Posted on 04/19/2014 11:28:48 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
> When do the,”He is not paying his fees “ Governmental agents, plants, and moles show up on this thread?
Always assume there are spies in your midst and act accordingly. They are only intel gatherers and infiltrators. They will report whatever you tell them...: )
I agree. Point taken.
Cute!
The treaty preserves all private interests within its boundaries.
Nothing about the treaty transferred any land ownership whatsoever.
.
Well, at least I finally got you to make your argument. Thanks.
I really hope everyone reading this will copy and paste to all the emails list and put your comments on the email about the government take over..I sent it to my email list and also posted it on face-book..
Kit and Sherry Laney lost their fight with the Forest Service about 10 years ago. They had their cattle confiscated and lost everything and even ended up divorced, it was very sad. The Forest Service went into their ranch with a large show of force as well. Their ranch was remote and fewer people were on the internet- no social media so they didn’t get much publicity or support. Kit ended up serving time in jail because the government goaded him into causing a scene by not treating the cattle right when they were gathering/holding them. An Arizona rancher named Wally Klump also had a fight with the government and he served years in jail for contempt of court because he stood up to them and wouldn’t remove his cows. Klump did not give in to the government either but again- little publicity, so he also had little support. There were several other ranchers that were cleaned out by the government for standing up to them in the last 20 years, not to mention all those that were put out of business that didn’t stand up to the government.
The government recognized rancher’s grazing rights for around 100 years to the extent they were bought and sold with the ranch- value of grazing rights were figured in value of the ranch. Very different situation than private rents or leases of anything. Ranchers had grazing and water rights on federal or state land tied to their deeded ground and it was recognized by the government and before the government went to war with the ranchers in the 1990s it was a relationship between ranchers and the government that was considered so secure government agencies and banks loaned money based on grazing rights as collateral. That relationship existed because our ancestors placed great value on those that produced our food, unlike so many today that think their food comes from Walmart. Ranchers were considered stewards of the land by the government and the rancher made improvements to the land like pipelines, fences, etc. Wildlife benefited because of the water provided by ranchers that otherwise would not have been there in the mostly dry West. It was a good relationship until environmental activists decided cattle were evil, they even had a slogan “cattle free by 93” meaning they wanted no cattle anywhere by 1993. That is how long this battle has been waged against ranchers by environmentalists and the government. Untold ranchers have lost their ranches in this battle and cattle numbers are really low, which is one of the main reasons beef is so high in the grocery stores.
Ranches that have grazing rights still to this day are appraised as if the grazing rights are part of the ranch. With the track record of the last 20 years since the government decided to support environmentalists instead of those that produce our food, I can’t imagine that those ranches will hold their value.
For those that think these ranchers should have just “paid their fees” it is not that simple- the government cuts their grazing numbers to the point they have no choice but to go out of business. In some cases they are told they have to keep cattle out for a number of years which is the same as putting them out of business. If ranchers disagree with this the government will not accept their fees so they cannot “just pay their fees” it is not that simple. Most water rights in the West are tied to use, so if a rancher does go along he ends up losing water rights from not using them or not using enough water. Ranchers getting their cattle numbers cut by the government can not only lose their grazing right, but their water rights as well. It is a really bad situation.
I disagree.
What's new is the boldness of the Ranchers as hundreds if not thousands of private ranchers have been driven out of business by the BLM, USFS, EPA etc..., over the past 25 years.
The Feds layer rules upon rules that make it impossible to comply with.
They do this under the guise of them being the best stewards of the land, nevermind that these ranchers have been better at it than anyone else since their livelihood depends on it.
There is no reason to get into some Val/Jar or Agenda 21 conspiracy when the reality on the ground is plain to see.
Did you watch the video I linked (thanks to Cripplecreek)
The BLM etc.. is attempting to force these Ranchers into their own demise.
This is what it's all about.
To what end doesn't really matter.
Who owned the property when it was given to the settlers to homestead on ?
LOLOLOL
Since you claim to see arguments where none are made, it is doubtful you recognize one when it is made; let alone understand it.
On Monday, I’m sure you’ll have fun telling your fellow 7th graders how well you “debated” on Saturday.
We are finally getting somewhere. And I didn’t mean to cause all the knee-jerk reactions. Do you have any persuasive authority that indicates that grazing rights exist in perpetuity as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago? Batman doesn’t.
Why doesn’t Article IV, Section 3 make Article I, Section 8 meaningless?******
Because they don’t conflict.
The properties which Art 4, Sec 3 refers to as fedgov owned can only be owned by the feds in accordance with the enclave clause. Said properties can only be owned by the feds for those specifically enumerated purposes stated in Art I, Sec 8 which have been stated on this forum ad nauseum.
Once those requirements are met then Art 4, Sec 3 is applicable.
first the RANCHERS......then the farmers.......THEN y o u
first the RANCHERS......then the farmers.......THEN y o u
I am a farmer. My family has owned/operated farms in this county since 1889. Before that in several places.
And until the drought 3 years ago we had cattle too. Hope to rebuy some soon.
I understand what they have done and are planning to do.
Subjection through the belly.
In the Ukraine they called it Holodomor.
FUBO!
I posted this on another thread.
Am I wrong ?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3146356/posts?page=19#19
B4Ranch,
I know you’ve been all over this issue, I’ve done a little research myself and would like to know your thoughts.
From what I can tell, it comes down to this:
BLM issues “Grazing permits” that require compliance with their Terms and Conditions. This includes a limit on the number of cattle (as a result of pressure from environmentalists)
If a Rancher has less cattle grazing on public lands he will lose the rights to the water since he is not using the water.
The BLM has been consistently shrinking the acreage for these allotments for well over 20 years.
The BLM is engaged in a two, maybe three step process to drive the rancher out of business.
They are forcing the rancher into a catch 22. Agree to the terms and they lose their water rights, without the water rights they can’t allow their cattle on public lands.
It seems to be more about the water than anything else.
Keep in mind these “water rights” are not for “resale” but for use by cattle.
The BLM has been slowly reducing access by shrinking the allotments and forcing a reduction of livestock (terms and Conditions) that, in turn forces the reduction/forfeiture of “water-rights” (lack of use), that ultimately forces the rancher out of business.
That’s my understanding.
Please point out where I may be wrong.
Again, the Enclave Clause regards the District of Columbia. And the portion of Article IV, Section 3 that is making people struggle is, “...nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States....”
That’s it.
The article has specifically mentioned that this has much to do with Bill Clinton appointing enviro-whackos as heads of these and other agencies.
WHAT IS A PATRIOT?
PATRIOTS are not “Revolutionaries” trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
PATRIOTS are “Counter-Revolutionaries” trying to prevent the government of the United States,
from overthrowing the Constitution of the United States. - Unknown Author
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.