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..... 

Pages