(Vanity) The core corruption in the Bundy Ranch Story..Who gets the land offset and why?

4-16-14 | Tophat9000

[tophat9000]

Sorry for the vanity post but I had a question and thought regarding the Bundy Ranch issues and really the core of the corruption...

It boils down to the concept of land offset as part of ..The Rules you and I must follow and who gets exception to the rules because their powerful or friends of the powerful. .

We have all seen this..take Obamacare. .push through a draconian law then give exceptions and waver to your friends and strict, to the letter, enforcement to your enemys..same with emigration. .selective enforcement to the letter vs selective non enforcement and out right wavers..all at the wims of who is in charge..isn't this what Holder just claimed as his power. .we see Obama do it all the time..

Law and justice applyed in such a manner is neither..

So back to the point...Bundy Ranch..so for some reason the government / BLM wants cows not grazing out in this scrub brush "public land" even though the Bundy family cows have been doing it for 140 years or so..they say is for the turtles...ok but why this land vs some other land?..the key being the concept of offset

See per my understanding the turtles or whatever just need x acers of land per the courts. It not all Nevada needed..

it just some Nevada needed

It is ...SELETIVE...of what land gets picked and not picked and who gains and who gets hurt...

And then after that first selection. .we have the awaring of offsets

See the court stated x number of acers public land are needed

But the land picked would impact you and you have powerful friends..

So you say..how about we shift or offset you free up the public land I want to use and take the public land that the other guy uses (the other, not our friend and not powerful guy)..

We offset...its a part of classic NIMBY.. (not in my back yard)

In this case...in this turtle land case...NIMBY seem to have happen and offsets seem to have happen...so whos NIMBY won, whos NIMBY lost..Who got offsets who didn't

Because if anybody. ..anybody... got thier NIMBY...got thier offset...shouldn't the guy first in line be the family there from 1880's vs first in line for offset ..friends of a politician...in this case..Harry Reid?

Who got the NIMBY offset and why ....and why doesn't a rancher from the 1880 get the same NIMBY offset from the government. .but instead get guns in the face from that same government

(Sorry for the typo im doing this on my cellphone)

[Brad from Tennessee]

If solar power plants are going to be built each plant requires environmental mitigation—an area of equal acreage sharing similar biodiversity as the proposed plant site, acquired by the power plant developers and dedicated as public land. In wetter regions when a developer wants to fill a swamp he must buy another swamp or create another swamp and deed it to the state or federal government. This is called wetlands mitigation where I live.

[Valpal1]

Part of it is nimby-ism, but part of it is simple geography. Look at a map and see that the Gold Butte area is between the fingers of Lake Mead and already greatly surrounded by locked up park land and wilderness area, so development for other usage would already be highly problematic in complying with ESA and other regulations.

But it’s perfect to designate as offsite mitigation for development elsewhere. And they’ll probably designate it as an offset over and over again, every time they need to mitigate development someplace else. Just pay your mitigation fees to the BLM and get your official certificate of indulgence.

What brought this to a head was Enviral NGOs like the Center for Biological Diversity threatening to sue the BLM to remove the cows.

These outfits like the CBD and the Sierra Club have wanted the ranchers off the range since the 70’s. It’s not a coincidence that this dispute started in the 90’s under a Democratic Administration and blew up again under the next Democratic Administration.

It has all the usual suspects in power politics; cronyism, nepotism, corruption, regulatory capture by environmental NGOs, etc.

This triangulation of corrupt influences has sparked more than one Sagebrush Rebellion. It doesn’t happen in the eastern half of the US because the FedGov holds almost no public lands “in trust for the American people” like it does out west.

When over half your state area is controlled by the FedGov, you see a lot of this corruption and bullying of the locals because it’s so much harder to fight back against the US government than it is to pack a county commission hearing or a city council meeting.

It’s much easier to hold local government to account than it is the FedGov and their sprawling agencies. If this land was state controlled, the local officials would tell the out of state envirals to GFY and there would be no made up conflict between the cows and tortoises.

[Dick Bachert]

The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) -- nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and Indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture). They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The above map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government.

[tophat9000]

But it boil down to who gets screw by this

A fundamental principal of the law is it should be equally applied in both pain and pleasure and not respective of person...the law applies the same to king and commoner. . (Yea right)

And if there is any room for exceptions who would have the longest first right to claim it?..who should be first in line?

However the people at the top of the political food chain made sure the crap rolled down hill towards the people at the the bottom of the political food chain.

And Bundy, if you look at who would have first right of claim of an exception, being there the longest..seem to have gotten the last because he is on the bottom of the political food chain.

And if to emphasize the point that he Bundy is on bottom politically (not legally) when he claim top position based on time on the land..the political top stomp on him to show he is on the political bottom

[tophat9000]

Of the 80% government land in Nevada.

Why is the 1% reserved for turtles, next door to Bundy Ranch, and not next door to Harry Reid and his friends?

Of that total 80% of goverment land..why does it need to be the 1% Bundy uses and CAN NOT BE a different 1%..

It not like Nevada lackes public land or scrub brush desert to move the turtle reservation too...

Then has to be a reason this 1% must be next door to Bundy..

I want to know the reason it has to be that 1% next to Bundy..

Because best bet it a political reason.

And not a reason of justice, fairness or ecology

[Valpal1]

Yep, and that is exactly what causes these Sagebrush Rebellions, because the bottom is always the little local guys, while the politically well connected urban elite hatch schemes to screw us over and make money doing it.

They’re just cleaning out the riff raff to keep their vacation hideaways in pristine nature.

[Valpal1]

I want to know the reason it has to be that 1% next to Bundy.

Geography, Bundy's ancestors just happened to settle along the Virgin river. Much later, the Hoover Dam created Lake Mead by backing up the Virgin and Colorado rivers, which greatly improved the surrounding land as habitat and range land as well as for recreation, etc. Much of it is already designated state and federal park land or wilderness making any development very difficult and problematic.

Since various residential and industrial developments are going to have to pay mitigation fees to improve habitat elsewhere, it only makes sense to spend those mitigation dollars where it would be most useful to Clark County (read Las Vegas). And that would be that range land east of Lake Mead. Keeps the money in the county and easier to skim off of via pork projects that seem to cost a lot yet do very little.

[tophat9000]

So.. (to stir up the left) how is Bundy case any different then an American Indian? ..his ancestors settle in this area

He is one claiming one right on that land..grazing rights....

Both historical and contractually ....

And he is being pushed off by the Federal claiming all and total rights over the land

The thing is the rights of the various party's are intertwined...

The US acquired sovereign over the land from Mexico..

But that is not clear ownership for the US to do anything is pleases..

The US government operates under the concept there are limits sovereign over its citizens

Mr Bundy can not sell his ranch to China and that ranch become a Chinese nuclear base..because the US own sovereign right on Bundys personal land.

But conversely the US could sell its rights all back to Mexico but would it effective Bundys rights to his personal land..or would he just be under a different sovereign?

Land rights are subdivided all the time..water rights, mineral right, even sovereign rights are sold among Nations..

But just because you buy or own one right it doesn't mean you own all the others..

We are talking one small subdivide component of land rights and ownership..grazing rights...

It is not if the US own 99.9% of the rights to the land...its if the own this 00.1% of the land rights..the grazing rights..

Because that what there claiming..total rights ...including grazing rights for federal government turtles ...

If you been grazing your cattle on that land from 1880 on..

You have what appears to be historical grazing rights on that land

And if you say the federal own the grazing rights first ..

You still have a historical claim to the lease of those grazing rights...

If the Fed decide to give his grazing right to a new different rancher and push Bundys cattle off the land for a new large corporate rancher it would still be the same issue.