Posted on 04/07/2014 2:00:31 PM PDT by RicocheT
Federal authorities moved last week to restrict access to a huge swath of federal land in northeast Clark County as they prepare to round up what they are calling “trespass cattle” in the region.
The Bureau of Land Management’s temporary closure of roughly 288,000 acres took effect on Thursday, March 27. The restricted land takes in all of the Mormon Mesa south of I-15 and includes everything on the eastern bench of the lower Moapa Valley, directly east of Logandale and Overton.
(Excerpt) Read more at mvprogress.com ...
The BLM was created by combining several earlier agencies.
First, the law requires that his possession be 'hostile.' If his cattle were there with the consent of the BLM or State of Nevada (which became a state in 1864, predating his family's use of the land), then the family's use of the land was never "hostile."
Second, Nevada law requires 'color of title,' which means the family must have a legal document which purports to convey title of the land to the family.
Third, Nevada Revised Statutes 11.150 requires that "the party or persons [claiming title], their predecessors and grantors have paid all taxes, state, county and municipal, which may have been levied and assessed against the land for the period mentioned, or have tendered payment thereof."
The family has always been using somebody else's property and title has never reverted to the family under Nevada law.
>> “ The BLM, or rather the various agencies it is descended from, go back to before the Constitution” <<
.
That is gibberish!
Do you have the slightest idea when the US gained title to Nevada, and the conditions under which it did so?
All private land claims take precedence in these purchases, so the BLM or it’s predecessor have the weakest of all claims to any particular parcel.
These sons of bitches need to fear going to work.
I ran into a real snotty BLM person working along a transmission line ROW. A construction crew replaced a damaged structure and used a bulldozer and cleaned the old construction trail to the structure a few days before I was there. The BLM guy rolls up in a SUV jumps out screaming at me that I needed to restore the environment. The lines were owned by the department of energy.
If the rancher family has been there since 1877 then the BLM is out of line.
Sounds like you were one of the few to actually read it all. The guy paid fees for years and then stopped, because the land was previously “Mormon-owned land”, so as a Mormon, he decided he should no longer need to pay.
I, for one, do not want any rancher or farmer using public lands to raise livestock or grow crops. Get the hell off and use your own land. If ya can’t find any, downsize accordingly. These guys typically pay pennies on the dollar, which is bull crap.
“Just ‘zactly what tax slave group is going to pay off the Debt?”
Yeh I’m with you but I think these loons are so insane they either don’t dwell on that or they just don’t care. Its all about not disturbing Mother Earth.
Whats sane about 100 BLM people and snipers with assault weapons surrounding a cattle rancher and his family and stealing his cattle in plain sight?
WACO wannabes?
At least it's not the Dept. of Education SWAT team.
Yea, free Bammy burgers coming to a Mickey’s near you.
There ya go. LOL!
The State of Nevada owned the land before the Bundy family began using the land.
The Bundy family never met the requirements of color of title, hostile possession, or payment of taxes to gain title to the land, and grazed cattle there with permission from the state, and later, the BLM. Nevada law specifically provides that making improves to land does not confer ownership.
The Bundy family has never contested ownership of the land. He admits that. In fact, they've confirmed ownership by another party by entering into contracts to use the land for grazing cattle and by paying a fee to do so.
Twenty years ago, Bundy didn't like the terms of the new contract presented to him, so he refused to sign it and quit paying grazing fees. He's been ordered to pay grazing fees multiple times over the last twenty years. He's ignored those orders. The last order gave him 45 days to remove his cattle or else they would be treated as trespassing cattle. He never attempted to remove his cattle.
Uhh, yes I do.
Nevada, or at least the vast majority of it, was ceded by Mexico in the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo of 1848, which closed out the Mexican War.
Land grants from the period of Spanish and Mexican control were supposed to be honored, but weren't always.
Federal title to unclaimed land did not originate with the BLM. That agency was established to control land already in federal possession and not previously assigned to another agency such as the National Park or National Forest services.
Possibly, though just because a family has lived in an area for a long time, it does not automatically acquire title to several hundred thousand acres of land.
There are no doubt at least several families with long time residence in the area. Which of them therefore owns the land? Why should any of them get title, since Indians were living in the area long before their ancestors showed up?
A private person using public land for his private profit without authorization is just as wrong as doing the same on private property.
I'm perfectly willing to consider evidence that this guy owns the land, but AFAIK there isn't any such evidence.
The institution of fees on those lands was never lawful, it was an administrative action, instituted to drive the cattle off of the land. The same goes for grazing permits.
If anyone had a private claim to the land, the Fed Gov has no rights to it. That is a solid premise WRT lands from Spanish or Mexican control. It was a part of the treaty.
Thus Bundy probably does have a legitimate claim by prescription over the previous occupant.
None of the BLM’s actions on grazing lands are legitimate.
.
>> “Possibly, though just because a family has lived in an area for a long time, it does not automatically acquire title to several hundred thousand acres of land.” <<
You simply do not understand the treaty. The only lands that the Fed Gov can lay claim to were the historically unused lands.
The State of Nevada held title to the land before the Bundy family began to use it in the same way cattle ranchers did in any ‘open range’ story.
Cattle ranchers’ desire to use land they didn’t own to feed their cattle is a part of western history and gave us the Lincoln County War, the Pleasant Valley War, the Mason County War, and the Johnson County Range War, among others. Even the Robert Duval/Kevin Costner movie, Open Range, deals with this issue.
The State of Nevada owned the land the Bundy family has used before the Bundy family ever used it. The State of Nevada conveyed the land to the federal government.
The Bundy family never gained title to the land by prescription.
First, their use of the land would have had to be ‘hostile,’ meaning use without the permission of the lawful landowner. There’s no indication that was ever the case.
Second, Nevada requires color of title to gain title to land by prescription. The Bundy family has never claimed color of title. In fact, Bundy concedes that the BLM holds title to the land.
Third, Nevada requires that a party claiming title to land by prescription have paid all taxes on the land due by himself and ALL previous occupants.
The Bundys want to bring back the days of old west cattle barons who ignore the laws of private ownership of land.
The lawful owner of the land, the State of Nevada, transferred ownership of the land to the federal government. The federal government didn’t just claim ownership.
The lawful owner of the land, the State of Nevada, transferred ownership of the land to the federal government. The federal government didn’t just claim ownership.
The treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo transferred sovereignty over Nevada to the USA, with unoccupied or ungranted land entering US ownership.
This dude’s family (supposedly) moved into the area in 1877. On what basis can he claim they owned the land prior to 1848?
Do you know how utterly desolate this area was in 1848? There were no cattlemen in the area, certainly not Anglo cattlemen, for the entirely logical reason there was absolutely no market and no way to get herds to market. Even in CA, which had a long coastline, cattle were raised almost entirely for hides and tallow. The rest was left for scavengers.
Cattlemen didn’t come in till after the Civil War, as his family did in 1877.
What your claim boils down to is that an entity owns worthless land. It allows other parties to use that land, initially without charge and then for fees. When the parties using the land don’t like the fees requested, they insist they have a right to keep using the land as they choose without charge, or possibly even that they have somehow acquired title.
Why should the principle be any different depending on whether the entity owning the land is a private individual, a corporation or the government?
If he grazed cattle on anybody’s else’s land, they’d charge grazing fees. Why should he be exempt?
BTW, for most of the time his family has lived in the area, they probably had an option to buy this land, at a very low cost. They chose not to.
I ran into a reverse situation a few years back in southern UT while backpacking. A rancher insisted I was on his ranch, though I knew perfectly well it was public (BLM) land. He apparently thought because he ran cattle on public land it had become his private property. Had quite the confrontation.
Checked with the county when I got back to civilization. Nearest patch of private property from where I ran into him was about 10 miles. (As the crow flies. By trail/road about 40.)
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.