Replies

Why can t some lawyer start a suit to bring this to a conclusion?
the Constitutional ISSUE is ... the Federal government is supposed to give federal land in former territories to the states that emerge from those territories. In many cases ranchers have used grazing land on or adjacent to their property and in many cases they may even have legitimate claim to the land.

So having the BLM dictate the use of the land appears to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and they dont ahve legal authority. That is another ISSUE. THe local sheriff is the ONLY LEGAL authority in conflicts between the federal government and local officials or ranchers.

That is the real reason the BLM backed down in the Bundy case and is not taking aggressive aciton in Oregon. In Oregon the occupation fo a federal building is a seperate legal matter. Dont mix the issues.

the Federal government is allowed to keep territorial land for military bases and other Constitutionaly defined uses, but not to keep 1/3 of the United States and then dictate the ise fo the land.

I hope the ISSUES are settled through the LAW and lives are not lost in the process.

This is ONE EXAMPLE of FEDERAL OVERREACH. Legislation by bureaucratic mandate in the multiple government bureaus and agencies has to be eliminated as well as EXECUTIVE ORDERS by the president.

All rules having the effect of laws should be referred to the appropriate legislative body federal, state or local and be debated and made into law by the legislative process..... NOT BY SOME UNELECTED BUREAUCRAT...

"Why can't some lawyer start a suit"

First off, the Hammonds were convicted in court. Cliven Bundy lost in court, numerous times. Now, some don't recognize the court and are pursuing it with guns, like they do in Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan. Bundy is a warlord.

Second, Utah's Transfer of Public Lands Act is the leading legal attempt. That act required the feds to turn over the land on Jan 1, 2015. And of course the feds didn't turn over the land. Now the GOP controlled govt of Utah needs to make the next move, what ever their next move will be, and how much money are Utah taxpayers willing to waste, to pursue the next move.

You say the BLM is dictating use of the land, and/or the prez is using executive orders. Not true.

Congress enacted the Federal Lands and Policy Management Act of 1976, which determines how the federal lands are managed. FLPMA started the sagebrush rebellion. BLM was created in 1947 by merging the General Land Office and the Grazing Service, and was a relatively small agency. After FLPMA, BLM grows into a very large agency.

And it is other congressional act as well. Combine FLPMA and the Endangered Species Act and Cliven Bundy was required to reduce his herd.

Combine FLPMA and the Wilderness Act. In 1976 there were no Wilderness Areas. Now there are huge numbers of acres as wilderness and wilderness study areas.

There are also today a lot more recreation areas, campgrounds, and archeological sites than there was in 1976.

Combine FLPMA with the clean air act and there is a lot more coal mining on these federal lands than there was in 1976.

Combine FLPMA with the Wild Horse and Burro Act, and the grazing lease holders have to let these wild horses eat some of the grass and drink some of the water.

One of the main complaints is that there are fewer grazing leases and fewer acres being grazed than there were in 1976. But FLPMA says these lands have to be managed for multiple use, so Cattle grazing is not King, although the Cow-Calf economy through-out the west is huge.