Posted on 04/10/2014 11:32:07 AM PDT by xzins
This may escalate to violence. I always thought the spark would be over something trivial and stupid. The government is acting stupid over something trivial - unless on is named Bundy. Losing a way of life enjoyed by generations is not trivial.
She admits he no longer is paying the grazing fees, and therefore no longer has the rights to graze. He has been stealing from the owners for twenty years. No that doesn’t mean he should die, but he doesn’t have the law on his side.
[Now you are getting down to the nitty gritty. Reid made his millions off from getting BLM lands turned over to be developed around Vegas. Then, he got kick backs for each lot sold.
AND THAT my friend, is a fact.]
It is many levels worse. My keg of Reid corruption is so big it overflows. http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php
Thank you for that article. It’s in my reading queue.
Slow poke. I once drove from DFW to Cincy in 11 hours. ;p
I predict a big decline in tin foil sales.
“When he stopped paying grazing fees, the federal government sold his grazing rights to the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.”
Given that the grazing rights far predated BLM’s creation, the “range fee” would not be a grazing fee - indeed the justification was to pay for range advice from Big Gubment.
As Jefferson said, “Were we to be told by Washington when to sow and when to reap we should soon want for bread.”
Same for beef.
The question seems to hinge on the sale of the range rights.
Whatever.
In any case, there seems no way for America to avoid the coming war between Libturd and Conservative, producer and taker, private citizen and Gubment trough feeders.
Too bad, as I am a bit old for such needless 4th Gen warfare.
She must be really mad...hence the speaking in all “bold.”
In what manner do you think the questionable legality of the Mexican War affects the enforceability of the Treaty?
Let me understand your logic, so the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave all this land to US Government and anyone on the land can be removed?
The U.S. paid $15 million for the land acquired under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. Nevada disclaimed all rights and title to the land when it became a state in 1864 under the provisions of the Nevada Statehood Act. When Congress admitted Texas into the Union, it allowed the state to retain ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders. I haven't yet researched the provisions of California's admission to statehood.
With that said, there is a valid argument that Nevada's disclaim was unconstitutional under the Equal Footing Doctrine. See the details here.
The problem with that logic is that the federal government purchased the land from Mexico 16 years before Nevada became a state. When Nevada did become a state, it disclaimed all right and title to the land.
Because 21 years of being in court with this guy who isn't paying rent is long enough. This has been in the courts since 1993.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/04/10/rancher-nevada-public-lands/7540911/
And before 1993, in 1986, President Reagan set the fee schedule for grazing on federal land with an executive order. It has been followed since then, and hasn't been raised a single cent per head of cattle.
It has been $1.35 per head per month since 1986. http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/commentary/2014-public-land-grazing-fee-the-same-as-2013-and-2012-and-2011.html
Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act concerns grazing permits issued on public lands within the grazing districts established under the Act. It gave leasing preference to landowners and homesteaders in or adjacent to the grazing district lands. The permittees are required to pay a fee, and the permit cannot exceed ten years but is renewable. Further, under extraordinary conditions, the permits can be revoked (such as severe drought)
I agree this is not trivial for the Bundy family.
As an owner of family land going back to the 1800s too, I understand some of the Nevada mess although very different, and I have had my own battles...so far so good. I don’t raise cattle but there is a special ^*&%^$&^% (best left unsaid) that complicates things. I’m not in the West. Let’s just say taxes are being paid on unusable land.
I’m reminded of the firefighters who weren’t allowed to use a backhoe to save thousands of acres of land during a forest fire, to dig a ditch to prevent fire from spreading and destroying so many trees...maybe 15 years ago. All over a bug on a creek bank, it was WA or CA, I think.
Common sense...a thing of the past. Oy vey, it’s always something when control freaks get involved.
I have heard on a talkradio show that the fed government bought that land because of an endangered tortose animal? Just wondering.
Well said by this brave girl.
Misuse of power, much like the misuse of taxpayer dollars for fancy trips, caviar, and lobster dinners...enough to feed a small country.
I believe the dems think they are entitled to one big continuous party jetting around the world! The fees here are to cover admissions wherever they go, I guess. Those signs do make one upset at the abuse of power, what lands were supposed to be available to the public.
Then all the land from New England to the west coast including Alaska is the same.
Again; Article one “1” Section eight “8” the 17th enumerated power.
Then comes the “tenth” if it is not under the e-n-u-m-e-r-a-t-e-d Powers.
Question to you. Then you are for the rules and regs the EPA has put out which pertains to pools, ponds and creeks?
So if there is, even a seasonal pond, pool or creek on your land it belongs to the federal government. Right? After all, those polls, ponds and creeks were there before your state was created right?
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.