Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So in your eyes a Free Trade agreement signed by your feds is in question because the level playing field has been skewed to favour this rancher and his government subsidized feeding of his cattle. That's called negotiating in bad faith when you sign an agreement and then give backhanders to your producers to allow them to compete unfairly. er, isn't it?
So sorry you can't seem to comprehend what you read and link it to original agreements; i.e., Trust Agreement to handle public land in territories that become States. No agreement is valid that is based upon Federal Government overreach...that's putting it mildly in kinder words.
The bottom line here is that the Federal Government has far overstepped their authority for many years and "We the People" have let it happen. Let's "man up" and get the public lands back under the authority they belong!
I stated that his ranch...deeded property...was established in the 1870's.
Bundy has a deeded property right to operate a ranch on this land? Where are you getting this from?
Quote:
When one checks out history of "how" public lands located in territories under the Federal Government are held in Trust which dictates that when a State is adopted all public lands within the borders of same are required to be turned over to that State and become under the jurisdiction of that State, one can better understand the blatant wrong in which the Feds have been engaged for a long time.
Quote this law for me please.
Quote:
One other thing regarding this withdrawing of grazing rights. Those cattle and sheep grazing on "PUBLIC" lands (those lands belong to the American public...not some government agency) benefit all the public.
Yes, the federal government is steward of this land, charged with maintaining it for the use of all the public - not just Cliven Bundy.
And if we are going to talk grazing rights, the federal government sold the Battlement Allotment grazing rights to Clark County Nevada in 1998, and Clark County retired the rights.
And as to the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area that Bundy has let his cattle wander into and start grazing, neither he nor his family ever had the right - either currently or in the past - to graze there.
Last edited by hammertime33; 04-30-2014 at 03:30 PM..
Bundy has a deeded property right to operated a ranch on this land? Where are you getting this from?
Your mistake is in trying to comingle public property with deeded land!
Quote:
Quote this law for me please.
Do your own research...that way you will learn something. I'm not here to do your work.
Quote:
Yes, the federal government is steward of this land, charged with maintaining it for the use of all the public - not just Cliven Bundy.
And if we are going to talk grazing rights, the federal government sold the Battlement Allotment grazing rights to Clark County Nevada in 1998, and Clark County retired the rights.
And as to the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area that Bundy has let his cattle wander into and start grazing, neither he nor his family ever had the right - either currently or in the past - to graze there.
Again, you miss the point of my discussion. I question the Federal Government's legal authority to administer public lands...period. That is not what the Trust distribution document wields as is correct, as near as I can determine. It doesn't matter what the Feds have done if it is against what is correct but has "apparently" been thwarted. That's the point. And, it is only We the People who can demand the correction that has probably gone haywire over a many-year period of no one paying proper attention.
Bundy had a permit with BLM, for which he paid grazing fees until Feb 28th 1993. The permit was up for renewal, and he declined to renew it despite the open offer from BLM for him to do so; they even made hand deliveries of the documents.
As far as the State owning the land, even the state doesn't contend that (political figures trying to make populist political points by ranting otherwise don't count). Neither does the County. On March 3rd 1994, Bundy sent a check for $1,961.47 to Clark County for grazing fees. The county returned the check, explaining that they had no jurisdiction over the allotment.
Listen carefully to the video above this post......it takes awhile for the woman to get to the point. The points and reason BLM want this ranch is told to us by an official tribal person.
Now I see you are very confused. I never stated that the public land on which Bundy has secured grazing rights belongs to Bundy. I stated that his ranch...deeded property...was established in the 1870's.
Nobody is really going after the 160 acre homesteaded ranch (although it could go to paying Bundy's bill in my opinion). His ranch is just the base property for the allotment, and gives him preferential treatment regarding the allotment's use. He could graze his ranch to death, and the government wouldn't care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrysda
The quote from "The Wildlife News" included in your post regarding the territories won via the Mexican war doesn't mean a thing now that those territories no longer exist but have become States, especially coming from such a source...I would strongly suspect "specific agenda" here. When one checks out history of "how" public lands located in territories under the Federal Government are held in Trust which dictates that when a State is adopted all public lands within the borders of same are required to be turned over to that State and become under the jurisdiction of that State, one can better understand the blatant wrong in which the Feds have been engaged for a long time. If I understand the original Trust history, it is still in effect but has simply been ignored by the Feds.
Yeah, that's not correct as a general statement. Also see Nevada's constitution which clarifies that they have no claims over lands not relinquished by the federal government. If Bundy is sworn to the sovereign state of Nevada, you'd think he'd appreciate its constitution's stance on his claims:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution of Nevada
" Third. That the people inhabiting said territory[Nevada] do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrysda
That seems to having been started long ago, has crept slowly so as to not alert conflict and has suddenly gone from creeping infringement to out and out takeover in an in-your-face movement. That has to stop.
It did start long ago. The federal government has acquired 1.8 billion acres of land. They have released 1.275 billion acres of that land from federal ownership. Expansion by subtraction? Diabolical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrysda
Bundy's case has finally hit nation-wide news so that it isn't just local folks that are hit and aware but in very small numbers that are not large enough to have an impact on the Feds. National news coverage has now alerted the whole country. Thank heavens for finally making the public of America aware that BLM and the US Forest Service are moving to an agenda of confiscating land from the public in the name of "management."
It became national because when people don't know anything about something, they tend to be willing to blissfully fill that void with all of the stupidity you can throw at them. It makes unaccountable news sources a lot of money, so there is a pretty powerful incentive to keep feeding people outrage until it becomes so painfully clear that they've been eating bullsh*t, then they move on to the next topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrysda
One other thing regarding this withdrawing of grazing rights. Those cattle and sheep grazing on "PUBLIC" lands (those lands belong to the American public...not some government agency) benefit all the public.
Fascinating. So do you believe that one family and one business benefitting that one family, should have sole use of this public property for their own profit?
And the great service they are providing to the American public is that we get to 1) pay for the management of their lands AND 2) pay for their product?
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrysda
The animals grazing are a huge FOOD SOURCE! Grazing on public lands lowers the price of that animal's product significantly. Losing grazing rights raises the price of that food by a vast amount and actually drives ranchers out of business, thereby stopping the production of that FOOD SOURCE! I emphasize the food source as the number one terrible loss, but we need to understand that not giving ranchers the right to graze on public lands also very negatively impacts not only the price but also the availability of wool for materials. Think about all one uses that go back to the sheep such as clothes and blankets, for instance. Then go on and add in leather for shoes and multitudes of other uses derived from these animals feeding on public land. Prices on all this goes sky high because of the tremendous cost of feeding the source animal and the loss of those quitting the business because of same. Think about that, folks, when analyzing what BLM is doing to our cattlemen in Nevada and Texas as just one of their stupid and very dangerous actions.
1. BLM and Forrest Service managed lands offer grazing rights for $1.35 per AUM, compared to the market rate of $8-$23 per AUM. Additionally, that $1.35 per AUM revenue only covers 50% of BLM/Forrest Service management costs of the grazing programs. Grazing on public lands is heavily subsidized.
2. Bundy did not lose grazing rights. No rights were stricken from him. He had a permit to graze the land. That permit expired. Bundy had the option to renew the permit, for up to a 10 year period if he wanted. BLM sent him multiple applications. He continued to decline to fill them out for two decades. You can't refuse to take something, and then turn around and claim that something was taken from you.
3. Three years of drought has driven cattle out of the Mojave desert. It's all ephemeral grazing land there, meaning that while it can periodically support livestock grazing, it does not reliably produce forage. Ranchers in the West Mojave actually lobbied to get legislation passed in to law that gives them the ability to retire their grazing allotments in exchange for a payout, because the desert isn't a great place to graze... shocker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrysda
Oh, and don't forget the environmentalists screaming that the animals ruin the land or threaten endangered species.
Actually, there is a body of evidence that suggests that grazing (not overgrazing) helps sustain the habitat because it manages invasive plant species which could take over the native flora that supports the ecosystem.
Last edited by KStreetQB; 04-30-2014 at 03:53 PM..
Listen carefully to the video above this post......it takes awhile for the woman to get to the point. The points and reason BLM want this ranch is told to us by an official tribal person.
Shame, Shame Harry Reid.
I'll rely on the relevant treaty, federal law, Nevada constitution, legislative history, regulations promulgated thereunder, court decisions and my experience working on, and for, ranches with allotments.
But you go ahead and rely on people videotaping themselves on youtube.
Do your own research...that way you will learn something. I'm not here to do your work.
Again, you miss the point of my discussion. I question the Federal Government's legal authority to administer public lands...period. That is not what the Trust distribution document wields as is correct, as near as I can determine. It doesn't matter what the Feds have done if it is against what is correct but has "apparently" been thwarted. That's the point. And, it is only We the People who can demand the correction that has probably gone haywire over a many-year period of no one paying proper attention.
I've don't plenty of research into this, and my research indicates you're flat wrong. The fact that you're unwilling to share the proof of your claim with us - which would be as easy as quoting the law or telling us where you're getting the law from - tells me you don't know what you're talking about.
I'll rely on the relevant treaty, federal law, Nevada constitution, legislative history, regulations promulgated thereunder, court decisions and my experience working on, and for, ranches with allotments.
But you go ahead and rely on people videotaping themselves on youtube.
If she hadn't have gotten the information from the receptionist on BLM plans to do more with this land then they are telling us. I wouldn't have posted it.........some people just support Harry Reid, the other Mormon!
Actually, there is a body of evidence that suggests that grazing (not overgrazing) helps sustain the habitat because it manages invasive plant species which could take over the native flora that supports the ecosystem.
This is the only statement you have made upon which we agree!
The rest of your input is nothing but spin, twist and misguided so-called debate which does not address the "root" of the problem which I have tried to bring forth.
To those reading this thread who are truly interested in correcting the overreach of government and understand that this BLM mess with the Bundy family in Nevada and the Texas Cattlemen along the Red River has to be addressed and these Federal Government Agencies stopped in their tracks, please consider reaching those people who have been directly impacted plus those who live within the regions of that impact. It is you voters who can stop this attack on your freedoms by a Federal Government that has thumbed their noses at the Constitution and the original intentions of supporting Trust Agreements, laws and creation of agencies.
I will share one last thing here with those who have true interests, then I'm done with silly back-and-forth with someone who has no clue as to the main purpose of my input.
In the late 1940's there was a group of old-time ranchers, some of whom were veterans of World War I who told my husband (he was very young at the time but never forgot) that "you young people need to be aware that unless you stop BLM and the US Forest Service from gaining any kind of authority over our public lands it will end in a disaster." My husband never forgot that conversation and those "old timers," as they were called, were dead-on right.
My thanks to all of you reading this who have "NOT missed my points."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
