Posted on 04/10/2014 11:05:03 AM PDT by Lazamataz
Read more on this story here. The Bureau of Land Management has been taking Cliven Bundy’s cattle, claiming that he is improperly grazing them on federal land. Yet Bundy and his family have been grazing them on the same land since the 1880s, long before the creation of the Bureau of Land Management came into existence. Bundy’s son was thrown to the ground and arrested when he stood on a public road to take pictures of what the government was doing.
As the video above shows, the tension got even greater after the federal agents showed up with backhoes and clashed with protesters questioning the action. Agents tased one man repeatedly, allegedly hit people with slow moving vehicles and at least one woman was thrown or knocked to the ground at around :30.
Must be russian.
Basic Math.
The BLM's Claim that the legal means for them to relieve him of his grazing rights occurred in 1993. The Grandfather purchased those Rights as per the Grand Daughter in 1882.
1993 minus 1882 is 111 Years.
correction 1887 so it would be 106 years
“I’m pretty sure that in 1998 the government stopped asking for rent”
Prove it.
“No. The BLM went to court in 1998 and sought a judgment that the contract was terminated because Bundy had failed to pay grazing fees for five years.”
So there is a good chance Bundys wouldn’t be where they are now if they had continued to pay the grazing fees?
Are there other ranchers in this area?
Had you said that originally, I would have agreed with you. You didn’t.
You said 20 years of occupation without paying rent gave someone the right to lay legal claim to it.
That’s when I played the ‘color of title’ trump card.
If by ‘laying legal claim,’ you mean paying the filing fee for a complaint, you are correct, but you don’t need a single day of occupation.
If by ‘laying legal claim,’ you mean having a legitimate legal claim because of ‘20 years of occupation,’ I’m playing the second ‘color of title’ trump card.
These police officers must be so proud of themselves....
Willing to murder people for the democrat party.
First, the BLM first sought a legal means of relieving Cliven Bundy of his grazing rights in 1998, not 1993.
Second, you and I calculate differently. I would say that, as a minimum, the federal government asserted its rights to the land when it required a contract and grazing fees in 1934, under the federal Taylor Grazing Act. I would say the Bundy’s were aware of that at least as early as 1934, when the Bundy’s first entered into a grazing contract and began to pay grazing fees to the federal government. As to the BLM in particular, I would say the BLM first asserted its claim to the property in question in 1946, when the Grazing Service (which held the leases under the Taylor Grazing Act) was merged with the General Land Office to form the BLM.
Under my most generous interpretation, the period from 1882 to 1946 does not equal ‘over 100 years.” As I said, we calculate differently.
The court records say 1953 was the beginning. But then, when one is in court, one needs to have EVIDENCE. It seems Bundy has none of prior payments.
The short answer is not exactly.
The long answer: First, in 1993 the BLM made changes to the grazing contract for the Bunkerville allotment that limited the amount of cattle Cliven Bundy could run on the allotment on the grounds that the cattle would affect a species the Fish & Wildlife Service declared an Endangered Species, the desert tortoise. I still do not know definitely whether than change was made at the end of a grazing contract's ten-year term, or during the middle of a term. I should know, but I haven't seen that fact anywhere.
The Bundys wouldn't be where they are now because of the cattle limitation in the new contract, and that had nothing to do with non-payment of grazing fees.
Second, in 1998, the BLM declared the Bunkerville allotment "no-graze" because of the desert tortoises. That had nothing to do with non-payment of grazing fees, but would affect where the Bundys are now, because Bundy continue to graze his cattle on the Bunkerville allotment.
Bundy does not have a grazing contract for the additional BLM and National Park Service property where he is now grazing cattle, nor does he pay grazing fees. However, by grazing his cattle on that additional land, he may have decreased his cattle run on the Bunkerville allotment to the post-1993, pre-1998 limitation on the amount of grazing cattle.
It's true that Cliven Bundy is not paying grazing fees on any of the federal property where he is grazing cattle, but it's also true that, even if he paid grazing fees, he wouldn't be allowed to graze any cattle on the Bunkerville allotment.
Clear as mud, eh?
I was wrong. The short answer is “no.”
Don’t move the goal posts, prove your statement: “I’m pretty sure that in 1998 the government stopped asking for rent”
Rather than an evidentiary issue, this is far more about yet another government agency getting way too big, too authoritarian, and too aggressive. The BLM of course wins on rules and regs... they get to write them and change them at their whim. The issue here is whether individuals will finally start taking a stand against out-of-control hyper-government. This may be one of the first steps. Prayers all around for smaller government, with as little harm as possible... but government of every stripe do not give up power without a struggle... and judging by the number of firearms the BLM brought for the cow-collecting, they are apparently itching for blood.
Smash every single turtle in that state until they leave.
So is it the BLM’s and all the other eco-fascists’ contention that cows are squashing the tortoises?
I know a dirty little secret about the tortoises...
Ravens kill and eat more tortoises than all other means combined...
Just sayin’
I’m not moving the goal posts. I’m trying to understand your viewpoint. I could be wrong, but that’s what I read in several articles.
I’m trying to understand how reasonable you are before I waste any of my time.
"The dispute between Bundy and the federal government dates to 1993, when land managers cited concern for the federally protected tortoise and capped his herd at 150 animals on a 250-square-mile rangeland allotment."
There is is in a nutshell. They changed the rules and still demanded payment.
It was never about rent. It was about the greenies trying to run him off of the land. Why is it acceptable for 150 Cows to stomp on tortoises but not 151 or 240 or 500 or 1000?
The Gub'ment didn't revoke his rights in 1993 they instead just changed the rules to make his approved usage of the land worthless to him.
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.
