Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

just_chris

Nevada Rancher vs the BLM and Federal Govet

Recommended Posts

I'd like to see the federal land in Utah returned to the state.

 

Yeah then you wouldn't have any right to use it.  Rich people would own it and fence it off limiting access the the normal middle class would be excluded.

 

This is ignorant thinking.

 

There are already multiple use laws that allow private industry to take advantage of these lands by logging, mining or running cattle.  In fact most of those who take advantage of those laws get a great deal.

 

Public land tracts in the west are one of the things that makes the west great.   If you want people to own everything move to Texas, see how easy it is to go fishing or hunting their without joining a club and paying for the privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes he would, but why do the Feds own 75% of the land in the west? Most of that land was originally to be held in trust for a few years and then returned to the states. It never happened. Why?

Returned to the states?

When the Feds gained control of the land after the Mexican War the states weren't even there yet. Department of the Interior was created to manage it. Nevada wasn't a state until the Civil War. New Mexico wasn't a state until the 20th century.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah then you wouldn't have any right to use it.  Rich people would own it and fence it off limiting access the the normal middle class would be excluded.

 

This is ignorant thinking.

 

There are already multiple use laws that allow private industry to take advantage of these lands by logging, mining or running cattle.  In fact most of those who take advantage of those laws get a great deal.

 

Public land tracts in the west are one of the things that makes the west great.   If you want people to own everything move to Texas, see how easy it is to go fishing or hunting their without joining a club and paying for the privilege.

^^^THIS^^^

Right on Tool! I agree with you 100%.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^THIS^^^

Right on Tool! I agree with you 100%.

It hurts to say but tools is right.

Does the federal government need armed guards there? No. Is this guy stealing from us, the tax payers? Yes.

A federal judge ordered him to remove the cattle. He didn't. Sucks to be you. This has been going on for 20 years. What did he think was going to happen...

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah then you wouldn't have any right to use it.  Rich people would own it and fence it off limiting access the the normal middle class would be excluded.

 

This is ignorant thinking.

 

There are already multiple use laws that allow private industry to take advantage of these lands by logging, mining or running cattle.  In fact most of those who take advantage of those laws get a great deal.

 

Public land tracts in the west are one of the things that makes the west great.   If you want people to own everything move to Texas, see how easy it is to go fishing or hunting their without joining a club and paying for the privilege.

It's not for me, idiot.

 

It's for development of the state and the betterment of the education system here, which spends nothing on a per pupil basis. 

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is federal land.  That family doesn't own the land.  They have no legal claim to the land.   

 

The guys father grandfather and great grandfather all paid to lease that land from the feds which acknowledged the fact they didn't have ownership. 

 

The guy should have been clapped in irons years ago and thrown in jail for stealing.

Knock it off.  You're being silly again.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In 1934, the state of Nevada ratified the Taylor Grazing Act and further defined it in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS):

"As used in NRS 568.010 to 568.210, inclusive, “Taylor Grazing Act” means the Act of Congress entitled “An act to stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, improvement and development, to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range, and for other purposes,”

NRS568.355 “Open range” defined. As used in NRS 568.360 and 568.370, unless the context otherwise requires, “open range” means all unenclosed land outside of cities and towns upon which cattle, sheep or other domestic animals by custom, license, lease or permit are grazed or permitted to roam.

NRS568.230 Grazing interfering with customary use of land unlawful; exceptions.

1.It is unlawful to graze livestock on any part of the unreserved and unappropriated public lands of the United States in the State of Nevada, when grazing will or does prevent, restrict or interfere with the customary use of the land for grazing livestock by any person who, by himself or herself or the person’s grantors or predecessors, has become established, either exclusively or in common with others, in the grazing use of the land by operation of law or under and in accordance with the customs of the graziers of the region involved.

What is "Customary use" you ask?

NRS568.240 Customary or established use: Definition; change.

1.Customary or established use as graziers, otherwise than under operation of law, as used in NRS 568.230 to 568.290, inclusive, shall be deemed to include the continuous, open, notorious, peaceable and public use of such range seasonally for a period of 5 years or longer immediately before March 30, 1931, by the person or the person’s grantors or predecessors in interest, except in cases where initiated without protest or conflict to prior use or occupancy thereof.

2.Any change in customary use so established must not be made after March 30, 1931, so as to prevent, restrict or interfere with the customary or established use of any other person or persons.

[Part 1:226:1931; 1931 NCL § 5581]—(NRS A 1985, 526)

How does the law protect "customary use"?

NRS568.250  Continued use by established user not prohibited.NRS 568.230 to 568.290, inclusive, does not prohibit any such established user from continuing his or her grazing use, as established by operation of law or in accordance with such customs.

[2:226:1931; 1931 NCL § 5581.01]—(NRS A 1985, 526)

Does Nevada Law Enforcement have a responsibility to uphold the laws they have established through the legislative process?

NRS568.290Purpose; construction.

1.NRS 568.230 to 568.290, inclusive, shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the state, for the protection of the economic welfare and peace of the people of the state, and all of their provisions must be liberally construed for the accomplishment of its purposes.

2.Nothing in NRS 568.230 to 568.290, inclusive, amends or repeals existing law regarding the grazing use of the public lands or of water for the purpose of watering livestock, or modifies or compromises any valid rights or priorities which exist therein on March 30, 1931.

So, the area defined by the BLM and federal court as "trespass area" is not subject to a grazing allotment by the federal government because according to U.S. v. Bundy, No. CV- S-98-531-JBR (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998) Bundy's cattle are outside the "Gold Butte Allotment" and are therefore "trespassing". However, NRS clearly defines customary use of public lands for grazing and, therefore, the BLM cannot collect grazing allotment fees from Bundy for cattle grazing outside a current or former allotment.  Since the "Gold Butte Allotment" is no more, they cannot claim stewardship over a nonexistent allotment either.

NRS clearly allows "customary or established" use of public lands for grazing as long as the customary use was established before 1931 AND the continued use is carried out by "predecessors". I don't think there is any dispute that the Bundy's established their customary use well before 1931 (in or around 1877). Further, there is no dispute that Cliven Bundy is a predecessor of those who established said customary use.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious as to why you citing a 1937 state statute for land that has been managed by the Feds since 1849? It doesn't matter how Nevada law classifies the land. What matters is what the relevant BLM Resource Management Plan says.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious as to why you citing a 1937 state statute for land that has been managed by the Feds since 1849? It doesn't matter how Nevada law classifies the land. What matters is what the relevant BLM Resource Management Plan says.

Technically the land has been owned and managed by the feds since the revolutionary war.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now they are screaming about having an armed conflict and baggers....errr "militia groups" across the country are coming in for the fight. The anti-govt teabag fantasy of fighting the US Gov't in an armed conflict seems to be a manifest destiny for these complete morons.  They are itching for a fight, and I for one can't wait to see them get it.  Strange, because it never ends well for them.  As if a small gaggle of teabaggers are going to drive out the federal gov't by force.  LOL.  This isn't going to end well for one side, and it's not the feds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now they are screaming about having an armed conflict and baggers....errr "militia groups" across the country are coming in for the fight. The anti-govt teabag fantasy of fighting the US Gov't in an armed conflict seems to be a manifest destiny for these complete morons.  They are itching for a fight, and I for one can't wait to see them get it.  Strange, because it never ends well for them.  As if a small gaggle of teabaggers are going to drive out the federal gov't by force.  LOL.  This isn't going to end well for one side, and it's not the feds.

wow you bytch about some of us being miserable but clearly the pot has been calling the kettle black.  I don't want to see anyone get hurt, but clearly you don't mind seeing individuals who don't think like you killed.  Wow dude get help.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His ranch is on federal government property.? I seriously doubt that. The guy is a deadbeat who thinks he is above the law.

 

Oh, really?  Why wasn't the issue handled 80 years ago?  And how does it get to the point to steal his cattle?  Some ranches are on federal property, and ranchers have to pay a price to maintain those lands.  Feds over stepped.  This is stolen private property.

 

The problem is, our government is a deadbeat who think they are above the law.

 

Must be nice knowing the government will provide brand new diesel trucks loaded to the max if you help steal this guy's cattle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTR

Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpgKinda nice knowing that there is access to these lands, but kinda scary knowing that government owns it.

 

I'm sure we'll see the day the richest of the rich is allowed to harvest the resources at their will for a cheap buck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mexico would say 1849.

Yes but the precursor to the BLM managed federal lands before the Louisiana purchase.  It's role then was to get people to settle in the west.

 

The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from SpainFrance and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in theDepartment of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Like this one. Read the article. He hasn't paid for his allotment in 20 year. Cowboy welfare (below market rates for grazing on public land) isn't enough for his guy. He wants it for free. His cattle should be auctioned off and the proceeds applied to what he owes.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Like this one. Read the article. He hasn't paid for his allotment in 20 year. Cowboy welfare (below market rates for grazing on public land) isn't enough for his guy. He wants it for free. His cattle should be auctioned off and the proceeds applied to what he owes.

 

Which happens.  BUT, have you seen how the government acquired his cattle?  They spent over $3 million to seize his property worth less than $1 million.

 

About 15 brand new diesel trucks, brand new stock trailers, brand new stock panels, and instead of herding cattle with horses, which is the safe and efficient way to round-up cattle in a large area, they used helicopters to round them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which happens. BUT, have you seen how the government acquired his cattle? They spent over $3 million to seize his property worth less than $1 million.

About 15 brand new diesel trucks, brand new stock trailers, brand new stock panels, and instead of herding cattle with horses, which is the safe and efficient way to round-up cattle in a large area, they used helicopters to round them up.

It's called law enforcement. It costs money. You'd be ok with it if the Feds turned a profit?

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but the precursor to the BLM managed federal lands before the Louisiana purchase. It's role then was to get people to settle in the west.

The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in theDepartment of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.

I understand the origin of he BLM. It doesn't change the fact that what is now Nevada was acquired from Mexico with the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...