Posted on 04/16/2014 10:09:55 AM PDT by Duke C.
[snip]“I asked why you didn’t put a lien against the cattle?” Devlin asked the BLM. “They hadn’t thought about that but they are considering it now”
(Excerpt) Read more at benswann.com ...
"There are several steps an owner can take to prevent a neighbor from gaining a legal claim to your property.
1. Grant Permission
One effective way to thwart a possible claim for adverse possession or easement by prescription is to give permission to use a portion of your land. To be safe, put the permission in writing and obtain your neighbor’s signature as an acknowledgement.
Do they now become slaves to the political whims of the ruling dictatorship, just because their business is on public land?
-PJ
I sincerely need to do more myself. We recently had studied trusts in general in a local legal forum at a friends place and what I learned there was literally astounding. He’s actually amassed a significant law library from thrift and Goodwill shops near universities.
It is amazing what is utilized by people in the know and the more wealthy to secure their substance. One of the odd facts I found out was that their are a certain number of extremely wealthy (true “elites”) who actually maintain trust structures for their wealth with the explicit intent of reincarnating into their family lineage and having it available.
No, Bundy owns the water rights on that land. In order for him to retain those rights, He has to USE them. That is factored (by the state of Nevada) by 'x' amount of cattle being upon the land.
In order to comply with Fed BLM mandated grazing fees, he would have to limit his cattle to less cattle than required to keep the rights to the water. Ergo, he could not sign the grazing fees (promising compliance therewith) without losing the water rights. Without water rights, there are no cattle, and he is out of business...
well,DannyTN, I’m no lawyer, I’m just someone who likes to throw questions up against the wall and see what sticks, but it seems to me the BLM withdrew permission when they sold the grazing rights to Nevada in 1996. And Nevada refused to grant permission when they retired the grazing rights in 1998.
Bundy continued to occupy without permission (”hostile” posssession in plain sight) from 1998 to present. That’s more than 10 years without it being legally contested. I think he’s golden on claiming owership of the entire range his cows are occupying. But again, I’m not a lawyer.
I have read over 100 articles about the Bundy situation and I haven’t seen water rights mentioned a single time. Some reporter needs to cure that situation and press how the issue of water rights is so integral to this situation.
I haven’t seen water rights much discussed - aside from in the context of the destroyed troughs and water towers - but I’ve seen it mentioned in quite a few articles during the siege.
“Part of the issue is whether those rights, which can be inherited and sold separate from the land itself, can be unilaterally taken back or altered - such as the BLM altering the terms to what amounted to one cow/calf pair per 1.3 square miles of range.”
It is normal for grazing rights on federal land to stipulate that the feds can change the numbers at any time, and that any improvements the rancher makes become property of the US government. They cannot be arbitrary in changing the numbers, but that is a low standard for the BLM to meet. Under federal law, if the land has an “endangered species” on it, then that becomes a big factor in managing the land - IAW the rules the US Congress has set up.
I would love to see the Endangered Species act revoked, but I’m not going to hold my breath while waiting...
From the article:
“In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the “owner” of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993 but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land.”
Since the BLM has been fighting him in court since the mid-90s, his refusal to obey a court order in 1998 does not give him the right to own the land. There is a reason the court ruled against him in 2013.
Before Cliven Bundy became a household name there was Wally Klump, and Kit Laney that I know of (and more that I don’t know much about- Hage and others) that ended up in a showdown with the government over grazing rights. I know Kit Laney and the government (Forest Service not BLM) used what was at the time a huge show of force when they went to take his and Sherry’s cattle. Kit and Sherry had nothing in their “family history” that would lead one to believe such force would be necessary, yet it was used against them anyway. In these cases the government gets very over bearing. In fact both Wally Klump and Kit Laney were goaded into actions that ended up with them arrested and I think that is what the first confrontation between BLM and Bundy’s was designed to do- get them to do something they could be arrested for, I imagine they wanted Cliven behind bars for the roundup and longer if possible. I have no idea what family history you are talking about, but really it doesn’t seem to matter to the feds. If they are taking your cattle you better expect them to act like they are going to war no matter who you are.
The difference I see with this man is the internet allowed the story to get out about how the government was acting to the people before the government got very far. The actions of the government were videoed, photographed and recorded and spread all over. Before the internet it would have all been over before anyone even knew, if they ever found out.
This type of action against ranchers is not new, it is just that the government could hide it before and couldn’t get it “done in the dark” this time.
Exactly. It is kind of along the lines of officially recognizing and categorizing something as the way it has been as long as anyone can remember anyhow.
I guess I should have quantified. Thank God for FR, and e-media because otherwise, I’d know zip about this whole thing, like most of America relying on the alphabet media. It wasn’t until I saw a post here the other day that I drew the connect between water rights and BLM manipulating numbers of cows allowed to graze, so as to cause a rancher to lose those water rights. It seems such a huge and farreaching story.
Because grazing rights do not require CLEAR title.
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.