Skip to comments.
Feds confiscate rancher's cattle
WND ^
| March 11, 2004
| Henry Lamb
Posted on 03/12/2004 10:28:47 PM PST by farmfriend
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
To: abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
2
posted on
03/12/2004 10:29:16 PM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: farmfriend
Caution: Now Entering Public Lands.. Not intended for use by the Public. :-\
3
posted on
03/12/2004 10:32:39 PM PST
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi Mac ... Support Our Troops! ... Thrash the demRats in November!!! ... Beat BoXer!!!)
To: farmfriend
Government should not own land they aren't using for a Constitutional purpose.
4
posted on
03/12/2004 10:34:23 PM PST
by
GeronL
(http://www.ArmorforCongress.com......................Send a Freeper to Congress!)
To: farmfriend
"On the way home, he was followed by law-enforcement officers, and once home, he was issued a citation for traveling on federal land without a permit." Just what permit do you need to travel on federal land? Under the provisions of ANILCA, the Forest Service MUST grant passage to and from your own land in the National Forest.
However, I don't understand why the rancher thinks he has rights to anything beyond his own 100 acres. Did he have some kind of special use permit?
I am very interested in this. My husband and I own a ranch in the mountains of Southern California, and we are surrounded on all sides by USFS lands.
5
posted on
03/12/2004 10:42:35 PM PST
by
passionfruit
(passionate about my politics, and from the land of fruits and nuts)
To: NormsRevenge
His ancestors have been living there since the 1880s and have been unable to purchase more than 100 acres?
6
posted on
03/12/2004 11:43:44 PM PST
by
glorgau
To: glorgau
I wonder if he didn't least the additional land, I don't know but I think the Gov can do just about anything they decide they want to. We are having a lot of trouble in Nevada, with the Government removing cattle. Well lots of people wanted bigger Government.
To: farmfriend
The patrol captain denied that this event occurred. "It was not in the report," he said.Because, as we all know, every single event that happens must go into the report! If it isn't in the report, then it didn't happen!
To: judgeandjury
Correct!
9
posted on
03/13/2004 12:32:32 AM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: glorgau
Past FR article:
Laney"The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000...""Laney's ancestors began the "Laney Cattle Company" there in 1883 when the area was still a territory."
10
posted on
03/13/2004 12:33:26 AM PST
by
endthematrix
(To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
To: passionfruit
"However, I don't understand why the rancher thinks he has rights to anything beyond his own 100 acres. Did he have some kind of special use permit?"The crux of his argument is that he had "ownership" (of water rights)prior to the issuance of permits.
11
posted on
03/13/2004 12:36:13 AM PST
by
endthematrix
(To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
To: farmfriend
Henry Lamb BUMP!
To: NormsRevenge
Diamond Bar fined $46,000 for unlawful grazing
SILVER CITY, N.M. (AP) - The Diamond Bar ranch, ordered to remove its cattle from the Gila National Forest, owes more than $46,000 in fees for unauthorized grazing, and the cost is rising, says the U.S. Forest Service.
Now the Forest Service is suggesting that Diamond Bar ranchers Kit and Sherry Laney be required to remove all livestock - about 950 head, Kit Laney said - by Feb. 15.
The Forest Service calculates that the ranch is running 1,042 head of cattle and horses on the two grazing allotments, more than 145,000 acres in the Gila and Aldo Leopold wilderness.
U.S. District Judge Howard Bratton issued an injunction in December against the Laneys, ruling they were trespassing on federal land.
The Forest Service had limited the Laneys to grazing 300 cattle, but they've been grazing more than 800, saying any less would ruin them financially.
Laney said Bratton's decision would force him out of business, but his attorney, Larry Patton of Luna, N.M., vowed to appeal.
The government had 20 days to list damages and fees the Laneys owe. The bill totaled $46,277 as of Nov. 30, and the Forest Service has computed the charge at $142 a day since Dec. 1.
The bill also includes $4,388, the cost of storing plants that the Forest Service had hoped to plant along damaged riversides. The agency said the delay was caused by the presence of cattle that would have destroyed the plants. The Laneys have not filed their response.
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/011497/diamond.htm
13
posted on
03/13/2004 12:42:32 AM PST
by
endthematrix
(To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
To: endthematrix
After readin the article (skimming), I think the problem is he moved his cattle on a forest service road to his own property.
14
posted on
03/13/2004 12:44:49 AM PST
by
Jet Jaguar
(Who would the terrorists vote for?)
To: alaska-sgt
Jay walking?
15
posted on
03/13/2004 12:48:26 AM PST
by
endthematrix
(To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
To: farmfriend
bang
To: endthematrix
A permit for what?" Dale asked.
Dale was told the road and the entire Diamond Bar Ranch had been closed by a Feb. 29 order from the Forest Service, and that he needed a permit to be on it.
Dale didn't have a permit. He had never needed a permit to move stock on a public road through his family's ranch. He told Albert to keep moving the horses.
It's not jay walking if it your land with an easement for the feds.
17
posted on
03/13/2004 12:53:08 AM PST
by
Jet Jaguar
(Who would the terrorists vote for?)
To: alaska-sgt
I know it's not jay walking per say. Historically he had RIGHTS. Laney knew
legaly his time was up in
DIAMOND BAR CATTLE COMPANY V. U.S.. Re: "Although the Forest Service notified the companies several times of upcoming expirations of the permits, neither company renewed its permit and the permits expired by their terms in 1995 and 1996. The court enjoined plaintiffs from grazing livestock in the Gila and Apache National Forests until they obtained authorization from the Forest Service."
18
posted on
03/13/2004 1:12:27 AM PST
by
endthematrix
(To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
To: farmfriend
As of Tuesday, the area was still closed, and Forest Service contractors had confiscated 12 head of cattle and moved them to a holding corral at another location in Catron County. OK, whens the feed and where is it going to be located. I trust it will be funded by tax dollars as to make it free!
Where's the beef!
19
posted on
03/13/2004 1:22:22 AM PST
by
EGPWS
To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!
20
posted on
03/13/2004 3:08:20 AM PST
by
E.G.C.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson