Posted on 04/10/2014 5:13:12 AM PDT by SavingtheRepublic.com
You may be right about the legal situation, but it seems it’d be better just to send a single cop out there to arrest him to handle it.
I’m likely not as familiar w/the details as you are but consider that just because others pay the fees does not justify the situation either. I’m reading this as an abuse of power by charging unreasonable fees and this particular rancher is the only one protesting it. He did apparently pay them until they bumped them up for some turtle.
Keep in mind that others that couldn’t afford the fees probably went out of business. This is part of the problem of an overly regulated country. The little guy has not chance to get themselves out of poverty.
Word went out from the Oathkeeper’s Stewrt Rhodes this morning.
This is good.
http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/you-say-you-need-some-dead-tortoises-son/
Here is counter local input:
Ill report all I’ve been told on this deal with my meetings with Cliven and others. In 1993 they cut their permit by 50% citing the desert tortoise competing for forage with cattle. Some permitees took a buy out and sold out. Cliven stayed and refused to take their offer. He says it was about sixty thousand dollars. By 1998 they had completely closed down the Gold Butte area to livestock grazing. Still Cliven continued to graze. Even paying the county of Clark in which he resides in, in Nevada. So those that claim he never paid are simply mistaken. Of coarse he didn’t pay the BLM because they were not sending him a grazing bill, they closed the area to grazing. A side note here: look up tortoise euthinization. They have run out of money to keep tending these turtles they are raising. So they plan on killing all these endangered tortoises they have raised. I believe this is much more to do with a dysfunctional government than aRancher. I don’t like the fact that this issue has divided ranchers against ranchers. The sad truth is the government is in a sad state. I believe Cliven could have handled things differently and he will admit to that as well. But ask yourselves, would you sell your lively hood out because of a turtle and some environmental groups pressure on the BLM? I for one would not and when they list this Sage Hen as endangered, I personally believe a lot of us will have to do as Cliven has done and just say enough is enough. I have a love of these ranges, and a love for my cattle, family and my heritage. (Not in that order) I have a family to feed. And I will fight to feed them. Anyway if you have any questions let me know. I’m knee deep in this deal. Especially my wife and her family. On other note.. I hate when people say we run our cattle on these ranges so cheaply. While our fees may seem rather cheap every year, I assure it is very expensive to purchase these grazing rights. Very expensive
Of course it would, in a rational world with a rational government.
How much of Nevada is owned by the Feds?
Except for military bases, there should be NO federal lands.
***Has anyone seen Lon Horiuchi yet?***
Maybe none of the protesters were carrying babies in their arms.
‘Maybe none of the protesters were carrying babies in their arms.’
What’s wrong with me? Of course.
Probably no dogs to kill either.
This guy was freeloading for 25 years. Got caught and now is raising a stink. I worry because as I said people are looking to fight back. We are sick and tied of government overreach and want a cause to support. This ain’t it IMO.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Didn’t the ‘free loading’ start when the Govt declared the land theirs OR -at the very least- broke precedent and started charging.
I thought WE WERE THE GOVERNMENT.
Is this any different than the city coming down YOUR street and declaring ALL the land from the sidewalk to YOUR STOOP, ‘right of way’ for City and or other utilities (technically that ROW) extends a little beyond the sidewalk (in most areas) but the govt doesn’t ‘claim it’ inasmuch as charging you to use it.
They will ‘tell you’ you can or can’t do something on the ‘ROW’ but try to let that patch of grass etc go unmowed or such and the ‘Govt - though they ‘own’ it — will tell you it is your responsibility to mow it’.
I can confirm the militias being there. From several states. Others are watching closely. No camo, leave weapons in vehicles.
I agree with you this time. If this fellow owned the land and the government said he couldn’t use it for whatever reason, then I would be up in arms. But this is not his land, and for that reason alone, I don’t see this as anything other than what it is, a fellow pissed he didn’t get to continue grazing on land that didn’t belong to him.
Now if someone wants to make an issue that the government already owns too much land, that is fine, but it is another issue all together.
86%.
Anyone who thinks that is a “good thing” is an idiot IMO...
569.450. Trespass on cultivated land: No award of damages unless land enclosed by legal fence. No person is entitled to collect damages, and no court in this state may award damages, for any trespass of livestock on cultivated land in this state if the land, at the time of the trespass was not enclosed by a legal fence.
How can the BLM claim damages on unfenced land?
As far as I’m concerned, I don’t care if this man is grazing his cattle for free.
As far as I’m concerned, any exercise of federal force on individuals is WRONG. Their only jurisdiction is dealing with external threats and with unresolvable conflicts between state governments.
Well... He wasn’t. His family has paid for those access Rights for generations.
It’s the additional fee because of the turtle that was the breaking point there.
Correct me if I’m wrong...
Nevada Revised Statutes §§ 569.440-.450 provide that Nevada is an open-range state. The owner or manager of trespassing livestock is liable for damages to another's property only if the property is enclosed by a "legal fence." There is a process for removing 'estray' and 'feral' livestock, but Cliven Bundy's cattle do not meet the definitions for either category of livestock.
However, a federal court applying and interpreting Nevada common and statutory law in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), ruled that Bundy's cattle were trespassing cattle, subject to removal.
(N.R.S. Ch. 568 - Grazing and Ranging - Cooperation with Federal Agencies in Relation to Grazing Lands specifically applies the federal Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. § 315 to Nevada land and requires the payment of grazing fees for use of federal property.
N.R.S. § 568.350 makes it unlawful for any person to lead, drive or in any manner remove any domestic livestock which are owned by another person from the range on which they are permitted to run without the consent of the owner. Again, a federal court ruled in 1998, and federal courts have subsequently ruled at least twice by referencing the 1998 ruling, that Nevada's open range laws do not allow Clive Bundy to graze his cattle on the BLM land.
I can rationalize it this way: Nevada state law and federal law require that Clive Bundy enter into a grazing agreement and pay a federal grazing fee to graze his livestock on federal property. Bundy has not paid his grazing fee for 21 years.
At common law, there must be a remedy for every wrong.
I can see two possible remedies for Bundy's failure to enter into a new grazing agreement and to pay a grazing fee. One, to sue Bundy for the $1 million+ the BLM claims he owes. I doubt the BLM wants to put this issue in the hands of a jury. Two, to remove the cattle as the remedy for a wrong.
You know more than I do.
Like I said, I don’t care IF he wasn’t paying...
And as for the health of the land, well managed grazing animals IMPROVE land quality. That’s been shown again and again.
Agreed. From some things I’ve read over on FB, and elsewhere, the family has made improvements all over this parcel of land over the last couple of generations. Water tanks, ranch roads, etc... All from their own pocket.
Now, because of a turtle... Feds be a stormtroopin’...
All news reports state Bundy said he is willing to pay grazing fees but only to Clark County, not BLM. I've never seen anything from Bundy stating that he has paid grazing fees to Clark County.
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.