Posted on 04/14/2014 4:29:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Warning follows threat from Harry Reid that grazing dispute 'not over'
The chief of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association says his sources inside the federal government are warning that Washington’s weekend retreat in a dispute over grazing land in Nevada was just to distract and defuse – because a raid on the family’s ranch still is being strategized.
And there probably would be violence involved, said Richard Mack, the former sheriff of Grisham County, Ariz.
“I don’t think it would be possible” to launch a raid without violence, he told WND Monday. “I don’t the Bundys would lie down and be taken.”
He cited the threat from Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that the confrontation was far from over, despite the weekend’s retreat by armed gunmen working for federal agencies.
Reid on Monday told KRNV-TV in Reno. “It’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Not to be a stickler for details, but there wasn’t any BLM when the family started ranching out there. It hadn’t been invented yet.
I agree that the state should be managing the lands. No arguments here, but what if he decided not to pay the state? I know he tried, but he knew they would not accept it.
Like I said above - if he had taken the fees and given them to charity he would have been on higher ground with me. He didn’t do that.
We may arrive at a time where tax protests is the norm, but we are not there yet.
As to why the public owns so much land out West - that’s the way it worked out and the consensus to change that has never existed. I doubt it will ever happen unfortunately. It could be an economic engine for the nation if much of the land was open to development, but truthfully most of the states out West would bow to the same environmentalists Uncle Sam does. I know mine would.
Now I understand why you’ve had your bell rung so hard here...
You ought to be checking into biggov.com where you’ll be among like minded people.
this article says “Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan purchased and then retired grazing leases to protect the endangered tortoise.” Is that a Clark County agency?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3144467/posts
"Then in 1998, the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act was passed by Congress. The Act legalized public land sales in Clark County, lands which included some of those same rancher’s adjudicated grazing allotments. The Clark County ranchers were never compensated for their vested water rights, forage rights, range improvements, easements and rights of ways. They were simply eradicated by the heavy hand of BLM regulations. Lands that were formerly deemed to be tortoise habitat were sold to developers armed with excavators and paving equipment."
"To date, a total of 69,120 acres of mostly ranch lands have been acquired—in a state which is already 87 percent government controlled. The BLM and U.S. Forest Service pursued policies burdening grazing permits with so many conditions, they forced many ranchers to become “willing sellers” of their devalued ranches and prime targets for land acquisition."
"Since 1982 Nevada has lost over one-third of its cattle production, down from 700,000 to 450,000. Sheep production, which peaked at 3 million in the 1920’s, is now down to a mere 70,000. These losses are largely due to the cuts the BLM and USFS have imposed on ranchers through grazing permits. Computing both direct and indirect economic impacts, Nevada has lost well over one billion dollars in economic activity as a result."
"Rather than following the land management laws of Congress which specifically protect rancher’s preexisting property interests in vested water rights, forage rights, easements, rights of ways and range improvements, the agencies promote policies that eliminate livestock . By extension, their policies encourage massive rangeland fires and the infestation of weeds and cheat grass—something previously not witnessed in Nevada."
"Every land law passed by Congress has provisions protecting preexisting rights. For example, Congress was very clear in the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act when it stated: “Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other land use right or authorization existing on the date of approval of this Act...” (43 U.S.C. 1701 notes).
"In the 1991 Fifth Amendment takings case of Hage v. U.S. filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and in U.S. v. Hage, the 2007 forage right case filed in Nevada Federal District Court, as well as the Southern Monitor Valley Water Adjudication, the primary evidence before the court was an exhaustive chain of title documenting the preexisting use of and rights to the range and vested waters."
"The rancher’s preexisting property rights are the only real line of defense to stop the continued abuse of powers."
You're shooting your credibility in the @ss.
That's the way it worked out??????????
What are you doing here?????????
So when someone burns down your house and murders your family, do you say "that's the way it worked out"?
"President Clinton is withdrawing over 60 million acres of federal and almost as much private land into minimum-use regulation categories to fulfill unratified UN treaties and agreements that would eventually make one-half of America off-limits to human beings".
Finally! After reading all of the raving criticisms of 1010RD, including allusions of him being a “troll”, you’ve jumped in and offered a reasoned response to his detractors! I’ll read on to see how they respond to your wise words and clear-headed thinking. I must say I have low expectations at this point.
And it was once controlled by the Paiutes.
And, before them, another tribe.
So...what?
And after they charge him for it, they will tell him he has to dance on the top of a small pin for one hour/day. Then they will tell him he has to do something else, and then something else. Until they bully him out of the land and grazing.
This man has no doubt been paying huge legal fees to defend what is his by law already.
Bundy is no kook, he is instead, an American hero. When you have fought the abusive tactics of the feds for over 20 years get back to me. Until then you don't deserve to stand in his shadow.
Begin with my post at 386.
Then get back to us.
Does he mean Barky or Eric (the with-)Holder? How about Lois the (non-) Lerner? Janet Reno for Waco? Anyone for Ruby Ridge?
Or is he instead promising that anyone who defies The Won or his minions will be hounded to the ends of the planet for defying the Elite Liberal Saviours (like him)?
Don’t forget burning most everything in the Shenandoah Valley they couldn’t eat, steal, or haul away.
I believe there is MUCH MORE to this uproar over the FEES!! There were
52 other ranchers in the area that are NO LONGER there!!! Ranchers are
a VERY strong bunch WHY would 52 of his neighboring ranchers abandon
their ranches!!!
I’ve seen what mobs of people can do when they believe superior numbers indicate they are in the right. I’ll stand with 1010RD rather than a mob.
The response about Mexico was to my question.
Just hang back and avoid the crowds. In fact get out of the way of the rest of us who are willing to stand up and do the right thing. That's probably your best and more helpful action.
There are probably a dozen or so on this site.
They're not hard to miss and the Bundy event has really exposed them.
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.