Nope. This is next to one of the watering holes:
Nearby:
Posted on 04/09/2014 8:28:06 AM PDT by xzins
Armed federal agents deployed last week to northeast Clark County, Nev., for what can only be described as a major escalation in a decades-long standoff between a local cattle rancher and the U.S. government.
.Cliven Bundy, the last remaining rancher in the southern Nevada county, stands in defiance of a 2013 court order demanding that he remove his cattle from public land managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management.
The 67-year-old veteran rancher, who has compared the situation to similar confrontations with government officials in Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas, told TheBlaze that his family has used land in the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area since the late 1800s.
“I have raised cattle on that land, which is public land for the people of Clark County, all my life. Why I raise cattle there and why I can raise cattle there is because I have preemptive rights,” he said, explaining that among them is the right to forage.
“Who is the trespasser here? Who is the trespasser on this land? Is the United States trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? Or is it Cliven Bundy who is trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? Who’s the trespasser?”
Claiming that all other options have been exhausted, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. National Park Service responded to Bundy’s inflexibility on the issue by calling on federal agents and contract cowboys to restrict access to the public land and to confiscate Bundy’s “trespass cattle.”
.“Cattle have been in trespass on public lands in southern Nevada for more than two decades. This is unfair to the thousands of other ranchers who graze livestock in compliance with federal laws and regulations throughout the West,” the Bureau of Land Management stated on its website about the case.
.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
According to Bundy’s daughter on FB her gr-grandpa paid for pre-emptive rights to the land in 1887. He then sold those rights to his son and he gave them to Bundy.
The BLM was paid grazing fees to help him manage the land but they stopped using the fees for management and started using it to buy up the other lands. Bundy refused to sell and basically fired them. He tried to pay fees to Clark County but they refused.
Bundy used his own equipment, labor and money to manage the land over the years...no tax dollars! He has been to court to defend his actions and as the BLM has tax money to spend they kept after him. Lastly, they have used the protected species act to get his land.
I think his basic claim to graze on the land is that it’s between him and the State of Nevada...not the Feds business. I agree.
see post #81
Bundy is arguing that he basically has a patent claim. BTW Bundy will be on Sean Hannity tonight.
“According to Bundy’s daughter on FB her gr-grandpa paid for pre-emptive rights to the land in 1887. He then sold those rights to his son and he gave them to Bundy.”
People claim a lot of things when they are not under oath. In court, the land he is grazing on was first rented from the BLM in 1954. Much of the land he is now grazing on is land he didn’t use even in 1998. If he had been using land he was entitled to, the court would have noted his arguments if only to reject them. But he does not have a track record that backs his claims up.
The guy is a liar. He is a cheat. The ranchers I know PAY for their grazing. He wants it for free. And he bases his wanting free grazing on his belief that the US government does not and cannot own land - which is directly contradicted by the US Constitution.
I also dispute that the US should be in the land owning business. The US doesn’t own the territory of the States United. And “property” that it owns is so limited that Jefferson said he was pushing the Constitution to the limit and probably outside it in buying the Louisiana purchase....that there was no constitutional permission to be buying land.
So, if this man’s claim about 1800’s usage by his own family is a lie, then he’s in the wrong.
If his claim is true, then he should receive a hearing as one who has over time established a right-of-way.
It is possible that many today are signing up for ObamaCare because they’re either having their arms twisted or because they’re absolutely baffled by this chaotic process. Years from now, they might say they were hoodwinked.
Years from now I’d agree with them.
“If his claim is true, then he should receive a hearing as one who has over time established a right-of-way.”
He has HAD a hearing. He had the chance to provide evidence, and the court, in a summary judgment case, would assume it was true and give him every benefit of doubt - but he had none to present. By giving summary judgment to the BLM, the courts were ruling that there was NOTHING presented by the guy that indicated the case had any merit whatsoever.
They didn’t just rule against him. They said his case was so baseless and lacking in law and evidence that it would be a waste of time to present it to a jury.
As for not being in the land owning business - I like national forests and places where I can go hike, hunt or ride horses. The land in Utah and Arizona and Nevada has almost no value. There is a reason why the government couldn’t even GIVE IT AWAY. When it takes a square mile of land to feed one cow, no one wants to own the land.
As it is, we get a lot of use out of the land - grazing, timber sales, recreation. The Constitution does provide for the federal government to own land. The original signers of the Constitution gave huge swathes of land to the government.
This guy is a free-loading nutjob. Conservatives ought to keep their distance.
Grazing? Out of land that needs a square mile to feed one cow?
The BLM does not own the land. The people of the State of Nevada own the land. BLM are hired Fed janitors who are not needed in this case.
The reason this is important is because the citizens of the State do not need gov’t interference in their business. I believe THAT is supported in the Constitution.
Another interesting development is this “First Amendment Area” where citizens are placed inside barriers so they can hold a sign to protest peacefully. The Feds have no right to dictate where and when a tax-payer does that...especially in the middle of nowhere in Nevada!
Tazing and turning police dogs loose on peaceful citizens of a county is not Constitutional. Neither is stealing cattle...even if those animals are on what you consider Gov’t land. It’s inhumane.....see the videos. They ran those cattle to almost death with helicopters. All to save a turtle that’s lived there forever.
The National Park in North Carolina took land from my Swain County family and many others....Great Smoky Mountains.
Good land and perfectly usable...and being used. So they could give city slickers a place to recreate.
Gave them a deal they couldn’t refuse.
“The BLM does not own the land. The people of the State of Nevada own the land.”
No. The state of Nevada has never owned the land. Please get your facts correct. The land went from Mexico to the US. Nevada was created without the state taking control over the federal land. The state does NOT own it and never has.
“Neither is stealing cattle...even if those animals are on what you consider Gov’t land.”
If you have a court order, it is not stealing. The bastard has been grazing illegally for 16+ years. If he had done that on private land, the private landowner would have seized his cattle YEARS ago!
“Grazing? Out of land that needs a square mile to feed one cow?”
Possibly. That is the situation about 1/2 mile from me. The state land - owned by Arizona - is grazed for short periods of time, at a density of 1 steer/mile.
The state of Nevada has never owned the land. Please get your facts correct.
*****
The land was a patent that was satisfied by the Bundy family over a hundred years ago. Ergo, they did own the land at one point. They then paid for grazing rights until the BLM stopped upholding their end of the deal.
As for your support of a “court order” making it okay to kill off cattle I would challenge that in a court of law. When my neighbors cattle break into my land I have the right to hold them as collateral until damages are rectified. I don’t have the right to torture and kill them. Not even the gov’t has that right.
“The land was a patent that was satisfied by the Bundy family over a hundred years ago. Ergo, they did own the land at one point.”
Evidence? The court looked at what Bundy had and what he said while UNDER OATH and concluded he had never owned the land. Folks say a lot of things when not under oath. Their story tends to change when the other side has a chance to bring charges against them if they lie.
Since the new area of grazing was NOT used by Bundy in 1998, it seems pretty obvious that it was NOT his land. In fact, since the court noted his family’s grazing STARTED in 1954, the idea he owned the land from the 1800s is pretty far fetched.
“I don’t have the right to torture and kill them. “
Do you have evidence the BLM is torturing cattle? No, I thought not.
The new area you speak of is what was left after the BLM took his neighbors land. As for “evidence” of cattle mis-treatment watch the Bundy video on youtube. I’ve raised cattle and when helicopters go after them, running them until exhausted, I call that abuse. The calves can’t keep up.
Also watch the other video of the backhoes and equipment brought in by BLM. Form your own opinion. I know I did.
Some of those protestors are Anonymous pros...IMO. Adam Korkesh and his pal Santilli are with Guerilla Media and Alex Jones. Not a good sign, but I stand with the Bundys until I’m shown they are not good people.
That poor cow has to walk over that much land... and who’s watching over them all... you’re pulling my leg.
“The new area you speak of is what was left after the BLM took his neighbors land.”
Really? The BLM took the land away from the neighbor’s? How?
“are now trespassing on a broad swath of additional federal land (the “New Trespass Lands”), including public lands within the Gold Butte area that are administered by the BLM, and National Park System land within the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.”
Are you saying the ranchers were driven out and their land added to the Lake Mead National Recreation Area? Evidence? Any?
Rounding up cattle with helicopters is torture? Is it anything like the torture of mustangs when the BLM rounds them up? Or cruel people like these:
http://senderohelicopters.com/content.asp?contentno=9
Or this guy?
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=187903
Or this one?
“Burris, Helicopter Pilot, says, “This is one of the biggest roundups I believe there is in South Texas…generally put in between 2,500 and 4,000 head on this go and like I said using five to six helicopters to bring em in. It’s as far as I know the biggest roundup on the Texas coast.”
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=538694#.U0YgaVfEpZM
Yep...torture. Right!
It's dated 1865.
Nope. This is next to one of the watering holes:
Nearby:
So what is this supposed to mean. One cow for one day, one year, a “grazing season,” forevermore?
Cows and horses are apples and oranges.
It doesn’t matter what I say. You are a BIG GOV’T defender and I’m a Conservative who wants less gov’t interference.
I’m not your little secretary who is here to prove or disprove every fact. Do your own research. Form your own opinion and get lost.
Apples and oranges. Have a good evening Mr. Rogers.
P.S. I hope you don’t like beef. It’s what’s NOT for dinner in the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.