Nevada BLM actions background

Pages

682 posts / 0 new
Last post
sickofthesmoke's picture
sickofthesmoke
Offline
Joined: 11/14/12

In order to owe 1 million in grazing fees to the BLM at $2.00 per head per month he would have had to have 2083.3 head grazing yearound for twenty years.

sickofthesmoke's picture
sickofthesmoke
Offline
Joined: 11/14/12

In order to owe 1 million in grazing fees since 1993 Bundy would have had to run 2083 head yearound at 2 dollars a head per month. If in fact he lost those grazing rights completely in 1993 how can they say he didn't pay them for twenty years? If he is simply claiming preemptive rights to water and forage he will have to prove title. Both parties have had 20 years to do this by the way. If you owed the IRS 1 million they would have found a way to collect. So it comes down to does he owe the money or not, and does he hold any title to water or forage.

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

sickofthesmoke Said:
In order to owe 1 million in grazing fees since 1993 Bundy would have had to run 2083 head yearound at 2 dollars a head per month. If in fact he lost those grazing rights completely in 1993 how can they say he didn't pay them for twenty years? If he is simply claiming preemptive rights to water and forage he will have to prove title. Both parties have had 20 years to do this by the way. If you owed the IRS 1 million they would have found a way to collect. So it comes down to does he owe the money or not, and does he hold any title to water or forage.

Where it really gets weird, is according to that last letter gst posted, he refused to sign the contract, so he was basically running cattle on BLM land without permission (illegally?) for 20 years. He is technically a squatter.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

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

gst I am not ignoring anything, and I did answer your question you do not think the law is fair based on constitutional standards then you have to seek relief from the courts if you cannot persuade those in charge to change the law. Be it your example of my blind business or farming or whatever occupation or law. It is that simple so stop being such a dumbass.

In regards to the blm documents these are not documents from 1993 or any time during which Bundy was presenting his case to the courts. They are only relavent to the behavior and possible corruption of Reid and others associated with him. They have no affect upon Bundys standing in the least!

So with your balloon popped what are you going to try next?

Rancher has had his day in court and lost but still can appeal. The result of the court rulings are that he has no right to graze cattle and if he does they are trespassing and he is liable for damages caused by the trespass as well as the efforts to remove the trespass. So he is on the hook for the cattle round up if the Feds push it.

I have stated before that I did not like the action they chose to take but understood they had the legal authority to do so in that manner.

Reid issue is not relevant to Bundy's claims but are a separate issue all together. So there really is nothing left to say or claim or try and imply.

Now again like or dislike of the law or proceedings is also not a factor it is about what and who has the legal standings. As of now BLM has the standing and is entitled to do what they want until a higher court says otherwise. That could include dismantling of water ways and pumping stations based on the courts rulings.

So what does that leave you with? Not much to complain about, really nor should vigilante behavior on Bundy's behalf be allowed or supported. He is clearly by court ruling not entitled to use of the lands and did not have the documentation to prove otherwise.
Protesting on his behalf is fine and I am not in disagreement with that, but no armed action should be tolerated nor should anyone from the protest side be allowed without arrest to make violent threats!!!!
Pretty basic and simple when you strip away the Bull Crap!! 

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

Ron read this if you would. This person likely has a better handle on this that either you or I.

gst Said:
Here is a view from a fellow rancher in the area that seems to know a bit.

Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended"AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

-Kena Lytle Gloeckner

as ladd mentioned earlier, these lands most times are under "multiple use laws". These Federal agencies are changing the allowed "use" to the point where these ranchers basically forfeit these allotments because they simply can not stay in business at the levels the Feds reduce them to.

Once the cattle are off, it is free for development.

Once again ron, what do you know about these western lands water rights andland usage laws?

Earlier you admitted not much.

ron as I said earlier I am not trying to convince you of anything, just sharing some facts that the main stream media was not putting out so people can make their own minds up.

so at this point ron, after you have avoided answering a number of questions such as what you know about western states water rights and land usage laws,  I have but one more for you.

why the following?
Hardwaterman Said:
 It is that simple so stop being such a dumbass.

Well it was a nice discussion while it lasted.

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

gst again this has been through the courts and he lost, Hage had the same complaint and proved his case! However you look at it, the fact remains that he has had his day in court and for some reason has not filed an appeal to a higher court.

I am not saying that I like the BLM, what I am saying is that the courts have stated he does not have the documentation to prove his claims!!!

What part of that is beyond your grasp?

Why cant you get that he has made these claims in court and lost?

To win you have to have legal standing either in the contract you have entered or by the law written that governs the actions.

In his case he was unable to prove his claims, and thus he lost!!

If he had not had his day in court I would hold more sympathy for his plight, but like it or not he has had that day so get over it! YOU do not have to like the outcome but you cannot say he has not had a chance to prove his claims!

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!

sickofthesmoke's picture
sickofthesmoke
Offline
Joined: 11/14/12

This is an ideal story as far as the media is concerned. The drama is there to begin with and then they report on it as if it is a problem within a code wrapped up in an inigma and presented as a riddle. It seems nothing is cut and dried anymore. Can you imagine if we didn't have Bill of rights, Constitution, 10 commandments to use as words to live and govern by.  I better stop there before someone accuses me of being racist fearmongering or using hate speech to further my conspiracy theory opinions.

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

Definition of public land according to Blacks Law Dictionary:

Public lands comprise the general public domain; unappropriated lands; the lands not held back or reserved for any special governmental or public purpose. US. v Gareston, 42.4.22,24.

It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached DOES NOT FALL within the desigation of public land. Bardon v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 12 S.Ct.856, 145 U.S. 535, 538, 36 L.Ed.806.

"Public lands" are lands open to sale or other disposition under general laws, lands to which no claims or right of others have been attached.

Having various meanings under different statutes and circumstances, the term "public lands" generally refers to government lands that are open to public sale or other disposition under general laws and that are NOT HELD BACK OR RESERVED FOR A GOVERNMENTAL OR PUBLIC PURPOSE. The phrase "public lands" is synonymous with "public domain."

Ordinarily, word "fee" or "fee simple" is applied to an ESTATE OF LAND, but the term is applicable to any kind of hereditament, corporeal or incorporeal, and it is all the property in thing referred to or largest estate therein.

"Fee" signifies an ESTATE OF INHERITANCE, being the highest and most extensive interest which a man can have in a feud; and when the term used simply, without any adjunct, or in the form "fee simple," it imports an absolute inheritance clear of any condition, limitation or restriction to particular heirs.

The grant of a "fee" in land conveys to the grantee COMPLETE OWNERSHIP, immediately and forever, with the right of possession from boundary to boundary.

"In common speech the non-mineral portion of land, the portion which covers and envelopes the minerals, is called the 'surface' or the 'land,' and the proprietor of land who divests himself of title to the minerals which it contains is still spoken of as the 'owner' of the 'fee' or of the 'surface' or of the 'land'. In Laws 1897, providing that where the "fee to the surface" of any land is in any person and the right or title to any minerals therein is in another person, the right to such minerals shall be valued and listed separately from the FEE TO THE LAND.

A private citizen has no enforceable right in public lands (AS OPPOSED TO PATENTED OR FEE LANDS).

From 1897 to 1993 this agreement was working. But after almost 100 years things changed. The fed/gov is paramount.

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

Once again ron it seems you are the one that can not grasp I understand that. I readily admit that.

what you do not seem to understand the court case and ruling was NOT on whether he had established a unbroken chain back to the purchase of the water rights, I don;t believe that claim has been presented has it?  It was on whether he had paid the fees or not.

There is a bit of difference between those two issues.

ron how were the Jim Crow laws overturned?

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

gst what facts have you presented that change anything regarding Bundy? There is nothing, he had his chance to present his grievances in court, he has to prove his claims. From the so called BLM behavior to his supposed ownership of the land, he failed, repeatedly!

There is nothing more to say regarding him. Now if you want to make this an issue of the BLM behavior and leave Bundy and his failed court attempts out, fine, that I would like to explore, Hage case and a few others as well are good examples of shedding light on the Gov when they over reach. But do not hang Bundy from the flag claiming injustice when he has lost and others have won.

That is why I have called you a dumbass! Bundy screwed the pooch himself and is trying to blame others for his poor choice and gamble. That is all there is to the Bundy story anymore. Notice how on the broadcast  media when it became known via the web and other social media outlets that Bundy had his day in court they dropped it?

See that is the big thing to people when they see and hear about an outrage and then find out the facts and go why is the guy pissing and moaning he screwed himself!!!

So if you want to take the ball and discuss the issue of the BLM do so, but stop pretending that Bundy is a victim of it, he is a victim of his own choice, just as a driver who drinks and gets stopped and charged with a DUI is!!! He made a bad choice and that is all there is to the Bundy 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!

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

Ron said,

gst again this has been through the courts and he lost, Hage had the same complaint and proved his case!

Wayne Hage was told over and over for about ten years that he was going to lose.

He lost many rounds before he won.

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

Fritz the Cat Said:

Ron said,

gst again this has been through the courts and he lost, Hage had the same complaint and proved his case!

Wayne Hage was told over and over for about ten years that he was going to lose.

He lost many rounds before he won.

Not in the courts but with the BLM which is vastly different, he won his taking case, essentially won his trespass case even though it was deemed a loss because he paid something like $180.00 and won his water rights case as well. Because he had the documents to prove his water rights and property and lease practice abuse by the BLM! During that time he never quit paying for his grazing as well which should good faith on his behalf. So again Bundy and Hage are not a equal comparison of events, one chose to stop paying and continue to graze the other continued to pay and fought to have his rights restored and won.

So all that is left is the issue of what has taken place with Dirty Harry and the BLM and local officials. A totally separate issue that has no bearing on Bundy. Care to discuss that?

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!

ndraised's picture
ndraised
Offline
Joined: 3/27/05

wake up you RADICAL gun toting FREAKs. Even your "GOD" Bill Oreilly agrees with me.   You agree with people TAKING UP ARMS against the government. YOU SHOULD LOSS YOUR GUN RIGHTS then.. He had his day in court and you think they should stop the feds with their guns.. Your freaks who have been BRAIN WASHED

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

 

ndraised Said:
wake up you RADICAL gun toting FREAKs. Even your "GOD" Bill Oreilly agrees with me.   You agree with people TAKING UP ARMS against the government. YOU SHOULD LOSS YOUR GUN RIGHTS then.. He had his day in court and you think they should stop the feds with their guns.. Your freaks who have been BRAIN WASHED

Interesting. What do you suppose we think of you idiots?

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

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

 I watched the Bundy men interviewed by Hannity last night, which was as friendly a forum for them as there could be.  Even with that:  They called our Country a "foreign nation".   They threatened violence, and said they  would do whatever they had to to get their way.    They and/or their supporters were armed with assault rifles among other arms.   They blamed the local sheriff for not disarming the federal officers.  They and their supports crowded around the federal officers and chanted at them trying to provoke them into martyering them. They claimed the laws of our Country don't apply to them because they are in their own Country, at least  in essence.  

With those views stated on  show that couldn't be confused with lefty media or trick questions,  what would we call the Bundy's if they were Muslim's? 

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

Ladd Said:
 I watched the Bundy men interviewed by Hannity last night, which was as friendly a forum for them as there could be.  Even with that:  They called our Country a "foreign nation".   They threatened violence, and said they  would do whatever they had to to get their way.    They and/or their supporters were armed with assault rifles among other arms.   They blamed the local sheriff for not disarming the federal officers.  They and their supports crowded around the federal officers and chanted at them trying to provoke them into martyering them. They claimed the laws of our Country don't apply to them because they are in their own Country, at least  in essence.  

With those views stated on  show that couldn't be confused with lefty media or trick questions,  what would we call the Bundy's if they were Muslim's? 

Ouch!!!!!!!!!! Not much more to say after this post!

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

Ladd Said:
 I watched the Bundy men interviewed by Hannity last night, which was as friendly a forum for them as there could be.  Even with that:  They called our Country a "foreign nation".  I don;t think anyone has called the Bundy family articulate spokes people. Exactly what context was this comment made in ladd? Were they talking about a govt that will train military weapons on it's own people much  like foreign nations have?  They threatened violence, and said they  would do whatever they had to to get their way.   ladd I will pose you the same question I posed ron he avoided answering. What if there was a Federal agency that regulated how you make your living that you had to pay a fee to each year. For decades they used these fees to help you continue in how you make your living. Then all of a sudden they change their actions because of a lawsuit someone forced on them, they then continue to take your fees but use them to put you out of business. By law you can not be in business unless you pay their fees, but the fees are being used to force you out of business. What argument would YOU make in a court of law regarding the legality of having to pay the fees that once helped you stay in business that are now being used to force you out of business. What do you do when a court says tough shit.

I am sure as a lawyer you could/would draft a legal argument to fight to be able to stay in business. What would it be? They and/or their supporters were armed with assault rifles among other arms.  Arizona is an open carry state is it not? Is this not what the 2nd amendment was intended for??? They blamed the local sheriff for not disarming the federal officers.  Were there not sheriffs there that believed the BLM agents were trying to provoke the Bundys into firing or in the least attacking them and that the agents had crossed over a line? Who brought the gun fight to the Bundys ladd??? Did the BLM guys show up with slingshots?? At the start of the confrontation ladd who was armed with "assault weapons"  and snipers and who was not??? They and their supports crowded around the federal officers and chanted at them trying to provoke them into martyering them. Do you honestly think someone in the Bundy family WANTED to get killed???(maybe some crazy militia guy,) but do you think the Bundy family actually wanted to be shot and killed??They claimed the laws of our Country don't apply to them because they are in their own Country, at least  in essence.  In essence? Exactly what did they say in these regards? I have heard them say that when armed Federal agents aim sniper rifles and machine guns and use military weapons on their own citizens they did not beleive they were in the America that once was. I tend to agree?  How many threads on this site have basically said the very same thing?? How many threads speaking to Homeland Security buying billions of rounds of ammuntion and military vehicles have there been where people right here on FBO have said the very same thing?

With those views stated on  show that couldn't be confused with lefty media or trick questions,  what would we call the Bundy's if they were Muslim's? But you see ladd they are not, are they so what is your inflammatory comparison supposed to do? What if the Founding Fathers that broke the law to overturn a tyrannical govt and right unjust laws would have been Muslims?

What if the people that stood and broke the Jim Crow laws to right unjustice would have been Muslims at the time?

I am curious ladd, do you think the founding Fathers expected the citizens of this nations to meekly submit to what they believe was tyranny in our govt? Would you define a govt using someones own monies to force them out of legal business somewhat tyrannical?

What do you think the Founding Fathers would think of basically a "tax" being levied on someone by the govt and then the govt using that tax to force them out of  legal business such as ranching? What do you believe they would think of a nation and people that would allow their govt to do this and many of the other things that are happening right now?

Ron sits here and claims he does not like the actions of Sen Reid, he does not like the actions of the BLM and yet he decries someone that would actually stand up to them by breaking a law they believe unjust. And yet when it suits his purpose he defends unendingly someone elses breaking of a law simply because they and he believe it to be "unconstitutional". Cook had his day in court as well and was defeated so why is his position any more just or relevant than the Bundys?

And they have NOT had their "day in court" to establish the things Wayne Hage had as ron claims, the Bundys case was merely on the grazing fee nonpayment, nothing else. As a lawyer ladd you should be able to explain to ron how these cases maintain a narrow focus on what is being considered.

Who has claimed they are not in violation of the regulation requiring  paying BLM their fees? This nation was founded by people like the Bundys. Perhaps with better foresight and better articulated but the same belief systems that government be answerable to the people. So what are they to do when they have watched as 52 of their neighbors have been forced out of business (for what reason)

What people is the govt answering to that are forcing these  ranchers off these lands? Two or three radical enviromental groups that use the tax payers monies to file lawsuits forcing these actions? THEY represent "the people"? Developers greedy for these lands for themselves?

Who are these Federal agencies answerable to any more? EPA, BATF, BLM, IRS, HS, NSA, CIA, How many more Federal acronyms that have grown beyond control, or being answerable to the people exist any more? How many more have been added under Obama??

ladd you stated you agreed with several things Jon Scott said about this very thing at the end of the Hage video. So as someone in the judicial branch, how would YOU go about regaining control of these run way Federal agencies and stop the over reach of their crony heads such as Reids former senior aid at the helm of the BLM. ?

Continue being distracted into thinking this is about grazing fees and some turtles while the govt turns the yoke tighter.

After all banning assault weapons is about saving lives and protecting the citizens right?

 

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

actually there was quite a little to say after that post ron. To bad people like you will not consider it.

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

ndraised Said:
wake up you RADICAL gun toting FREAKs. Even your "GOD" Bill Oreilly agrees with me.   You agree with people TAKING UP ARMS against the government. YOU SHOULD LOSS YOUR GUN RIGHTS then.. He had his day in court and you think they should stop the feds with their guns.. Your freaks who have been BRAIN WASHED

It would be interesting to see ndraised go tell his fellow Montanan's in the militias this.

Ripnem's picture
Ripnem
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/17/06

 http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/bundy-ranch-youre-told-video/ 

A short vid worth the few minutes. Sorry if you have to copy and paste, my linking skills are shotty at best.

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

Here is the video ripen, posted it back on page 5.

gst Said:
ron, do you know for a fact this family could not establish a link back on water rights to when they purchased them?

Take a look at this if you still believe this is about grazing rights and tortoises.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10
Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08
GST said,

After all banning assault weapons is about saving lives and protecting the citizens right?


Nope, guns save lives. Check it out.

http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=8860

Read the comments how people feel about certain law enforcement. The sentiments out there. Hmm.

doublebarrelsaloon's picture
doublebarrelsaloon
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/22/09

No need to find a militia member, any eastsider who works for a living would probably have a sufficient opinion. Then again if a guy wanted to start a good ol fashioned Jordan bar fight I'm not going to get in the way.

gst Said:

ndraised Said:
wake up you RADICAL gun toting FREAKs. Even your "GOD" Bill Oreilly agrees with me.   You agree with people TAKING UP ARMS against the government. YOU SHOULD LOSS YOUR GUN RIGHTS then.. He had his day in court and you think they should stop the feds with their guns.. Your freaks who have been BRAIN WASHED

It would be interesting to see ndraised go tell his fellow Montanan's in the militias this.

I dont go around guessing cup sizes either I just know a nice rack when I see one.

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

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.

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

It sounds like things got a little western:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/58165/gun-law-nevada-agents-yield-man-called-bundy

Many of the posters here on FBO get their news from the THE WILDLIFE NEWS
Anyways, that is where Bringintherain's snopes piece got their info.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/

What is the Wildlife News? Who publish's that?

http://www.wildlife.org/publications/wildlife-news-briefs

???????????????????

Maybe it is time to investigate certain affiliations between State/Federal agencies and their surrogate non-profits.

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

Hardwaterman Said:
gst again this has been through the courts and he lost, Hage had the same complaint and proved his case!

A couple of posts later..................................................................................................

Hardwaterman Said:
 So again Bundy and Hage are not a equal comparison of events, one chose to stop paying and continue to graze the other continued to pay and fought to have his rights restored and won.

Hardwaterman Said:

There is nothing more to say regarding him. Now if you want to make this an issue of the BLM behavior and leave Bundy and his failed court attempts out, fine, that I would like to explore, Hage case and a few others as well are good examples of shedding light on the Gov when they over reach. But do not hang Bundy from the flag claiming injustice when he has lost and others have won.

That is why I have called you a dumbass
!

As a decreed "dumbass" ron I admit I am confused here.

Are the cases the "same complaint" as you first claimed or are they "not an equal comparison of events" as you later claimed?

Which story are you going with here ron?

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

Fritz the Cat Said:
It sounds like things got a little western:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/58165/gun-law-nevada-agents-yield-man-called-bundy

Many of the posters here on FBO get their news from the THE WILDLIFE NEWS
Anyways, that is where Bringintherain's snopes piece got their info.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/

What is the Wildlife News? Who publish's that?

http://www.wildlife.org/publications/wildlife-news-briefs

???????????????????

Maybe it is time to investigate certain affiliations between State/Federal agencies and their surrogate non-profits.

Considering the Center for Biological Diversity had threatened the BLM with a lawsuit if they did not remove Bundys cattle from these ranges to "protect" the desert tortoise that had already been killed by the hundreds by the very Center meant to save themshortly before the BLM swopoped in with armed agents and snipers.................................................................................................................perhaps it is time to pull back the covers on these orgs.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/desert-torto...

Roundup of Trespassing Cattle Begins in Nevada Desert

Cows Have Been Illegally Grazing in Gold Butte Area for More Than Two Decades

LAS VEGAS— The Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and other federal agencies today began the long-delayed and long-awaited roundup and impoundment of cattle that have illegally grazed the Gold Butte area south of Mesquite, unmanaged and free of charge, for more than two decades. Rancher Cliven Bundy has been locked in a dispute with the BLM since 1993.

“Again and again federal judges have said the BLM has the right and duty to remove cattle trespassing in the Gold Butte area to protect desert tortoises and other imperiled species,” said Rob Mrowka, a Nevada-based senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, which had filed a notice of intent to sue over the lack of action being taken by the federal agencies. “We’re heartened and thankful that the agencies are finally living up to their stewardship duty. The Gold Butte area has been officially designated as critical habitat for threatened tortoises — meaning the area is essential to their long-term survival as a species.”

Note the "critical habitat designation"  by the USF&WS. This gives them the authority to restrict or ban grazing on these Federal acres. So they now have another tool to remove these cattle from these lands and use them as mitigating lands for the Chinese solar deal 20 miles away.

Wonder if snoopes is "fact checking" on that?

So here is my question if THIS area grazing cattle is "essential to their long-term survival as a species" I wonder if the areas sold to Chinese developers far below appraised values for their solar developments 20 miles away are as well??

wonder if snoopes is "fact checking " that

Or do these development companies simply write a big enough check to buy off these enviroment orgs concerns?

Or perhaps they just buy off a Senator to redraw the boundries of the Desert Tortoises "habitat"?

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?46123-Corruption-most-rotte.....

The BLM’s official reason for encircling the Bundy family with sniper teams and helicopters was to protect the endangered desert tortoise, which the agency has previously been killing in mass due to “budget constraints.”

“A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher; they want his land,” journalist Dana Loesch wrote. “The tortoise wasn’t of concern when [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid worked with BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore.

“Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests,” she added. “BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area.”

“If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.”

btr, has snoopes "fact checked" this?

Apparently others are wondering if this is really about a rancher not paying grazing fees as well.

http://nationalreport.net/issa-launches-federal-investigation-obamas-inv...

Perhaps he may not be a big enough Obama donor either.

Apparently the 52 other ranchers in this area already removed were not as well.


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

cynical Said:
So what would prevent the federal government from doing the end around on land granted to people in the Homestead Act?

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land...

Apparently deeded land that has had property taxes paid on it for years.

Might bear watching.

Pages