Nevada BLM actions background

Pages

682 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ripnem's picture
Ripnem
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/17/06

 I'm surprised none of the 52 other ranching families haven't surfaced through this. I'd like to hear their take on what transpired through the 'rent' monies and why they closed up shop.

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

Ripnem Said:
 I'm surprised none of the 52 other ranching families haven't surfaced through this. I'd like to hear their take on what transpired through the 'rent' monies and why they closed up shop.

They have if you can find them on the internet. There were a couple in some interviews I watched.

I posted a letter from a rancher in Nevada supporting the Bundys a couple pages back that explained pretty well what transpired with the BLM change in allotments back in the 90's, but I can not say if that person was one of the 52 or not.

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

There were perhaps some people who supported the Unibomber too, but they were smart enough not to put it on the internet.   We will do a disservice to supporting the second amendment if were going to support nut jobs like those in Nevada.  Bundy and his ilk are not standing up for their rights, they are trying to get something for nothing which in my book looked like armed robbery.  They need to go to the prison mental ward. 

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

Plainsman Said:
There were perhaps some people who supported the Unibomber too, but they were smart enough not to put it on the internet.   We will do a disservice to supporting the second amendment if were going to support nut jobs like those in Nevada.  Bundy and his ilk are not standing up for their rights, they are trying to get something for nothing which in my book looked like armed robbery.  They need to go to the prison mental ward. 

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

gdtrfb Said:
 I may have missed it but can you link a source of the destroying of water lines/tanks?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/feds-accused-leaving-trail-wr...

From the article.

"On a Friday night conference call, BLM officials told reporters that "illegal structures" on Bundy's ranch -- water tanks, water lines and corrals -- had to be removed to "restore" the land to its natural state and prevent the rancher from restarting his illegal cattle operation. 

However, the court order used to justify the operation appears only to give the agency the authority to "seize and impound" Bundy's cattle. "

Okay, as I understand it the BLM allows the development of water sources on lands they control by the ranchers using them. So if the intent was to remove Bundy based on his actions of non compliance and replace him with another rancher and continue to allow grazing on these lands, Why would the BLM destroy these water systems?
 
The answer lies in their own words.

"restore" the land to its
natural state"

It certainly seems the intent here is to ""restore" the land to its natural state" so these lands can then meet the requirements of mitigation for the BLM lands sold to the Chinese. as was detailed in the documents removed from the BLM website. 


Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

I sure would like to see the document that says Bureau of Land Management was formed to help ranchers.

Here you go plainsman. Please note the emboldened and enlarged poritons from the BLM's own site on the history section that answers your question.

My apologies for the length, but if anyone has any interest, take the time to read this.

Interesting read that can open your eyes if you wish to open them as to what has changed over time with the BLM and how these lands are managed.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

A Brief History of Public Lands Grazing

During the era of homesteading, Western public rangelands were often overgrazed because of policies designed to promote the settlement of the West and a lack of understanding of these arid ecosystems. In response to requests from Western ranchers, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (named after Rep. Edward Taylor of Colorado), which led to the creation of grazing districts in which grazing use was apportioned and regulated. Under the Taylor Grazing Act, the first grazing district to be established was Wyoming Grazing District Number 1 on March 23, 1935. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes created a Division of Grazing within the Department to administer the grazing districts; this division later became the U.S. Grazing Service and was headquartered in Salt Lake City. In 1946, as a result of a government reorganization by the Truman Administration, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office to become the Bureau of Land Management. 

Sheep grazing near Worland, Wyoming, in 1940.

The unregulated grazing that took place before enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act caused unintended damage to soil, plants, streams, and springs. As a result, grazing management was initially designed to increase productivity and reduce soil erosion by controlling grazing through both fencing and water projects and by conducting forage surveys to balance forage demands with the land’s productivity (“carrying capacity”).

These initial improvements in livestock management, which arrested the degradation of public rangelands while improving watersheds, were appropriate for the times. But by the 1960s and 1970s, public appreciation for public lands and expectations for their management rose to a new level, as made clear by congressional passage of such laws as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Consequently, the BLM moved from managing grazing in general to better management or protection of specific rangeland resources, such as riparian areas, threatened and endangered species, sensitive plant species, and cultural or historical objects. Consistent with this enhanced role, the Bureau developed or modified the terms and conditions of grazing permits and leases and implemented new range improvement projects to address these specific resource issues, promoting continued improvement of public rangeland conditions.


It certainly seems the BLM was originally created in response to a request by the ranchers them selves to help better manage these lands for grazing and increase productivity.

After the development of enviromental groups (and certainly a balance is needed on these lands) and the passage of the two Acts listed a change was enacted in the focus in management of these lands.

At this point, in the 1970's the Bundys had been on these lands for 90 years grazing cattle paying fees for 30 years since the inception of the BLM back in 1946. Even as changes were made on grazing allotments to focus more on enviromental concerns, this family continued to pay their fees to the BLM for the next 25 - 30 years.

It was only after the changes that the BLM made once again in the 90's that the Bundys stopped paying their fees (93). 

At this point the allotments were cut drastically from what had been previously allowed for multiple generations to a popint where the ranch could not longer remain viable as a result of the new management that was being supported by the very fees that these ranchers were paying. (Some allotments reduced by 90%)

Current Management of Public Lands Grazing 

 

The BLM monitors grazing areas using standards and guidelines for rangeland health.

Today the BLM manages livestock grazing in a manner aimed at achieving and maintaining public land health. To achieve desired conditions, the agency uses rangeland health standards and guidelines, which the BLM developed in the 1990s with input from citizen-based Resource Advisory Councils across the West. Standards describe specific conditions needed for public land health, such as the presence of streambank vegetation and adequate canopy and ground cover. Guidelines are the management techniques designed to achieve or maintain healthy public lands, as defined by the standards. These techniques include such methods as seed dissemination and periodic rest or deferment from grazing in specific allotments during critical growth periods.

Most any rancher you will speak with in these western lands will tell you that this was the point where enviromental groups such as the "Center for Biological Diversity" and many others began using the courts to force these Federal agencies to bend to their agendas.

That combined with the appointments of activist agenda driven heads to these Federal agencies and hiring of activist employees and there was a clear move to push cattle off these lands. This can be documented in many cases over the last 20 years. (In other threads I have previously provided links to the "Equal Justice Act" and how it is being abused by these radical enviromental groups to use tax payer dollars to sue the govt to engage their agendas and how the Endangered Species Act is also being manipulated and abused to accomplish these agendas of ending the multiple use contracts these lands have been and are still currently under)

So I will ask once again remembering ladds reference to the multiple use laws these lands were originally engaged under, what would be someone else response to a Federal agency that forces you to pay a fee to be in business and then uses those very fees to force you out of business? All in direct conflict with the multiple use agreements that had been in place protecting your right to stay in business for generations.

Now if the BLM had a stance of only using these lands for protection of the desert tortoise and other species, based on unbiased science that proves grazing cattle is detrimental,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that's one thing. But surely the development of golf courses and urban sprawl and industrial developments such as solar  "farms" and other things have to impact these tortoises as much as grazing a few cattle on these BLM lands. (perhaps the tortoises did in fact move on their own to the new boundrys Reids  BLM changed out for them to make room for his  campaign contributors development projects)

So why the focus on reducing cattle to the point the rancher can not longer stay in business using the excuse of the desert tortoise, while selling and allowing billions of dollars of development on thousands of the acres that has to impact these tortoises as well?

I think anyone that is willing to stop and come up with a common sense answer will know.

The answer starts with a D and ends with up in Reid's and his family members pockets.

This stubborn old rancher who was standing against a govt regulation (note it is NOT a law) that he believed was unjust in using his own monies to force him out of business is being used as an excuse to remove cattle from these lands to appease the demands of the radical enviromentalists to avoid a lawsuit tehy would file to provide mitigating acres to offset those sold by Reids's son as the head of the Clark County Commissioners at a value FAR below appraised value to a Chinese firm for development.

Or you can choose to believe this is about grazing fees and tortoises.

 

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

plainsman, as I can no longer post on Nodak, and there are people making claims and accusations towards the comments being made on here, would you please copy and paste this last post of mine to your thread on Nodak?

Perhaps you can set Dick straight and include the post I made showing snoopes "fact checking" came up a little short as well.

Thanks

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

The site the Chinese wanted was over 200 miles south of Bundy's ranch.

It certainly seems the BLM was originally created in response to a request by the ranchers them selves to help better manage these lands for grazing and increase productivity.

Sort of like hunters asking for game wardens to control the slobs the ranchers who knew what was happening had to ask for some control of their slob ranchers.  Most should have seen the blowing soil and known the damage they were causing.  I have personally seen a lot of overgrazing on public lands.  For two years I walked eight to ten miles every summer looking at public land from Denver to the Canadian border.  I think many of he cuts are just bringing grazing back to reasonable levels. 

NDSU has a lot of grazing exclosures in the Badlands to monitor grazed vs ungrazed habitat.

We have talked grazing in PM's in the past and you know I support grazing as a management tool.  My professional  experience has shown me that many species respond positively and negatively to different grazing intensities.  The tortoise is beyond my expertise, but I don't think the BLM was concerned about cows stepping on them as related in one of the posts.  Rather I would expect it was grazing intensity that was affecting one of the vegetative species the tortoise was dependent upon. 

With all that said there is no excuse for not making payments, and Bundy should face criminal charges.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02
This stubborn old rancher who was standing against a govt regulation (note it is NOT a law) that he believed was unjust in using his own monies to force him out of business is being used as an excuse to remove cattle from these lands to appease the demands of the radical enviromentalists to avoid a lawsuit tehy would file to provide mitigating acres to offset those sold by Reids's son as the head of the Clark County Commissioners at a value FAR below appraised value to a Chinese firm for development.

YOU continue to put into print lies gst and the one I pasted above is the biggest whopper yet! The dispute with Bundy started in 93 well before Reid was in a position to influence the appointment to the BLM as well as the China deal taking place way later.

I will continue to call you a liar when you make the insinuation that this is a result of Reid.

The timeline regarding Bundy is easy to follow including his first and repeated losses in court over his claims and those predate the issues surrounding Reid!!  Your attempt at cheap theatrics is appalling because it is a blatant attempt to misinform!!!

The rancher in 93 screwed himself and made a choice that left him with no legal standing unlike Hage Family.

The BLM went over the top in executing the court win!

Reid and the China deal is not related to the start of this!

Those are the cold hard facts surrounding this not the bull shit you posted implying this whole deal is tied to Reid!!!!!

So try and dissect your posting and claim other things but you flat out lied in your claims!! But Bundy lost his first time well before anyone connected to Reid where appointed to the BLM or the Chinese attempting to build a wind farm!!

Your post claims otherwise and that is a bold faced lie!!!!!!

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!

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

Plainsman Said:
The site the Chinese wanted was over 200 miles south of Bundy's ranch.

Are you sure Bruce? According to btr's snoopes you are off about 180 miles.

But Bruce, distance is not a factor in mitigation, habitat types are more of a priority.

Remember these lands were for mitigation to appease those enviromental groups and prevent a law suit not for actual purchase.

While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy's relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#lPiyPQkjPGlldXVY.99
Despite the obvious partisan gain to be had if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory (a failed 2010 Nevada gubernatorial candidate) had somehow been involved in a "land grab" affecting the Bundy family ranch operation — the facts just do not pan out as such. Indeed, Rory Reid did in fact have a hand in plans to reclassify federal lands for renewable energy developments. Just northeast of Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base, plans were drawn by Reid allies to potentially develop 5,717 acres of land for such use. While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy's relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#lPiyPQkjPGlldXVY.99
It certainly seems the BLM was originally created in response to a request by the ranchers them selves to help better manage these lands for grazing and increase productivity.

Sort of like hunters asking for game wardens to control the slobs the ranchers who knew what was happening had to ask for some control of their slob ranchers.  Most should have seen the blowing soil and known the damage they were causing.  I have personally seen a lot of overgrazing on public lands.  For two years I walked eight to ten miles every summer looking at public land from Denver to the Canadian border.  I think many of he cuts are just bringing grazing back to reasonable levels. 

NDSU has a lot of grazing exclosures in the Badlands to monitor grazed vs ungrazed habitat.

We have talked grazing in PM's in the past and you know I support grazing as a management tool.  My professional  experience has shown me that many species respond positively and negatively to different grazing intensities.  The tortoise is beyond my expertise, but I don't think the BLM was concerned about cows stepping on them as related in one of the posts.  Rather I would expect it was grazing intensity that was affecting one of the vegetative species the tortoise was dependent upon.

Bruce there is a video of a person that was involved with the desert tortoise program back a few years floating around. He has a different story about what your trained biologists were claiming regading cattle stepping on tortoises. He claimed these biologists claimed it WAS cattle that had crushed the shells of a number of small tortoises but they actually found out it was birds breaking thru the shell and consuming the innerds.
I would guess you could find it if you wanted. He is being interveiwed by an info wars reporter and kind of looks like a "save the turtles" kind of guy.

With all that said there is no excuse for not making payments, and Bundy should face criminal charges.

Bruce you asked to show you documentation showing the BLM was started to benefit ranchers and it was provided.

Perhaps you would share this factual information over on Nodak for me in the thread you started.

Bruce, here is a question, was it a law Mr. Bundy violated to face "criminal charges" or a regulation which requires restitution?

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

Hardwaterman Said:

This stubborn old rancher who was standing against a govt regulation (note it is NOT a law) that he believed was unjust in using his own monies to force him out of business is being used as an excuse to remove cattle from these lands to appease the demands of the radical enviromentalists to avoid a lawsuit tehy would file to provide mitigating acres to offset those sold by Reids's son as the head of the Clark County Commissioners at a value FAR below appraised value to a Chinese firm for development.

YOU continue to put into print lies gst and the one I pasted above is the biggest whopper yet! The dispute with Bundy started in 93 well before Reid was in a position to influence the appointment to the BLM as well as the China deal taking place way later.

Were have I said it has not ron?

If you look prior in the very same post you took this quote from you will see I included a time line which states pretty factually when things occurred did I not?

One would think it a very poor attempt at "lying" when one provides the time line ones self.

That is if one is looking at it from an objective position.

I will continue to call you a liar when you make the insinuation that this is a result of Reid.

The timeline regarding Bundy is easy to follow including his first and repeated losses in court over his claims and those predate the issues surrounding Reid!!  Your attempt at cheap theatrics is appalling because it is a blatant attempt to misinform!!!

The rancher in 93 screwed himself and made a choice that left him with no legal standing unlike Hage Family.

The BLM went over the top in executing the court win!

Reid and the China deal is not related to the start of this!

Once again ron where have I EVER said it was the connection "at the start" of this back in 93??? Please answer this ron.

Those are the cold hard facts surrounding this not the bull shit you posted implying this whole deal is tied to Reid!!!!!

So try and dissect your posting and claim other things but you flat out lied in your claims!! But Bundy lost his first time well before anyone connected to Reid where appointed to the BLM or the Chinese attempting to build a wind farm!!

Your post claims otherwise and that is a bold faced lie!!!!!!

Ron, you may call me a "liar" "dumbass" what ever you wish, as I said I know better to try and change your mind. What has been provided are some facts that allow who ever would like to look at this with an open mind some information the main stream media is not reporting on.

People can make up their own minds what this is really about.

But please ron, do not breath too deep, the sand is hard to get out of your boogers.

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

Plainsman said,
There were perhaps some people who supported the Unibomber too, but they were smart enough not to put it on the internet.   We will do a disservice to supporting the second amendment if were going to support nut jobs like those in Nevada.  Bundy and his ilk are not standing up for their rights, they are trying to get something for nothing which in my book looked like armed robbery.  They need to go to the prison mental ward. 

Yes Bruce, Nevada has its problems and we are not without ours. We support the right of the people to petition. Constitutional Amendments Initiated Measures etc.

But just like the Second Amendment situation you mention above we have nut jobs who lately have made a mockery out of the system at our Secretary of States Office.
Signature Fraud, paid circulaters, accepting money from HSUS and the list goes on.

Maybe you don't perceive yourself to be as low as the unibomber, but you did sign the fair chase petition twice. Once for yourself and once for your wife. The two signatures are exactly the same. That is forgery and you know that is against the law.

Sure it is a small matter, but the fact is that you knowingly broke the law. Shame.

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

Nice spin attempt gst, your post that I highlighted is a factual lie because of what you imply!!!! NO getting out of it and anyone with a 3rd grade reading level can see it for themselves. GST you lied and it is in print own it or shut 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!

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

Hardwaterman Said:

This stubborn old rancher who was standing against a govt regulation (note it is NOT a law) that he believed was unjust in using his own monies to force him out of business is being used as an excuse to remove cattle from these lands to appease the demands of the radical enviromentalists to avoid a lawsuit tehy would file to provide mitigating acres to offset those sold by Reids's son as the head of the Clark County Commissioners at a value FAR below appraised value to a Chinese firm for development.

YOU continue to put into print lies gst and the one I pasted above is the biggest whopper yet! The dispute with Bundy started in 93 well before Reid was in a position to influence the appointment to the BLM as well as the China deal taking place way later.

I will continue to call you a liar when you make the insinuation that this is a result of Reid.

Your post claims otherwise and that is a bold faced lie!!!!!!

Ron, is the post I high lighted in red where you think I "imply" that there was some connection back in 93 between Reid and Bundys action as you claim makes me a "liar"?

It seems to be as you have quoted it and claim it is in your following post. (note the emboldened statement you make below)

 

Hardwaterman Said:
Nice spin attempt gst, your post that I highlighted is a factual lie because of what you imply!!!! NO getting out of it and anyone with a 3rd grade reading level can see it for themselves. GST you lied and it is in print own it or shut up!!!

Since it surely seems to be, perhaps can I suggest you need to revisit your "3rd grade" English lessons.

Note the emboldened use of the word "is" that I have taken the liberty of enlarging for you as well in the statement that you claim is a lie. 

Note how that words usage would "imply" current time frames, the present, right now, as we speak kind of time frames. .

Jimmy IS jumping the gate.

When it is stated that Jimmy IS jumping the gate, it is being used to "imply" that it is happening as the person speaks, in the present tense.

Jimmy WAS jumping the gate.

When it is stated that Jimmy WAS jumping the gate, it is being used to "imply" that it happened at some earlier time frame, an hour ago, yesterday, past tense. 

Now had the word "was" been used instead of "is", one could claim that it was being used to "imply"  a reference back to an earlier time frame, before the comment, perhaps yesterday, or even 20 years ago. ............

But it wasn't now was it ron.

So ron, note the usage of the word "is" instead of the word "was" if you please would.

In this statement the word "IS""Implies" present tense.

I remember it took me a bit to get all this back in grade school as well hardwaterman.

If you are still confused ron, I am sure any 3rd grade English teacher can help you out.

Perhaps a "time out" is in order ron.

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

You lied, the mitigation came way after the fact. You run it all together to make the implication. YOU LIED!!!!!!!!!!

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!

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

One more tidbit that puts all your blowhard bull shit in one place the trash!!!

Pretty well done piece on Bundy and why he is nothing short of a rancher that bet wrong and lost!!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/is-harry-reid-involved-seven-answers-to-seven-questions-youre-probably-asking-right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/#

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!

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 Some in the wing nut media seem disappointed this didn't end in a gun battle, and the BLM's decision to defuse the standoff was a "surrender", or some sort of admission that the Bundy's have been right all along........Now that the fringe  echo chamber has their hooks into this there really isn't any point in following the story anymore...

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 Hardwaterman:  Why when I post a link to something my link doesn't work on here?   I see a of people have that problem on FBO......Thanks 

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

I have to use Firefox as a browser to post links, on FBO why I do not know

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!

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

Hardwaterman Said:
You lied, the mitigation came way after the fact. You run it all together to make the implication. YOU LIED!!!!!!!!!!

hwm, you're going to have to stay in at recess with your head down pretty soon.

I laid out a pretty accurate time line in the post you apparently had trouble reading at a 3rd grade level ron.

From the post you took that quote from ron:

gst Said:

At this point, in the 1970's the Bundys had been on these lands for 90 years grazing cattle paying fees for 30 years since the inception of the BLM back in 1946. Even as changes were made on grazing allotments to focus more on enviromental concerns, this family continued to pay their fees to the BLM for the next 25 - 30 years.

It was only after the changes that the BLM made once again in the 90's that the Bundys stopped paying their fees (93). 

This stubborn old rancher who was standing against a govt regulation (note it is NOT a law) that he believed was unjust in using his own monies to force him out of business is being used as an excuse to remove cattle from these lands to appease the demands of the radical enviromentalists to avoid a lawsuit tehy would file to provide mitigating acres to offset those sold by Reids's son as the head of the Clark County Commissioners at a value FAR below appraised value to a Chinese firm for development.

Or you can choose to believe this is about grazing fees and tortoises.


So now ron, please show where I have "run" the" mitigation" "all together" back to 93?

Can you do that ron?

Hardwaterman Said:
Nice spin attempt gst, your post that I highlighted is a factual lie because of what you imply!!!! NO getting out of it and anyone with a 3rd grade reading level can see it for themselves. GST you lied and it is in print own it or shut up!!!

3rd grade must have been hard eh hardwaterman?

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

Ladd Said:
 Some in the wing nut media seem disappointed this didn't end in a gun battle, and the BLM's decision to defuse the standoff was a "surrender", or some sort of admission that the Bundy's have been right all along........Now that the fringe  echo chamber has their hooks into this there really isn't any point in following the story anymore...


 
But I guess since this has evolved to what it seems to always do with the personal stuff, perhaps you are right.

I am sure we will likely hear more about this as Sen. Reid likely is not going to like being thwarted  and lawyers descend on the bundys like a flock of vultures.


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

marksman Said:
 I will wait for the huggers AKA plainsman and hard waterman to try to bs other people on here

marksman, when should I sell my wheat this year, you seem to have a pretty clear crystal ball.

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

gst Said:

Hardwaterman Said:
You lied, the mitigation came way after the fact. You run it all together to make the implication. YOU LIED!!!!!!!!!!

gst Said:

At this point, in the 1970's the Bundys had been on these lands for 90 years grazing cattle paying fees for 30 years since the inception of the BLM back in 1946. Even as changes were made on grazing allotments to focus more on enviromental concerns, this family continued to pay their fees to the BLM for the next 25 - 30 years.

It was only after the changes that the BLM made once again in the 90's that the Bundys stopped paying their fees (93). 

hwm before you continue making your self look foolish, read the enlarged emboldened statement from the same post you pulled that other quote you falsely claim was a lie from.

Now explain how the explanation provided of why bundy stopped paying his fees in 93 from that post is being "run together"  with what is happening now ?

Considering the BLM's own documents (those ones apparently Mr, Beck has not seen) suggesting those lands could be used for mitigation if the cattle were removed (it doesn;t matter if they are 17 or 177 miles away for mitigating purposes) , it seems pretty straight forward that this situation that WAS going on for 20 years IS being used as an excuse.

Check out a couple See Dick Run books from the local grade school ron.

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

One question that you nor plainsman have asked ron even though you repeatedly point out 20 years of nonpayment, since Mr. Bundy has not paid fees to the BLM for 20 years (no one is denying that right) why NOW go after him in the manner they did?

The snipers and military hardware were there long before any militia or large numbers of supporters.

So why now in the manner they did?

Why were cell towers shut down?

Why was a no fly zone imposed?

Why were reporters and protesters confined to a small roped off area?

Perhaps there was a little hope of a Gordon Kahl type episode. (It certainly seemed the BLM was ready this time)

Naw, had to about a tortoise and everything else is nothing more than coincidence.

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

noun, plural patsies. Slang. 1. a person who is easily swindled, deceived, coerced, persuaded, etc.; sucker. 2. a person upon whom the blame for something falls .

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

It was interesting for a few pages. Will have to await the next chapter.

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

Didn;t take long.

Interesting.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescri...

BLM: We are Worried Cliven Bundy Might Have Prescriptive Rights & He Might Use that Defense in Court

 

In this ongoing story surrounding cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, there are a series of questions media has ignored. For instance, in the 20 years Bundy hasn't been paying his fees, why hasn't he been taken to court? Why this year, spend nearly $1,000,000 of taxpayer money to round up 400 cattle that ultimately have to be returned? Why didn't the BLM just place a lien on the cattle rather than attempting to take them by force and then auction them off? The Bureau of Land Management has suffered a huge black eye this week because of their response to the Bundy situation. Perhaps though, there is a reason the BLM chose force over the courts.

In an exclusive interview with Benswann.com, Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin says the BLM is now considering new ways of dealing with the Cliven Bundy situation. Devlin is not just a Montana cattle rancher, but is also a County Commissioner in Prairie County Montana. He has also worked with the Department of Interior, having taught workshops for the agency in the past. Monday, Devlin reached out to his contacts in the Department of the Interior to find out why the Bureau of Land Management has refused to work with Bundy rather than simply attempting to run over him.

 

Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM, "Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?" The response from top officials at the BLM, "We are worried that he might, and he might use that defense."

So what exactly are prescriptive rights? Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives some one the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A's land to get to your land; a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A's property.

In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the "owner" of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993, but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.

Granted, there have been court actions over the years. In 1998, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, the "trespass cattle" remained on the BLM land. In fact, it took until August of 2013 for a court order to be issued saying Bundy had 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land. 15 years went by from the time of the last court case over the cattle until the BLM attempted to remove the livestock.

Of course, Bundy has not made the claim that he will not pay the fees, he simply says he will not pay those fees to the BLM because he doesn't recognize federal authority over the land. Bundy has said that in the past that he would pay fees to Clarke County, Nevada, though Clarke County has refused to accept them. The BLM has insisted that Bundy owes $1.1 million dollars in grazing fees for his trespass cattle.

"The actual number is probably around $200,000. The $1.1 million claimed by the BLM is probably mostly interest and penalties for trespass cattle." says Devlin, who goes on to say that it is unlikely that Clarke County would be able to collect those penalties.

 

When Devlin reached out to the BLM, he suggested that the federal agency just allow Bundy to pay the fees to the county rather than continuing with these aggressive tactics to confiscate his cattle.

"Why don't you just let him pay them there (Clarke County)? I got a call back from the liaison saying 'Yes, pursue it.'" Devlin reached out to contacts in Nevada to get that process moving forward. If that were to happen, Clarke County could collect the grazing fees and if it desired to do so could hand those fees over to the BLM.

Finally, Devlin says instead of allowing the situation with Bundy's cattle to grow completely out of control, the BLM could have simply placed a lien on the cattle in the first place. Of course, that lien might have been rejected in court if Bundy were able to demonstrate those prescriptive rights. Then again, the courts so far have sided with the government; therefore, it is even more baffling why the lien wasn't placed on the livestock.

Days after the BLM has claimed they will stand down, they are now reportedly considering a lien on the cattle,

"I asked why you didn't put a lien against the cattle?" Devlin asked the BLM. "They hadn't thought about that, but they are considering it now."

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescriptive-rights-might-use-defense-court/#bKJjpUDTKA0SMZfU.99

BLM: We are Worried Cliven Bundy Might Have Prescriptive Rights & He Might Use that Defense in Court

 

In this ongoing story surrounding cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, there are a series of questions media has ignored. For instance, in the 20 years Bundy hasn't been paying his fees, why hasn't he been taken to court? Why this year, spend nearly $1,000,000 of taxpayer money to round up 400 cattle that ultimately have to be returned? Why didn't the BLM just place a lien on the cattle rather than attempting to take them by force and then auction them off? The Bureau of Land Management has suffered a huge black eye this week because of their response to the Bundy situation. Perhaps though, there is a reason the BLM chose force over the courts.

In an exclusive interview with Benswann.com, Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin says the BLM is now considering new ways of dealing with the Cliven Bundy situation. Devlin is not just a Montana cattle rancher, but is also a County Commissioner in Prairie County Montana. He has also worked with the Department of Interior, having taught workshops for the agency in the past. Monday, Devlin reached out to his contacts in the Department of the Interior to find out why the Bureau of Land Management has refused to work with Bundy rather than simply attempting to run over him.

 

Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM, "Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?" The response from top officials at the BLM, "We are worried that he might, and he might use that defense."

So what exactly are prescriptive rights? Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives some one the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A's land to get to your land; a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A's property.

In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the "owner" of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993, but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.

Granted, there have been court actions over the years. In 1998, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, the "trespass cattle" remained on the BLM land. In fact, it took until August of 2013 for a court order to be issued saying Bundy had 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land. 15 years went by from the time of the last court case over the cattle until the BLM attempted to remove the livestock.

Of course, Bundy has not made the claim that he will not pay the fees, he simply says he will not pay those fees to the BLM because he doesn't recognize federal authority over the land. Bundy has said that in the past that he would pay fees to Clarke County, Nevada, though Clarke County has refused to accept them. The BLM has insisted that Bundy owes $1.1 million dollars in grazing fees for his trespass cattle.

"The actual number is probably around $200,000. The $1.1 million claimed by the BLM is probably mostly interest and penalties for trespass cattle." says Devlin, who goes on to say that it is unlikely that Clarke County would be able to collect those penalties.

 

When Devlin reached out to the BLM, he suggested that the federal agency just allow Bundy to pay the fees to the county rather than continuing with these aggressive tactics to confiscate his cattle.

"Why don't you just let him pay them there (Clarke County)? I got a call back from the liaison saying 'Yes, pursue it.'" Devlin reached out to contacts in Nevada to get that process moving forward. If that were to happen, Clarke County could collect the grazing fees and if it desired to do so could hand those fees over to the BLM.

Finally, Devlin says instead of allowing the situation with Bundy's cattle to grow completely out of control, the BLM could have simply placed a lien on the cattle in the first place. Of course, that lien might have been rejected in court if Bundy were able to demonstrate those prescriptive rights. Then again, the courts so far have sided with the government; therefore, it is even more baffling why the lien wasn't placed on the livestock.

Days after the BLM has claimed they will stand down, they are now reportedly considering a lien on the cattle,

"I asked why you didn't put a lien against the cattle?" Devlin asked the BLM. "They hadn't thought about that, but they are considering it now."

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescriptive-rights-might-use-defense-court/#bKJjpUDTKA0SMZfU.99

BLM: We are Worried Cliven Bundy Might Have Prescriptive Rights & He Might Use that Defense in Court

 

In this ongoing story surrounding cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, there are a series of questions media has ignored. For instance, in the 20 years Bundy hasn't been paying his fees, why hasn't he been taken to court? Why this year, spend nearly $1,000,000 of taxpayer money to round up 400 cattle that ultimately have to be returned? Why didn't the BLM just place a lien on the cattle rather than attempting to take them by force and then auction them off? The Bureau of Land Management has suffered a huge black eye this week because of their response to the Bundy situation. Perhaps though, there is a reason the BLM chose force over the courts.

In an exclusive interview with Benswann.com, Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin says the BLM is now considering new ways of dealing with the Cliven Bundy situation. Devlin is not just a Montana cattle rancher, but is also a County Commissioner in Prairie County Montana. He has also worked with the Department of Interior, having taught workshops for the agency in the past. Monday, Devlin reached out to his contacts in the Department of the Interior to find out why the Bureau of Land Management has refused to work with Bundy rather than simply attempting to run over him.

 

Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM, "Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?" The response from top officials at the BLM, "We are worried that he might, and he might use that defense."

So what exactly are prescriptive rights? Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives some one the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A's land to get to your land; a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A's property.

In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the "owner" of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993, but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.

Granted, there have been court actions over the years. In 1998, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, the "trespass cattle" remained on the BLM land. In fact, it took until August of 2013 for a court order to be issued saying Bundy had 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land. 15 years went by from the time of the last court case over the cattle until the BLM attempted to remove the livestock.

Of course, Bundy has not made the claim that he will not pay the fees, he simply says he will not pay those fees to the BLM because he doesn't recognize federal authority over the land. Bundy has said that in the past that he would pay fees to Clarke County, Nevada, though Clarke County has refused to accept them. The BLM has insisted that Bundy owes $1.1 million dollars in grazing fees for his trespass cattle.

"The actual number is probably around $200,000. The $1.1 million claimed by the BLM is probably mostly interest and penalties for trespass cattle." says Devlin, who goes on to say that it is unlikely that Clarke County would be able to collect those penalties.

 

When Devlin reached out to the BLM, he suggested that the federal agency just allow Bundy to pay the fees to the county rather than continuing with these aggressive tactics to confiscate his cattle.

"Why don't you just let him pay them there (Clarke County)? I got a call back from the liaison saying 'Yes, pursue it.'" Devlin reached out to contacts in Nevada to get that process moving forward. If that were to happen, Clarke County could collect the grazing fees and if it desired to do so could hand those fees over to the BLM.

Finally, Devlin says instead of allowing the situation with Bundy's cattle to grow completely out of control, the BLM could have simply placed a lien on the cattle in the first place. Of course, that lien might have been rejected in court if Bundy were able to demonstrate those prescriptive rights. Then again, the courts so far have sided with the government; therefore, it is even more baffling why the lien wasn't placed on the livestock.

Days after the BLM has claimed they will stand down, they are now reportedly considering a lien on the cattle,

"I asked why you didn't put a lien against the cattle?" Devlin asked the BLM. "They hadn't thought about that, but they are considering it now."

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescriptive-rights-might-use-defense-court/#bKJjpUDTKA0SMZfU.99

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 gst - that article is made up.....You can't get prescriptive easements or rights against the federal government.......Sorry..... 

RSL's picture
RSL
Offline
Joined: 9/25/09

Hear me out.  I’m not a lawyer.

I believe that Cliven Bundy’s grandfather was granted the water rights and the grazing rights back in the 1870’s to (most) of the property in question in this dispute.  These rights were granted just like LA, Las Vegas, Phoenix and any of a number of government entities were granted water rights way back when.  None of these governments pay anyone for the water that they claim from these “rights.”

Cliven Bundy’s grandfather wasn’t paying any agency for his “granted” water and land use rights.  It wasn’t until the BLM was created that Cliven Bundy’s father was asked to voluntary pay “grazing fees.”  The fee was to be paid for an agreement that he would enter into with the BLM to help pay for the BLM to hire scientists/specialists to HELP the ranchers to increase their production on the land.  By 1993 Cliven Bundy had determined that the BLM was not helping him any more and he “fired” them and quit paying them grazing fees that the BLM were supposed use to help him.  They were not helping him any more and he was justified in firing them.

This is my take on the situation.  I’m not sure that he can get a fair day in court without a powerful lawyer.

 

Steve.

RSL's picture
RSL
Offline
Joined: 9/25/09

ps:  One other thing that hasn't been discussed much is water rights.  Cliven Bundy has water rights for his ranch operations.  If his ranch operations can be shut down he will lose his water rights and they will be sold.  The seller be it the BLM or Clark County will not make money but you can be sure that the people that make the sale possible will profit.

Steve.

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

Bundy on television says it takes 320 acres to support a cow.  If land is that poor I don't think it should be grazed at all.  Remember gst's post about the BLM was supposed to help ranchers, and the article showed sheep in Wyoming.  The land had been grazed far beyond capacity.  When I visited the Great Bend area of Texas this winter and read the history of grazing there it was an eye opener.  It's been 100+ years and the land has not recovered. 
I think the BLM was started to manage federal lands not help ranchers, although they did.  I think their main purpose was to keep ranchers from destroying the land like they did in Great Bend Texas.
I don't understand how a cow can live on land that requires 320 acres to feed her.  Do they sprint from grass spear to grass spear?  Energetics should come into play here and I don't see where the intake would meet the output if grass clumps are so far apart that a cow burns more energy getting to the next clump of grass than she gets out of it.  I would say it's time to shut down the grazing on that allotment tortoise or no tortoise. 

By 1993 Cliven Bundy had determined that the BLM was not helping him any more and he “fired” them

 Ooooooh my ----------------

The IRS isn't helping me.   I think I'm going to fire them.   
eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

Plainsman Said:
Bundy on television says it takes 320 acres to support a cow.  If land is that poor I don't think it should be grazed at all.  Remember gst's post about the BLM was supposed to help ranchers, and the article showed sheep in Wyoming.  The land had been grazed far beyond capacity.  When I visited the Great Bend area of Texas this winter and read the history of grazing there it was an eye opener.  It's been 100+ years and the land has not recovered. 
I think the BLM was started to manage federal lands not help ranchers, although they did.  I think their main purpose was to keep ranchers from destroying the land like they did in Great Bend Texas.
I don't understand how a cow can live on land that requires 320 acres to feed her.  Do they sprint from grass spear to grass spear?  Energetics should come into play here and I don't see where the intake would meet the output if grass clumps are so far apart that a cow burns more energy getting to the next clump of grass than she gets out of it.  I would say it's time to shut down the grazing on that allotment tortoise or no tortoise. 

By 1993 Cliven Bundy had determined that the BLM was not helping him any more and he “fired” them

 Ooooooh my ----------------

The IRS isn't helping me.   I think I'm going to fire them.   

I'm not sure who'd want to eat meat from cattle that was raised on that type of situation. 

 

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

RSL Said:
ps:  One other thing that hasn't been discussed much is water rights.

Most people do not understand western states water rights.

It was why I have asked a couple of the questions I did no one wanted to aswer.

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

Plainsman Said:
Bundy on television says it takes 320 acres to support a cow.  If land is that poor I don't think it should be grazed at all.  Remember gst's post about the BLM was supposed to help ranchers, and the article showed sheep in Wyoming.  It was language taken directly from the BLM website Bruce. The land had been grazed far beyond capacity. That is why the ranchers themselves asked for help. When I visited the Great Bend area of Texas this winter and read the history of grazing there it was an eye opener.  It's been 100+ years and the land has not recovered. Bruce you do know this area has been in nearly a decades long drought right???
I think the BLM was started to manage federal lands not help ranchers, although they did.  Bruce, you will ignore language taken directly from the BLM website????? you asked for proof to the statement it was formed to help ranchers. I provided it for you straight from the BLM website and included the link to it. And yet you continue to deny it. I think their main purpose was to keep ranchers from destroying the land like they did in Great Bend Texas. Remember bruce it was the ranchers themselves that sought the help to address over grazing.
I don't understand how a cow can live on land that requires 320 acres to feed her.  Do they sprint from grass spear to grass spear?  Energetics should come into play here and I don't see where the intake would meet the output if grass clumps are so far apart that a cow burns more energy getting to the next clump of grass than she gets out of it.  Perhaps you and ron can start a ranching class down there. I would say it's time to shut down the grazing on that allotment tortoise or no tortoise.  So the hundreds of thousands of cattle that have been produced on these lands over the 100 plus years they have been used in a multiple use agreement do not count? You seem to be willing to dismiss the multiple use agreement and laws that ladd mentioned because YOU think they should be? Seems like this is the very type govt person that is the heart of the problem here Bruce.

By 1993 Cliven Bundy had determined that the BLM was not helping him any more and he “fired” them

 Ooooooh my ----------------

The IRS isn't helping me.   I think I'm going to fire them.   

plainsman, you come on here claimng to be a "grazing advocate". And yet your true beliefs seem to have came to light here.

What do you know about Allen Savory and what he has done in desert enviroments regarding grazing?

Plainsman, if grazing is banned as you want it to be on these lands that have multiple use agreements what will be left?

Oh right development such as what Sen Reid is profiting from.

I'm sure he is glad of your support in helping him remove these cattle from lands they have been on since tis part of the country was settled.


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

eyexer Said:

I'm not sure who'd want to eat meat from cattle that was raised on that type of situation. 

ever eat at McDonalds or Burger King?

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
Remember bruce it was the ranchers themselves that sought the help to address over grazing.

So your saying it's sort of like a drunk that can't stop so he asks for help.  I don't know, my parents never had a problem with overgrazing.  Maybe they had more self control.  At least I know it didn't require a federal agency to help them. 

What do you know about Allen Savory

One of our biologists had professional contact with him about his holistic management.   I worked with that biologist for five years.  That's why I disagreed with you in one thread on nodakoutdoors when you tried to give credit for holistic management to some old rancher (named Ray I think) in Montana.  I am very familiar with Allen Savory. 

From that debate I said:

I hope others will forgive me, but I had a friendly question to ask and am not looking for debate on this. I would PM you , but those always go south also. You mentioned holistic grazing done by Ray. One of the biologists I worked with was working on grazing systems and looking at waterfowl nesting success in different systems. It went so well that NDSU duplicated the study at the Streeter experiment station to look at beef production. Anyway, I spent some time with the guy and had to read up on the holistic management system developed by Allan Savory. Is that the same system that Ray worked with? We often take credit for things here in America, but Allan is from Rhodesia. Well, it was called Rhodesia but I think that is gone now. A family friend was a missionary in Northern Rhodesia, but I think that is Zambia now. Anyway are we talking about the same grazing system. What did Ray do?

Sorry to take this off subject guys, I apologize. I'm just so darn curious about some of these things even though I am retired now. Thank you for your patients with me. :thumb:

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

gst you got caught in the lie and cannot man up and accept that you where caught.

The land came to be US Gov land in 1848 remained so, never was the state of NV land straight up and simple. The Bundy family entered into that area some 30 years later.

The time line just does not work for the claims he is making. Courts have already ruled that the ownership has not been broken.

No matter how bad you want Bundy to be right gst he is not and the timeline I posed along with the court decisions that where included really shows that you and your minions wanking away are either clueless or dumb or radicals or all of the above.

rsl The issue of water rights does play a role in this, I am not giving the BLM a pass nor do I think they are acting in a manner that is or has been proper for the ranchers. However the Hage Family has taken the proper course and won in court where based on the documentation should prevail in the higher courts.

Bundy forfeited his rights to pursure that same avenue with his actions. Again wrong on their part does not make give justification to  Bundy's wrong actions either. This is what gst and other supporters of Bundy have to grasp.

Like  I said a long time ago in this thread, one can get a very clear understanding of where Bundy went wrong by reading the court decisions as well as listening to his many statements he has made over the years.

The courts have stated he had not presented the documentation to support his claims.He has stated he does not have them as well. He recognized the BLM ownership of the land for years then when they in his opinion where not following the agreement refused to pay the fees but continued to use the land anyway. Any money or improvements made on his part after that point where not done under  binding agreement. Nor as the courts found constitute because they where illegal activity basis to retain any water rights tied to them.

It is pretty simple if anyone can take of the blinders or put aside the bias. I did not comment on this issue until I had done my reading on the court findings. Once I had, it was very clear where he screwed himself in all this!

So once again the time line is pretty clear, Bundy made a poor choice in 93 that cost him any standing for his current and even past claims.

The Feds where legally entitled to act as they did, but as I said before thought it was an over the top response not needed and I will not disagree designed to intimidate. It is that very reason why I opposed the actions they took.

Then there is the separate issue of what Dirty Harry tried to do or appears at least tried to do. Separate and having no relevant bearings on Bundy's standings.

The bloviating on this is pretty clear that rule of law does not matter to them. Instead they try and imply that Bundy is victim who had no part in what is happened to him. But reality is that he is a victim of his own poor choice and nothing more.

This understanding does not make one anti rancher, or even pro government it simply makes one informed of the events and why the outcome occurred.

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!

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

gst Said:

RSL Said:
ps:  One other thing that hasn't been discussed much is water rights.

Most people do not understand western states water rights.

It was why I have asked a couple of the questions I did no one wanted to aswer.

I would guess the courts know what they need to about water rights.  They ruled against him.  You have to be dense to not understand that.  Why hasn't he appealed?  My guess is that he knows he has no right to this property, but still wants the free grazing. 

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

North Dakota ranks number 15th in cattle numbers........1,770,000

Nevada comes in at number 37th in cattle numbers.......455,000

http://www.cattlerange.com/cattle-graphs/all-cattle-numbers.html

North Dakota square miles ..................................................70,704

Nevada.........square miles.....................................................110,567

We have almost 4 times as many cattle on almost half as much land. Nice. 

North Dakota has surpassed Hawaii as having the happiest people. Not counting Plainsman Ron, Dick Monson and a small handfull of doom and gloomers.

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

Of course we have twice as many cattle for the land we have.  You are familiar with grazing capacity are you not?  I can only give the data I learned at NDSU long long ago.  gst don't like old data, but here goes.  The Red River Valley grazing rate is 3 to 5 acres per AUM.  The Jamestown area is 5 to 9 acres per AUM.  The North Dakota Badlands is variable with 9 to 21 acres per AUM.  That changes a lot from pasture to pasture, but it's a general rate for each area as I remember from 1969. 

So Bundy says his area takes 320 acres per AUM.  I wonder if I could google Nevada grazing capacity and get any information?  I'll give it a shot when I finish my honey do list today. 
 

  North Dakota has surpassed Hawaii as having the happiest people. Not counting Plainsman Ron, Dick Monson and a small handfull of doom and gloomers.

I'm happy, but I watch the habitat destroyers and point them out.  I guess you guys will support a rancher even if he is criminal.  Nice.  Don't get me wrong it doesn't tick me off I'm thankful  for you guys to hold up and showcase the mentality that causes so many habitat/anti-conservation activities.  Thank you, thank you, thank you. 

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

Plainsman wrote,

I'm happy, but I watch the habitat destroyers and point them out.  I guess you guys will support a rancher even if he is criminal. 

Nope, but I have met Ramona Hage and Wayne Hage's second wife Helen Chenoweth. The very best people you could ever meet.

Don't get me wrong it doesn't tick me off I'm thankful  for you guys to hold up and showcase the mentality that causes so many habitat/anti-conservation activities. 

Nope, wrong again. Land is something where we the people control the means of production. Economic develpoment.

Mr. Bundy had trouble with the BLM because he claims they turned on ranchers. I can beleive that because when you think of USDA/APHIS you think of a agricultural friendly agency. But something is going wrong. Visited with Senator Hoeven about it and he said the trouble is the Obama administration is making appointments to positions within the department that are poison.

I don't know who is doing the vetting process at USDA/APHIS but I do know of one lady there who worked for the Humane Society of the United States and before that the US Fish and Wildilfe Service.

Government cannot create jobs as Obama asserts, but through too many regulations they can sure stifle one.

We in ND are forunate that we don't have a bunch of public land.

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

Fritz the Cat Said:
Plainsman wrote,

I'm happy, but I watch the habitat destroyers and point them out.  I guess you guys will support a rancher even if he is criminal. 

Nope, but I have met Ramona Hage and Wayne Hage's second wife Helen Chenoweth. The very best people you could ever meet.  Do you think deception is near the same thing as lying?  Hardwaterman has said he thinks the Hage's were right and the government wrong.  I have stated over and over I am talking about the Bundy's.  Yet when I ask will you support a rancher even if he is a criminal you start talking about the Hage's.  I hope people notice the deception Fritz.  You know as well as I it was not the Hage's I was referring to.  Maybe I should ask you if you support Bundy even though he is a freeloader trying to steel free grazing.  He lost in court and he is still grazing.  They need to freeze his bank assets.   

Don't get me wrong it doesn't tick me off I'm thankful  for you guys to hold up and showcase the mentality that causes so many habitat/anti-conservation activities. 

Nope, wrong again. Land is something where we the people control the means of production. Economic develpoment.  Is that misspelling of "development" a Froydian slip as in opponent?   As in one who resistes anti-conservation  efforts. 

Mr. Bundy had trouble with the BLM because he claims they turned on ranchers. I can beleive that because when you think of USDA/APHIS you think of a agricultural friendly agency. But something is going wrong. Visited with Senator Hoeven about it and he said the trouble is the Obama administration is making appointments to positions within the department that are poison.  I agree about the poor appointments made by Obama, but it ends there.  Bundy is in the wrong period.  There is no argument for him, and the courts agree. 

I don't know who is doing the vetting process at USDA/APHIS but I do know of one lady there who worked for the Humane Society of the United States and before that the US Fish and Wildilfe Service. I remember one working for the Fish and Widlife Service and thought it was an abomination. 

Government cannot create jobs as Obama asserts, but through too many regulations they can sure stifle one.

We in ND are forunate that we don't have a bunch of public land.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

However, the theory that Reid's putative involvement in the Bundy dispute was motivated by a desire to somehow profit from the building of a solar plant falls flat in the face of two basic facts: The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government, and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013:
A Chinese-backed company is pulling the plug on a multibillion-dollar solar project near Laughlin after it was unable to find customers for the power that would have been generated there, a Clark County spokesman said.

In a letter, an executive from ENN Mojave Energy LLC informed the county that the company was terminating its agreement to purchase 9,000 acres near Laughlin, stating that the "market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time."

The company, a

 

subsidiary of ENN Group, described as the largest energy company in China, said it was unable to sign the necessary power purchase agreements to sell the energy generated from the solar plant to utilities in Nevada or neighboring states.

The project was broken down into phases, but if fully completed, it was expected to generate enough energy to power 200,000 homes with a price tag of $1 billion to $6 billion.

The move was hailed as a much-needed boost for economic development in the southern part of the state and was projected to create up to 2,200 permanent jobs.

Commissioners agreed to sell the land at $4.5 million — about a sixth of its appraised value — in December 2011 to jump-start the development, but they put in place an aggressive timeline that required ENN to secure the complicated power purchase agreements.

With the solar project now just a mirage, commissioners will discuss what to do with the 9,000 acres of county-owned land at their July 2 meeting.

Even the conservative Breitbart site debunked this conspiracy claim, noting:
Despite the obvious partisan gain to be had if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory (a failed 2010 Nevada gubernatorial candidate) had somehow been involved in a "land grab" affecting the Bundy family ranch operation — the facts just do not pan out as such. Indeed, Rory Reid did in fact have a hand in plans to reclassify federal lands for renewable energy developments. Just northeast of Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base, plans were drawn by Reid allies to potentially develop 5,717 acres of land for such use. While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy's relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada.

Some versions of this conspiracy theory mistake the proposed ENN Mojave Energy site with that of the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar project, but the latter's 250MW solar power plant is already under construction (so there is no need to grab land for it), and, as noted in Wildlife News, the Moapa plant is being built near the Moapa Indian Reservation and not on public land disputed by Cliven Bundy:
A cursory search shows a sudden explosion of articles claiming Nevada's senior senator, Harry Reid, wants Bundy's land (all Bundy actually owns is a melon farm) to build a solar plant to enrich himself and his son.

Bundy has been trespassing over 750,000 acres of U.S. public land to the south of Mesquite and Bunkerville, Nevada. Bundy's actual private property is his melon farm at Bunkerville, which looks like maybe 100 acres on Google Earth. There is a solar farm. But it is not on the huge swath of land Bundy is trespassing on. The solar facility is actually under construction near the Moapa Indian Reservation about ten miles closer to Las Vegas.

Likewise, another area currently being studied by BLM for the possible development of solar plants, commonly known as the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, is sometimes mistakenly thrown into the conspiracy theory mix by persons who point to a BLM report listing "Cattle Trespass Impacts" and claim that it documents the BLM's intent to use the disputed land for solar development:
Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.

But as explained at the Wildlife News, that isn't what the quoted blurb means:
There is some feeble effort to try to mitigate the damage to wildlife [caused by solar development]. Some of it is near the sites of these solar mirrors. This is called "primary mitigation." Some is in a place distant to the solar power site. This is called "secondary mitigation." Wildlife mitigation is things like planting grass wildlife need or like, development of new water sources for wildlife to drink, and restoration of rangeland overgrazed by cattle.

All this bureaucratic language means is that private groups like the Western Watersheds Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte and Friends of Joshua Tree Forest don't think the damage from solar power plants located elsewhere can be mitigated at Gold Butte because the cattle will tromp all over it.


Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#Z4AUApk1674ITXQF.99
However, the theory that Reid's putative involvement in the Bundy dispute was motivated by a desire to somehow profit from the building of a solar plant falls flat in the face of two basic facts: The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government, and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013:
A Chinese-backed company is pulling the plug on a multibillion-dollar solar project near Laughlin after it was unable to find customers for the power that would have been generated there, a Clark County spokesman said.

In a letter, an executive from ENN Mojave Energy LLC informed the county that the company was terminating its agreement to purchase 9,000 acres near Laughlin, stating that the "market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time."

The company, a

 

subsidiary of ENN Group, described as the largest energy company in China, said it was unable to sign the necessary power purchase agreements to sell the energy generated from the solar plant to utilities in Nevada or neighboring states.

The project was broken down into phases, but if fully completed, it was expected to generate enough energy to power 200,000 homes with a price tag of $1 billion to $6 billion.

The move was hailed as a much-needed boost for economic development in the southern part of the state and was projected to create up to 2,200 permanent jobs.

Commissioners agreed to sell the land at $4.5 million — about a sixth of its appraised value — in December 2011 to jump-start the development, but they put in place an aggressive timeline that required ENN to secure the complicated power purchase agreements.

With the solar project now just a mirage, commissioners will discuss what to do with the 9,000 acres of county-owned land at their July 2 meeting.

Even the conservative Breitbart site debunked this conspiracy claim, noting:
Despite the obvious partisan gain to be had if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory (a failed 2010 Nevada gubernatorial candidate) had somehow been involved in a "land grab" affecting the Bundy family ranch operation — the facts just do not pan out as such. Indeed, Rory Reid did in fact have a hand in plans to reclassify federal lands for renewable energy developments. Just northeast of Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base, plans were drawn by Reid allies to potentially develop 5,717 acres of land for such use. While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy's relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada.

Some versions of this conspiracy theory mistake the proposed ENN Mojave Energy site with that of the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar project, but the latter's 250MW solar power plant is already under construction (so there is no need to grab land for it), and, as noted in Wildlife News, the Moapa plant is being built near the Moapa Indian Reservation and not on public land disputed by Cliven Bundy:
A cursory search shows a sudden explosion of articles claiming Nevada's senior senator, Harry Reid, wants Bundy's land (all Bundy actually owns is a melon farm) to build a solar plant to enrich himself and his son.

Bundy has been trespassing over 750,000 acres of U.S. public land to the south of Mesquite and Bunkerville, Nevada. Bundy's actual private property is his melon farm at Bunkerville, which looks like maybe 100 acres on Google Earth. There is a solar farm. But it is not on the huge swath of land Bundy is trespassing on. The solar facility is actually under construction near the Moapa Indian Reservation about ten miles closer to Las Vegas.

Likewise, another area currently being studied by BLM for the possible development of solar plants, commonly known as the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, is sometimes mistakenly thrown into the conspiracy theory mix by persons who point to a BLM report listing "Cattle Trespass Impacts" and claim that it documents the BLM's intent to use the disputed land for solar development:
Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.

But as explained at the Wildlife News, that isn't what the quoted blurb means:
There is some feeble effort to try to mitigate the damage to wildlife [caused by solar development]. Some of it is near the sites of these solar mirrors. This is called "primary mitigation." Some is in a place distant to the solar power site. This is called "secondary mitigation." Wildlife mitigation is things like planting grass wildlife need or like, development of new water sources for wildlife to drink, and restoration of rangeland overgrazed by cattle.

All this bureaucratic language means is that private groups like the Western Watersheds Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte and Friends of Joshua Tree Forest don't think the damage from solar power plants located elsewhere can be mitigated at Gold Butte because the cattle will tromp all over it.


Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#Z4AUApk1674ITXQF.99

btr, do YOU understand mitigation?

snoopes also seems to not understand mitigation. They also seem more than ready to dismiss the pretty straight forward language that was once on the BLM website that once this situation escalated and information begin getting out was removed, that provides a glimpse into the motive of removing the cattle from these lands so they DO qualify for mitigation. 

Big surprise that "Wild Life News" would have an "explaination.
And that groups like Western Watershed Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte, and Friends of Joshua Tree Forrest would dismiss these pretty connected facts.

All that is being said here is that with the cattle "tramping" all over Gold Butte, it would not qualify for "mitigation" of the Solar farm area. Most prosecutors would suggest that simply increases the motive for why these cattle were being removed.

Show were snoopes uncovered documents saying these lands would NOT be used for mitigation even if the cattle were removed and you might have something.

snoopes seems to have little understanding that even if Gold Butte is not "Bundys land" these ranches have relied on these Federal lands and the multiple use laws they were originally created with for generations to make their living. Somehow they seem to think that this is somehow about a 100 acre melon patch. They somehow seem willing to dismiss the history that occurs all across the west of how this 100 acres came to be deeded lands while hundreds of thousands of acres surrounding it are govt. They seem not to understand how land usage is tied to water rights in these western lands.

But as explained at the Wildlife News, that isn't what the quoted blurb means:
There is some feeble effort to try to mitigate the damage to wildlife [caused by solar development]. Some of it is near the sites of these solar mirrors. This is called "primary mitigation." Some is in a place distant to the solar power site. This is called "secondary mitigation." Wildlife mitigation is things like planting grass wildlife need or like, development of new water sources for wildlife to drink, and restoration of rangeland overgrazed by cattle.

All this bureaucratic language means is that private groups like the Western Watersheds Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte and Friends of Joshua Tree Forest don't think the damage from solar power plants located elsewhere can be mitigated at Gold Butte because the cattle will tromp all over it.


Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#Z4AUApk1674ITXQF.99

So why would neither "Wildlife News" or snoopes mention or explain why the BLM would remove the documents on their website that spoke to the need to remove cattle from the Gold Butte area in order for it to qualify for mitigation once this stand off started?.

I wonder if snoopes has some fact checking that the sale of these lands for development of housing and solar farms and the redrawing of desert tortoise refuge boundries to accommodate this development has less impact on the desert tortoise than other land uses.

To be honest, I haven't really paid much attention to this whole thing and when I came across the snopes article, I couldn't help but post it knowing how well snopes is like on here. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 As for that Cliven Bundy character, how much more un-American can that man get?? 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

Fritz the Cat Said:
North Dakota ranks number 15th in cattle numbers........1,770,000

Nevada comes in at number 37th in cattle numbers.......455,000

http://www.cattlerange.com/cattle-graphs/all-cattle-numbers.html

North Dakota square miles ..................................................70,704

Nevada.........square miles.....................................................110,567

We have almost 4 times as many cattle on almost half as much land. Nice. 

North Dakota has surpassed Hawaii as having the happiest people. Not counting Plainsman Ron, Dick Monson and a small handfull of doom and gloomers.

You must be talking hardcore conservative types?

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 That whole militia thing is embarrassing too under these circumstances. looked like a bunch of tacticool dudes who hate government, just wanting a reason to bring out their weapons and look badass. 

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

BringingTheRain Said:
 That whole militia thing is embarrassing too under these circumstances. looked like a bunch of tacticool dudes who hate government, just wanting a reason to bring out their weapons and look badass. 

Under the circumstances they gave a black eye to responsible gun owners.  Brains of children in adult bodies.  They don't care about anyone but themselves.  If they succeed you can bet some rancher in North Dakota will give it a try too.  I would not have thought that until I seen gst's an Fritz's posts.
With so few people agreeing with them how long do you suppose it will be before the understand they crapped in their own nest, and give it up?  Perhaps never. 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Neat

Pages