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.
They are BLM. The trucks all say Ranger and the shoulder insignia is the BLM inverted triangle.
They ARE REVOKING PERMITS due to the TURTLE AND EPA!!!! The
cows and turtles have been getting along just fine for some 20+ years
now and this rancher has maintained the land ALL of this time!!!
You beware. The feds overplay their hands here by being overly heavy-handed by using violence, you can expect these regulations will go away in the future. Congress who has secede their responsibility to the Executive branch and an irresponsible and lawless Obama administration, will get much public pressure to rein in BS regulations.
“They” did not revoke a permit, Bundys stopped paying rent. If Bundys had continued to pay rent we would not be having this conversation. Many other ranchers pay rent and are not being evicted from the land they are paying rent to use.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Good. I don’t agree with heavy handed Fedgov. It takes two to tango and we wouldn’t be having this conversation if Bundys had continued to pay rent to use land they don’t own. They played a part in escalating this just as much as the fedgov.
Escalation is easy, de-escalation is an art.
Wrong they were NOT Paying Rent. They were paying a fee to BLM for help in managing the land.
Their Grazing Rights predates the BLM's claim by over a 100 years.
I rent some land I own for grazing, it’s entered on my tax forms as rent.
Does anyone have a copy of Bundy’s grazing rights document?
Not all of the grazing fees go into the general till.
Some goes to the Nevada Taylor Grazing Act Range Improvement Fund, from which the various Nevada Grazing Board of District Nos. allocate funds.
Cliven Bundy started grazing in 1953 and paid a grazing fee for 45 years.
The Bundy family entered into a grazing contract and began paying grazing fees for the Bunkerville allotment in 1934, when the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 first required a grazing contract and grazing fees to graze livestock on federal land.
So the contract “expired” when they stopped paying in 1993?
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.
Ahh no. And Grazing fees is a misnomer.
But I can tell you this IF someone DOESN'T Pay Rent for 20 years but still occupies the land they can lay legal claim to it.
And the government knows this. But any first year law student will tell you if this was just a matter of non-payment of "RENT" then the government would've settled this long ago.
Use your common sense. There is no way the government would allow this to continue for 20 years if it was a matter of non-payment of rent.
It's waaay more complicated than that.
Where did you get that number?
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3143026/posts
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3143026/posts
No. Just plain no.
As "any first year law student will tell you", there are "color of title" states.
I’ve seen her statement and I’m intrigued by it.
I’m certain she’s sincere. I’d like to know who sold permanent grazing rights to her great grandpa in 1887, and if there is a conveyance document, filed or unfiled.
I’d like to know about the conveyance document particularly, because Nevada is primarily a color of title state.
How does that statement give you the “over 100 years” number?
Color of title “May” be a requirement in an Adverse Possession case but, as in all Legal cases it is not a hard fast rule. Especially since you are talking about an unbroken chain of possession dating back to the late 1800’s...
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.