basing his standing on.  I do think if Bundy would have agreed to signing the contract in 1993, he would have long been out of business as Mr. Hage stated in the interview. 

I could not see in the court document ron provides a link ot thru his link to the Blaze report where anything more than the ownership of the lands was ruled on either.

And as has been pointed out the ownership of the land and the right to graze lands reliant on proven water rights are two different thing.

It seems people like ron and others seem to want to avoid understanding water rights law in Nevada is different than water rights law in other states.

It is why EARLY on it this discussion I asked the question whether the people claiming Bundy was wrong knew much about western states water rights.

Like Fritz has shown, the ownership of the "naked" land is one thing, the ownership of the right to graze these lands is another.

Now certainly I have not attended as many years of law school as ron so I may be wrong, but it certainly appears that the court ruled only on the ownership of the "naked" land and the fact Bundy did not pay his fees to the Federal govt resulting in what the court deemed trespass.

So ron, please show court documents where the court has considered regarding the Bundy claim what was considered in the Hage case to prove Mr. Bundy was in the wrong as you claim.

.
 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Rowdie Said:

GST

Answer one Question YES or NO only.   Any other reply = IDK

DOES the US states EXIST?

Rowdie, indeed the "US states" exist, we live in one called North Dakota. So my answer would be YES.

Now if you would, please provide the entire text of the statement the excerpt used by Jon Stewart was taken from.

Pages