BLM vs Bundy
|
Anyone over there in Clark county? I've got a few friends in Vegas and they say it's crazy out there. I know a few rancher friends from ND who just got to Clark county last night and are prepared for a standoff with the BLM. |
|
Meme Guy wrote:Anyone over there in Clark county? I've got a few friends in Vegas and they say it's crazy out there. I know a few rancher friends from ND who just got to Clark county last night and are prepared for a standoff with the BLM. No fly zone declared by the FAA, cell towers have been turned off/disrupted, a media blackout is being attempted! It's about time you folks wake the fuck up.Hell yaah! |
|
It's nonsense. Illegally grazing cattle on our land not Bundys. Round up the cattle and hand the Bundys a fine and a bill for the round up. These colors don't run right? |
|
Name wrote:It's nonsense. Illegally grazing cattle on our land not Bundys. Round up the cattle and hand the Bundys a fine and a bill for the round up. These colors don't run right?"Carol Bundy and her husband, Cliven, contend their water and livestock rights to use the public lands were recognized by the state of Nevada long before the federal government took over management of the land in the 1940s. They contend that what the federal government is doing constitutes harassment." "Our water and our livestock rights are filed with the state," she claimed. "If you have water rights filed, then you also have access and forage rights for your cattle. We dont own the land; we own the rights to use that land for livestock." Still feel that way? If the feds came in and said your backyard (that your family has used for a long time) is now theirs and you need to pay them ($50k/year) how would you feel? |
|
"Almost 600,000 acres of public land has been temporarily closed to the public as more than 900 cattle are rounded up from a vast swath of mountains and desert where Bundy has left his livestock to roam even though he hasnt paid federal grazing fees since 1993." |
|
NickinCO wrote: "Carol Bundy and her husband, Cliven, contend their water and livestock rights to use the public lands were recognized by the state of Nevada long before the federal government took over management of the land in the 1940s. They contend that what the federal government is doing constitutes harassment." "Our water and our livestock rights are filed with the state," she claimed. "If you have water rights filed, then you also have access and forage rights for your cattle. We dont own the land; we own the rights to use that land for livestock." Still feel that way? If the feds came in and said your backyard (that your family has used for a long time) is now theirs and you need to pay them ($50k/year) how would you feel?So my neighbors and I are such good friends that we keep our gates open on our fence and let our dogs run between each others yards and play together. But he is thinking of selling his house and moving elsewhere(just like when Nevada gave the land to the BLM because they couldn't afford to manage it). So by your logic the new owner of this house should recognize this long standing agreement my neighbor and I have had even though he is now the rightful owner of said property and has the right to do with the property as he sees fit??? I mean we have been letting our dogs play together for decades for gosh sakes!! |
|
ChefMattThaner wrote:"Almost 600,000 acres of public land has been temporarily closed to the public as more than 900 cattle are rounded up from a vast swath of mountains and desert where Bundy has left his livestock to roam even though he hasnt paid federal grazing fees since 1993." Yeah sorry I have no sympathy for a man that uses federally owned land to graze his livestock and make money off this operation. Then refuses to pay very small grazing fees. He has made money for decades off the food grown on that land and he can't be bothered to pay what would be less than 3% of his annual revenue off the livestock. Oh and I love that they are "claiming they owned rights to the land before the state of Nevada gave tha land to the federal government." But can't prdocue a deed or title to the land or ANY SINGLE FORM OF DOCUMENTATION SHOWING OWNERSHIP OF LAND. Sure they may have been using that land since before 1940 but that does not make them the owners of that land. That makes them squatters that got kicked out when the actual owners decided to enforce their borders.Devils advocate They never said they owned the land. They also claim they tried to pay the state. huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/… "Bundy acknowledges that her family owes significant money in unpaid grazing fees, but she refuses to pay that money to the federal government. Everybody wants to put out there that [we] have not paid [for] grazing rights, but we did try to pay the fees to Clark County and the state of Nevada," she said. "We tried to pay to the people we filed the water rights with, but they refused to take it." |
|
NickinCO wrote: Devils advocate They never said they owned the land. They also claim they tried to pay the state. huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/… "Bundy acknowledges that her family owes significant money in unpaid grazing fees, but she refuses to pay that money to the federal government. Everybody wants to put out there that [we] have not paid [for] grazing rights, but we did try to pay the fees to Clark County and the state of Nevada," she said. "We tried to pay to the people we filed the water rights with, but they refused to take it."Oh shit that has totally happened to me before too!! I spent a few months sending my rent check to my neighbors landlord. For some reason the dumbass kept sending them back to me. I was all like "Hello! this is money don't you want it??" Then three months after repeatedly sending my money to my neighbors landlord, MY landlord tried to bull some Nazi, communist bullshit and evicted me?!?! What the hell is wrong him?? |
|
^^^^Your'e ignorance on property and usage rights is astounding. |
|
Ben Dover wrote:^^^^Your'e ignorance on property and usage rights is astounding. Useage is the very foundation of the property ownership since biblical times. It is how this country was developed from the beginning, the rights of land useage are only recognized by the various forms of government. If you decide to cede these rights just because you have no educated foundation on whence they came you are a useful idiot whom the Feds will control.Biblical times eh?? You my friend have no idea how land rights work in this country. Have you ever heard of the homesteader act?? I will explain every detail in which a person gains ownership of land in this country during the time period the Bundy family began using that property. Not only did they not file for a property deed through the homesteading act, which would have granted them ownership after 10 years as long as they made improvements to the land i.e. buildings. But they also refused to pay for the usage of land they CLEARLY NEVER OWNDED. They may have done all of these things/tried to pay people that did not own the land, but did not apply for ownership from the federal government once they took it over from the state of Nevada. This is a completely free process by the way. Something they did not do out of hatred of the government. Please, Mr. Smart man tell me how land rights work?? By the way, which of my above statements showed any ignorance towards property rights and usage?? Explain this to me genius biblical times historian. |
|
Why can there be no discussion on Mountainproject that has differing opinions without personal attack? |
|
NickinCO wrote: Devils advocate They never said they owned the land. They also claim they tried to pay the state. huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/… "Bundy acknowledges that her family owes significant money in unpaid grazing fees, but she refuses to pay that money to the federal government. Everybody wants to put out there that [we] have not paid [for] grazing rights, but we did try to pay the fees to Clark County and the state of Nevada," she said. "We tried to pay to the people we filed the water rights with, but they refused to take it."So they recognize they do not own the land and owe money for grazing usage.... But they keep trying to pay someone that does not rightfully own the land. Sounds like some anti government bullshit excuse to get away with not paying your bills. |
|
Actually the Native Americans were there long long before the Bundy's kicked them out. So lets round up the cattle and find a Native American who wants them. I mean there families were there before Bundys or the Feds. |
|
Name wrote:Actually the Native Americans were there long long before the Bundy's kicked them out. So lets round up the cattle and find a Native American who wants them. I mean there families were there before Bundys or the Feds.True that |
|
As no commenter on this thread is exactly right about how public land law in America actually operates, this thread should be deleted. This is a climbing forum; we should all stick to that. |
|
Blake.B wrote:As no commenter on this thread is exactly right about how public land law in America actually operates, this thread should be deleted. This is a climbing forum; we should all stick to that. The Homestead Act of 1862 granted fee title to 160 acres of unreserved or unappropriated federal public land to settlers who could show proof of settlement and cultivation within a period of five years from their date of entry. Grazing rights cannot be obtained by usage. There is over one hundred years of settled precedent to this effect, see Light v. US, 220 US 523 (1911)(federal government's implied license for grazing "did not confer any vested right" on the complainant).Yer fuckin wrong. This isn't about grazing rights, it's about Harry Reid and the Chinese solar farm they want to put on so called BLM land. It's unconstitutional! The BLM is in direct violation of article 1 section 8 Claus 17 of the United fucking States constitution! |
|
Thaddeus Thiggins wrote: Yer fuckin wrong. This isn't about grazing rights, it's about Harry Reid and the Chinese solar farm they want to put on so called BLM land. It's unconstitutional! The BLM is in direct violation of article 1 section 8 Claus 17 of the United fucking States constitution!Dude, that's comedy gold right there. Way not to let your reading of the Constitution interfere with the meaning of it. |
|
Fat Dad wrote: Dude, that's comedy gold right there. Way not to let your reading of the Constitution interfere with the meaning of it.http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html I bet as long as you've got your iPhone and soy chai lattes you couldn't care less about the constitution! |
|
Thaddeus Thiggins wrote: press-pubs.uchicago.edu/fou… I bet as long as you've got your iPhone and soy chai lattes you couldn't care less about the constitution!You sure showed me. I've got an iphone but take my coffee black. And I studied the Constitution for two semesters in law school. I'm sure that gave me a leg up when reading the Constitution. |
|
Fat Dad wrote: You sure showed me. I've got an iphone but take my coffee black. And I studied the Constitution for two semesters in law school. I'm sure that gave me a leg up when reading the Constitution.Typical blood sucking lawyer from a typical liberal institution response. |
|
Thaddeus Thiggins wrote: Typical blood sucking lawyer from a typical liberal institution response.I thought we were discussing the law and the Constitution, not your ill-informed opinions of me. As for the blood sucking part, I don't conduct my business at the expense of the Federal government and then cry and brandish firearms when they ask me to stop, which is what the party you're defending is doing. Isn't he part of the 49% Romney accused of sucking off the Federal government? |