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.
First, it's federal land, not the "Bundy property". Second, the proposed solar plant is not on the "Bundy property" but is about 30-40 miles west and closer to Las Vegas.
But was it or was it not bundy property before BLM was even created ?
But was it or was it not bundy property before BLM was even created ?
No he never owned it. He owned his homestead and grazed his cattle on public land. Before the BLM the land was managed by a different government department.
First, it's federal land, not the "Bundy property". Second, the proposed solar plant is not on the "Bundy property" but is about 30-40 miles west and closer to Las Vegas.
I will have to check this. Links? Or have they been posted? Was just posting what I found. Haven't followed this story too closely. Thus the question marks. Where is this homestead? Does it boarder? It can still be an issue. If this rancher loses his income who benefits? This is why master plans, regional plans, can be important. Map would be useful.
For some reason the links are now all pulled, however.
Here is an example of how these can play out in utah. Many generational farm. //www.city-data.com/forum/24733337-post187.html
quote:
Now, back to our good Irish farmer…
This farm, which has been in the Fitzgerald family for many, many generations – since before the “Draper” city councilman’s and mayor’s parent’s-parents were even born – has over the years been slowly taken by the Draper City Corporation and the State of Utah. Bit by bit, these government entities have used the recommended Best Practices of utilizing the Master Plans to forcibly dismantle and steal the land and property of the Fitzgerald family farm.
See, that's what I don't get. I wouldn't charge the guy next door to graze his cattle on land I wasn't using and that's in the middle of nowhere nor would I expect payment for him to do so.
The way I see it, the cattle aren't destroying any plants or lawn
I will have to check this. Was just posting what I found. Haven't followed this story too closely. Thus the question marks.
For some reason the link is now pulled, however.
No, that Nevada guy never owned that land. He knows good and well he never owned it.
First he was claiming some kind of legal mumbo-jumbo, "pre-emptive right", basically something he made up.
Additionally what he's claiming is that the land belongs to the state of Nevada ... despite the fact that the Nevada constitution clearly states that the land belongs to the federal government.
He and his ilk are basically just thieving types, trying to use land that doesn't belong to them. They've convinced a bunch of equally-ignorant libertarian types to join up, stand around, and make vague threats against the government.
No he never owned it. He owned his homestead and grazed his cattle on public land. Before the BLM the land was managed by a different government department.
Are you sure? So then show me proof of what government department managed it before BLM was created or before the 1900s. Provide factual evidence or all you have is just talk with no substance.
A department for domestic concern was first considered by the 1st United States Congress in 1789, but those duties were placed in the Department of State. The idea of a separate domestic department continued to percolate for a half-century and was supported by Presidents from James Madison to James Polk. The 1846-48 Mexican-American War gave the proposal new steam as the responsibilities of federal government grew. Polk's Secretary of the Treasury, Robert J. Walker, became a vocal champion of creating the new department.
In 1849, Walker stated in his annual report that several federal offices were placed in departments with which they had little to do. He noted that the General Land Office had little to do with the Treasury and also highlighted the Indian Affairs office, part of the Department of War, and the Patent Office, part of the Department of State. Walker argued that these and other bureaus should be brought together in a new Department of the Interior.
A bill authorizing its creation of the Department passed the House of Representatives on February 15, 1849, and spent just over two weeks in the Senate. The Department was established on March 3, 1849 (9 Stat. 395), the eve of President Zachary Taylor's inauguration, when the Senate voted 31 to 25 to create the Department. Its passage was delayed by Democrats in Congress who were reluctant to create more patronage posts for the incoming Whig administration to fill. The first Secretary of the Interior was Thomas Ewing.
A department for domestic concern was first considered by the 1st United States Congress in 1789, but those duties were placed in the Department of State. The idea of a separate domestic department continued to percolate for a half-century and was supported by Presidents from James Madison to James Polk. The 1846-48 Mexican-American War gave the proposal new steam as the responsibilities of federal government grew. Polk's Secretary of the Treasury, Robert J. Walker, became a vocal champion of creating the new department.
In 1849, Walker stated in his annual report that several federal offices were placed in departments with which they had little to do. He noted that the General Land Office had little to do with the Treasury and also highlighted the Indian Affairs office, part of the Department of War, and the Patent Office, part of the Department of State. Walker argued that these and other bureaus should be brought together in a new Department of the Interior.
A bill authorizing its creation of the Department passed the House of Representatives on February 15, 1849, and spent just over two weeks in the Senate. The Department was established on March 3, 1849 (9 Stat. 395), the eve of President Zachary Taylor's inauguration, when the Senate voted 31 to 25 to create the Department. Its passage was delayed by Democrats in Congress who were reluctant to create more patronage posts for the incoming Whig administration to fill. The first Secretary of the Interior was Thomas Ewing.
And if I am not mistaken bundies family had paid necessary fees at the time . The payments stopped in 1993 correct? So we need to figure out what and why that happened.
And if I am not mistaken bundies family had paid necessary fees at the time .
No... at the time the land was acquired by the Department of Interior, Bundy's family was not in Nevada.
that land was acquired in the late 1840's when the U.S. took it from Mexico in war. that's when it started being managed by the Department of the Interior.
the department of interior predates the government of Nevada ... nevada became a state in the mid 1860's, and in their constitution they made it clear that this land was owned by the federal government.
This Bundy fellow's ancestors moved in and start ranching in the mid 1870's, a full 25 years afterwards.
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.
