Cliven Bundy Ranch Standoff

[Destino]

do you know why the cow roundup became a urgent matter now?

Because beef prices are at an all time high?

[AsburySkinsFan]

You're also assuming that he has not attempted to make that goofball claim, in any of the numerous court proceedings over the last 20 years (all of which he lost).

Nope, not making that assumption, just saying that if he hasn't then he should. Also not saying he'd be successful, because of the reasons mentioned previously; namely that the owners have filed injunctions against him.

[GoSkins561]

Regardless of wether Bundy was right or wrong, something isn't right when the Feds are shutting down ranch after ranch because of grazing fees and "laws".

[AsburySkinsFan]

Regardless of wether Bundy was right or wrong, something isn't right when the Feds are shutting down ranch after ranch because of grazing fees and "laws".

My question is more simple, what is the Fed using the land for? Is it simply for revenue off grazing fees? Then obviously that's not the most beneficial use for the land. It obviously isn't abandoned land so there isn't a compelling reason for government ownership, unless the farmers don't want to own the land because of the tax burden but instead just want the use of it. If that's the case then he needs to pay up, especially since he was paying previously (i.e. agreed to the principle of grazing fees on that land).

As far as shutting the ranches down in concerned, so long as the grazing fees are cheaper than the cost of the land ownership then what's the complaint? With the fee you get a variation of a lease for use on the land without the tax burden. If you don't have that land or the lease for it then you better have enough land to sustain your cattle, if not then we're talking farm mismanagement which is not the government's responsibility to rectify.

[Larry]

Because, after all, ranch after ranch (who are ranching on somebody else's land) are more important than these so called "laws".

[twa]

My question is more simple, what is the Fed using the land for?

 

 

offsite mitigation for a solar array, in other words a substitute natural preserve to satisfy the Greens objections to the bird frying,tortoise killing solar moneypit.

 

the ranchers need to just find another way to live, just another victim of the EPA sue/settle scam.

 

 

http://www.chron.com/news/science/article/Feds-to-pursue-effort-to-end-dispute-with-rancher-5399389.php?cmpid=hpts

Environmentalists accused the bureau of capitulating to threats of violence from armed Bundy supporters and urged them to pursue action against the rancher.

"The BLM has a sacred duty to manage our public lands in the public interest, to treat all users equally and fairly," said Rob Mrowka, senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Instead it is allowing a freeloading rancher and armed thugs to seize hundreds of thousands of acres of the people's land as their own fiefdom."

"The BLM is setting a dangerous precedent in announcing that it will pick and choose who has to follow federal laws and who it will reward for violating them," he added.

Leff declined to comment, reiterating that the bureau's top concern was the safety of its employees and the public.

In April 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the bureau for canceling a planned roundup of Bundy's cattle at the last minute.

[AsburySkinsFan]

BTW, I watched the video in the OP again focusing on the dog kick.

1) guy on 4 wheeler "rams" BLM dump truck....bad.

2) yelling...not good

3) BLM officer reaches out to the guy

4) dog moves "aggressively" toward guy

5) man reacts instinctively with his leg

6) man kicks dog back with his leg

7) man gets tazed

Sequence of events doesn't happen if #1 doesn't happen.....dummy.

[AsburySkinsFan]

offsite mitigation for a solar array, in other words a substitute natural preserve to satisfy the Greens objections to the bird frying,tortoise killing solar moneypit.

Ignoring your all to predictable bias.

How was the land acquired by the Fed? Escheat, eminent domain or by some other means? Who owned the land previously?

It sounds like the Fed has owned the land for quite awhile and simply designated it as an preserve as an over-flow from the array. If what you say is accurate.

In the end for me it comes down to whether or not the Bundys (Married with Children ruined that name BTW) wanted to purchase that land or other land like it, or if they were satisfied with paying grazing fees. If the latter then what changed? Why did they suddenly think that paying grazing fees that they had originally paid was now unacceptable?

[Dan T.]

 

In the end for me it comes down to whether or not the Bundys (Married with Children ruined that name BTW)

Ted didn't do the name any great favors either.

[twa]

Ignoring your all to predictable bias.

How was the land acquired by the Fed? Escheat, eminent domain or by some other means? Who owned the land previously?

It sounds like the Fed has owned the land for quite awhile and simply designated it as an preserve as an over-flow from the array. If what you say is accurate.

In the end for me it comes down to whether or not the Bundys (Married with Children ruined that name BTW) wanted to purchase that land or other land like it, or if they were satisfied with paying grazing fees. If the latter then what changed? Why did they suddenly think that paying grazing fees that they had originally paid was now unacceptable?

 

the severe reduction in number of cattle allowed seems the more objectionable

[AsburySkinsFan]

the severe reduction in number of cattle allowed seems the more objectionable

If so he has very little legal standing, because he obviously agreed with previous lease terms, therefore agrees with the principle of leasing the property for grazing from the Federal gov't.

[twa]

If so he has very little legal standing, because he obviously agreed with previous lease terms, therefore agrees with the principle of leasing the property for grazing from the Federal gov't.

 

legal/smeagle......I don't think he has agreed with the BLM, and I don't think it matters to the court obviously.(despite your theory)

 

just another oldtimer ground up by the system desperately clinging to his way of life.....a reeducation program will straighten him out

[grhqofb5]

As far as adverse possession goes, if its public land that doctrine will not apply.  If Bundy's "family" was making use of the land at a point in time when it was owned privately, then yes.  If the government seized the land through emimnent domain, or purchased it through the private owner, Bundy should have filed a claim at that point to quiet title, and if successful (1) the government would have to compensate him for the value (if eminent domain), or (2) if held privately, negotiate with Bundy.

 

I don't see a claim for adverse possession here.  But at the same time, I don't necessarily believe that this circus is a good use of taxpayer funds. If anything, Bundy should be fined, and the government should sell off his assets when he doesn't pay his fines.  Leave the damn cows alone, or do a round-up and then have a bbq on site.

[Larry]

This land has been federal land for how long?

[The 12th Commandment]

This land has been federal land for how long?

If it's like the majority of federal land in the west, destiny was manifested in it's acquisition.  

 

BLM has resources available online to determine when the land was 'patented' which is what they call the feds original acquisition of land.  Take a little doing to get the bottom of it but the data should be there.

 

http://www.nv.blm.gov/LandRecords/

[twa]

This land has been federal land for how long?

the Hidalgo treaty, when we took it from Mexico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo

[Thekyle1591]

Regardless of wether Bundy was right or wrong, something isn't right when the Feds are shutting down ranch after ranch because of grazing fees and "laws".

No, if people are breaking the law they shouldn't be able to continue doing so. If you break the "laws" and don't pay your "fees" then there should be "consequences".

[AsburySkinsFan]

legal/smeagle......I don't think he has agreed with the BLM, and I don't think it matters to the court obviously.(despite your theory)

Did he previously pay grazing fees to the Federal government?

If so then he agreed to the terms and conditions, therefore he agreed to the principle of paying for use of the land for grazing his cattle. It's a bit difficult to then later say that you disagree with the principle and don't recognize the Fed's ownership of the property.

If it's like the majority of federal land in the west, destiny was manifested in it's acquisition.  

 

BLM has resources available online to determine when the land was 'patented' which is what they call the feds original acquisition of land.  Take a little doing to get the bottom of it but the data should be there.

 

http://www.nv.blm.gov/LandRecords/

Is that ownership uninterrupted?

the Hidalgo treaty, when we took it from Mexico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo

Same question.

[No_Pressure]

No, if people are breaking the law they shouldn't be able to continue doing so. If you break the "laws" and don't pay your "fees" then there should be "consequences".

 

Unless you broke the law and immigrated across the border of our country and work under the table to avoid paying taxes and being detected. Then its ok. If you're an American rancher whose family has been using this land before the government ever laid claim to it then you can go to hell.  Last I checked, a lot of popular public opinion in the United States sides with immigrants breaking the law because we feel bad for them. Nobody feels bad for this guy I suppose.

 

Cue the "they're completely different ways of violating federal laws!" guy. I'm going to just set this package down here on this park bench and retreat to a safe distance to watch it explode.

[Larry]

Unless you broke the law and immigrated across the border of our country and work under the table to avoid paying taxes and being detected.

Anybody got an over/under on how many posts it is before somebody decides that this thread needs to be about abortion? Cause I might want to get in on the action.

[Thekyle1591]

Unless you broke the law and immigrated across the border of our country and work under the table to avoid paying taxes and being detected. Then its ok. If you're an American rancher whose family has been using this land before the government ever laid claim to it then you can go to hell. Last I checked, a lot of popular public opinion in the United States sides with immigrants breaking the law because we feel bad for them. Nobody feels bad for this guy I suppose

But it isn't his land. If he's going to graze on land that isn't his, then go right ahead, but don't get up in arms when the person owning that land wants you to pay the fees for the grazing. This guy has absolutely no case, contrary to what conservatives would have you believe.

[AsburySkinsFan]

But it isn't his land. If he's going to graze on land that isn't his, then go right ahead, but don't get up in arms when the person owning that land wants you to pay the fees for the grazing. This guy has absolutely no case, contrary to what conservatives would have you believe.

Close inspection would have revealed the hook.....

[twa]

Did he previously pay grazing fees to the Federal government?

If so then he agreed to the terms and conditions, therefore he agreed to the principle of paying for use of the land for grazing his cattle. It's a bit difficult to then later say that you disagree with the principle and don't recognize the Fed's ownership of the property.

Is that ownership uninterrupted?

Same question.

 

the ownership by the feds has been from the time of the treaty in their view....which is the only one that matters

 

he purchased grazing and water rights before the BLM took over, but yes the feds can legally change the terms to make your livelihood unsustainable no matter how long you have been doing it.

 

 

May the Green visit ya

[AsburySkinsFan]

the ownership by the feds has been from the time of the treaty in their view....which is the only one that matters

 

he purchased grazing and water rights before the BLM took over, but yes the feds can legally change the terms to make your livelihood unsustainable no matter how long you have been doing it.

The BLM is an agency of the Fed, so it isn't like the ownership changed hands. That is a red herring.

The ownership isn't about "their view", either someone held title to the real property previously or they didn't. If they did then it should be on record at the county records office. This isn't about opinion this is about title and deed. If the real property was never held in private ownership then it has indeed been Federal land from the time of the orginial treaty. Changes in land management by the Fed is irrelevant to Bundy's case.

[twa]

the US has a title deed?  ....did god sign it? 

 

I told ya when we took formal possession and the feds never sold or gave it away....nor allowed the states ownership of the land.