Posted on 06/07/2015 10:14:54 AM PDT by redreno
BATTLE MOUNTAIN, Nev. (AP) — Federal land managers say they won't immediately enforce drought-related grazing restrictions in northern Nevada so as to avoid confrontation with ranchers openly defying the order.
Conservationists say it's another example of the government caving in to scofflaw ranchers like Cliven Bundy, who continues to graze his cattle illegally in southern Nevada after the Bureau of Land Management backed down from an armed standoff last year.
Ranchers Dan and Eddyann Filippini have been notified they are violating the closure ordered in 2013 in an area covering more than 150 square miles near Battle Mountain about 200 miles northeast of Reno, Bureau of Land Management spokesman Rudy Evenson said Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at trove.com ...
Would that the feds caved in more often in more places.
“US won’t enforce Nevada grazing restrictions in new dispute”
The BLM is standing down because they have vivid memories of what almost happened the last time.
” The Givernment “.... is disinformation...
In the USA we have THREE distinct GIVERMENTS...
Federal, State and Local... all completely absolutely different..
There IS NO “The Givernment”...
Except to Morons..
Yep.
They are probably doing it because internally they know it just rained off and on for a couple of weeks there and not grazing it allows the invasive, combustible Cheat grass to mature and dry. As far as ecology goes, it’s WAY more destructive to allow that to mature and burn than suffer some low rainfall period grazing...
Bingo we have a winner. The Feds don’t want to look down the barrels of 500 militia AR’s again. It might make the sheep think they could actually win a war.
A good example of what can be done to preserve liberty is STAUNCH, Threatening RESISTANCE. The BLM gets it! They can’t win except in the face of cowards.
It’s about time somebody acknowledges the cheat grass problem, and the fact that we need it be consumed, destroyed, etc.
If the feds own the land in question, did they purchase it under the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment, or under the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Secton 8 of Article I? And I don’t see how Clause 17 would apply in this case.
Also, there’s possible constitutional problems if the feds held onto the land when Nevada became a state.
“...caving in to scofflaw ranchers like Cliven Bundy, who continues to graze his cattle illegally in southern Nevada....”
No bias, just objective reporting by the AP. (Is the sarcasm tag really needed?)
The federal government acquired most if not all of this land by treaty with Mexico, and have owned it ever since.
Nobody has ever been able to show me a single example of a state being given title to all public (federally owned) land within its borders. in every state, AFAIK, the US retained title and up to the Civil War made a very large chunk of its income by selling this land. After the War much of it was made available for homesteading. Even then it remained in federal title until it was homesteaded or otherwise transferred.
In this regard, at least, NV was treated pretty much as every other state was. The reason so much land is still in federal ownership is primarily because nobody wanted to buy it for most of a century.
I have no particular objection to transferring most federal land to state ownership in UT, NV, etc., though I doubt it would work out as well as the activists think. But it is historically inaccurate to say western states were treated differently from other states.
Those who don’t understand why nobody bothered to buy it apparently haven’t spent much time in the desert areas of the West. There are minerals under some of the land, and those specific areas would be worth a lot if sold. Most of the land, nada.
If Bundy actually owned and had to maintain and pay property taxes on the land he refuses to pay fees to graze on, his costs would greatly exceed his income.
BLM grazing fees are generally considerably lower than those on private land, though total costs of using federal land are much closer to par.
I thought even most of his supporters agree what he’d doing is illegal. They just think the law should be changed, or possibly just not enforced.
I have a section over there and I couldn’t sign a grazing lease fast enough (though as open range, cows would be on it eventually.)
You can watch that Cheat grow after early rain, and by late June about all it’s good for is fuel (loses most nutrients with drying).
I also still seem to have quite a bit of the native clump grasses on steeper slopes and higher elevation.
If Bundy actually owned and had to maintain and pay property taxes on
the land he refuses to pay fees to graze on,
****************
I think Bundy only owns somewhere around 160 acres of land. The rest he was
leasing under the grazing arrangement until 1993. At that time he refuse to pay
grazing fees and hasn’t since.
That’s my understanding....
Would you please refute the points that Mr. Pratt makes about statehood as it concerns land in the following video?
Steven Pratt, Bound by Oath to Support THIS Constitution
Nope. Not going to sit thru a 30 minute video.
But if you have a transcript or other text where similar points are made, I’ll be happy to address them.
Or you can simply provide documentation of those states where title to public lands was transferred at statehood.
Do you know what the Resolution of 1780 is?
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.