Nevadan Farmer not allowed to use public land for his grazing cattle

[Omnis]

What happens to stuff like national parks under this "government can't own land" scheme? First to get there with mining equipment wins?

If El Capitan was solid gold and the government stole it from the original land owner, then don't you think he has a right to his stolen property?

That said, I'm not sure about the greater economics of national parks. Likely, there is more incentive to maintain them as parks for tourism than to exploit any resources in them.

Look at Alaska. There's no reason to refuse to think we're clever enough to reap its aliphatic rewards without ecological devastation.

 

[Imari]

If El Capitan was solid gold and the government stole it from the original land owner, then don't you think he has a right to his stolen property?

Certainly he would have a right.

The whole article is based on the assumption that any government owned land is stolen. I'm not entirely sure that's the case. Maybe it's true in this particular case, I don't know. But in Australia and New Zealand at least, there certainly exists government owned land that was legitimately purchased from the prior owners.

That said, I'm not sure about the greater economics of national parks. Likely, there is more incentive to maintain them as parks for tourism than to exploit any resources in them.

Again, I can only speak for Australia and New Zealand, but I assume similar things apply to the US. National parks are not created simply as tourist traps. A lot of them protect vital natural resources, like water catchment areas, or unique habitats for endangered species. And there's more than a few that exist to stop people simply logging the entire area, as that's what was starting to happen early last century.

Look at Alaska. There's no reason to refuse to think we're clever enough to reap its aliphatic rewards without ecological devastation.

There are so many negatives in that sentence I'm not sure I parsed it right. You mean that we can mine oil without wrecking the environment?

Sure, mostly. Not really the point I was making though. If there's an area, with significant resources, no historical owner and nobody currently working the land (because it's a national park), then what?

First in, first served?
The park becomes the property of every American?

 

[Keef]

After reading thru all the posted links, it seems to me that the land in question currently belongs to the Federal Government. Not to Nevada, nor to rancher Bundy.

According to the Nevada Constitution:
"Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States".

So the land was Federal when the Nevada land was a territory (Treaty of Hidalgo of 1848), then Nevada became a state in 1864 and passed the Nevada Constitution which declared that all unappropriated public lands lying within the territory remained the property of the Federal Government. Therefore, the bulk of the public land in Nevada is the property of the Federal Government.

But it wasn't a territory anymore, it was a State. I think you need to provide some more context from the Nevada constitution.

EDIT: Let me provide the context for you...

Whereas, The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four “To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States,” requires that the Members of the Convention for framing said Constitution shall, after Organization, on behalf of the people of said Territory [referring to the Territory of Nevada], adopt the Constitution of the United States.—Therefore, Be it Resolved, That the Members of this Convention, elected by the Authority of the aforesaid enabling Act of Congress, Assembled in Carson City the Capital of said Territory of Nevada [once again mentioning the Territory which is writing this constitution], and immediately subsequent to its Organization, do adopt, on behalf of the people of said Territory the Constitution of the United States[.]

Now the section you cited:

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States

As you can see, in better context, the clause you cite which mentions "said territory" was referring specifically to the Territory of Nevada, as the Territory was the entity writing the Constitution before it was turned into a State. The clause you cite is clarifying that the Territory belongs to the United States. The territory has not been made a State at the time of the Constitution's writing. The US didn't have to accept the borders proposed by the Nevada constitution and could have left some of the territory out so this is clarifying that anybody who lives in an area of the Nevada Territory which isn't included as part of the State is under jurisdiction of the US, not the State of Nevada.

 

[Omnis]

The whole article is based on the assumption that any government owned land is stolen. I'm not entirely sure that's the case.

Everywhere in America is stolen land. /IndianTear

If the government takes your land against your will, even if you're compensated via eminent domain, it's still stolen.

 

[Imari]

If the government takes your land against your will, even if you're compensated via eminent domain, it's still stolen.

You're telling me that every piece of land in the US was either stolen outright, or purchased under duress?

I know that's not the case in New Zealand. Some land was given voluntarily to the British as gifts, more was purchased outright. Some probably under duress, and some was for silly prices, but not all. There were wars in which more land changed hands, and there were Maori on both sides of the wars.

In New Zealand, there has been a lot of review of land rights and whether the original Maori were adequately compensated. Where they were not, as judged by a special tribunal, there have been massive awards to the descendants of the tribes that originally owned the land, or in cases where the lands had special significance, such as burial grounds, they were returned to the original owners.

The Treaty of Waitangi is a good place to start with this stuff.

Maybe the US settlers went in and told the Indians to get ****ed, and didn't give them anything, ever. I don't know enough US history to say. But it seems odd that a group would end up in control of what's the better part of a whole continent without ever bartering for a piece of land.

 

[Omnis]

No. Notice, "/IndianTear"...

Those that were, however, are. There are whole books on desocialization. Read those instead of arguing with me. They'll do a better job than I could.

 

[Vegard]

Have we all missed a point here? Or is it only me:

The BLM claims that they are doing this in the interest of protecting the wildlife, yes?
However; if Bundy pays up, that's no longer an issue.
Am I missing something?

Is this nothing but a shakedown?

 

[niky]

The payments owed are not land fees. They're trespassing fines.

 

[Imari]

No. Notice, "/IndianTear"...

Those that were, however, are. There are whole books on desocialization. Read those instead of arguing with me. They'll do a better job than I could.

I'm not American. I have no idea what emotion comes with an Indian tear. Is it sarcasm? Irony? Actual sadness? What?


Anyway, you're telling me that not all government land in the US is stolen land. In which case the article you originally linked is based on a false premise. The government can in fact legitimately own land.

 

[Vegard]

The payments owed are not land fees. They're trespassing fines.

And the trespassing fines are a direct consequence of the owed land fees, no?

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not American. I have no idea what emotion comes with an Indian tear. Is it sarcasm? Irony? Actual sadness? What?

Start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act_of_1830

After reading that, how do you think things went when we began settling the west 50 years later?




In continuing news:

Harry Reid says this isn't over.





And it looks like he's right.



It looks like they are preparing for a full-on assault.


And Rand Paul responds to Harry Reid.




And the Harry Reid resorts to McCarthyism, calling Bundy supporters domestic terrorists (vide at link).
http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/reid-calls-bundy-supporters-domestic-terrorists


And Rand Paul responds.




Outside of this back and forth, a Congressman has sent a letter to President Obama, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, and BLM Director Neil Kornze, accusing them of illegal activities at the Bundy ranch, citing the Constitution and federal legal codes.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/congressman-pens-letter-obama-blasting-lawless-blm/

And why does a Texas congressman feel this is important? Because currently the BLM is trying to claim 90,000 acres of ranch land in Texas. This land has clear deeds of ownership by the ranchers, and the BLM is offering no compensation.

http://misguidedchildren.com/domest...eize-90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land/18596





The more I find out about the BLM, the more I hope this situation causes them to be dissolved. They are a perfect example of government overreach.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Judge Napolitano made a very interesting case as to why Bundy lost the legal battle. The federal government filed the suit in Federal court instead of State court where all land disputes belong. However, instead of arguing that federal court was an improper venue for this case, and sending it to state court, Bundy litigated from there and lost. He exhausted all appeals because the Supreme Court didn't hear the case, and as a result, the lower court's (9th circuit, go figure) decision stood.

What is troubling, however, is the need to push Bundy off the land now. As a result of the legal victory, the Federal government is going to collect interest on the so called grazing fees.

 

[Enemem]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/18/harry-reid-blasts-bundy-ranch-supporters-domestic-/

The Nevada Cattlemen’s Association issued a statement Wednesday saying that, “While we cannot advocate operating outside the law to solve problems, we also sympathize with Mr. Bundy’s dilemma.”

“The situation in Nevada stands as an example the federal agencies’ steady trend toward elevating environmental and wildlife issues over livestock grazing,” said the two-page statement. “Well-intentioned laws such as the Endangered Species Act — which are factors in Mr. Bundy’s case — are being implemented in a way that are damaging to our rights and to our western families and communities.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who specifically is responsible for this trend?

 

[Sanji Himura]

That is a load if I ever see it, and I consider myself a conservative libertarian. Have they stepped up and provided legal aid to Mr. Bundy in his fight against the feds? No should be the answer. There is a saying, "beware of one hand clapping." So far, all of the players involved from Dingy Harry Reid down to the BLM director have all conspired to set aside the land that Mr. Bundy's family legally owned before the turn of the 20th century for a turtle habitat. No one is really, with the exception of Rand Paul, is saying that the land should be made available for grazing.

We are endowed with unalienable rights, life, liberty and property. That is Natural Law. The US constitution is supposed to protect the means to earn all three (in other words, the misnomer of The Pursuit of Happiness), and the means to pass them off to future generations. If the federal government is seizing land for its own use [Please note that I used that phrase intentionally], without just compensation, or passes a law that is against Natural Law (Looking at you, Florida and New York City), then we have the right to resist with any means necessary, up to and including lethal force.

 

[BobK]

So far, all of the players involved from Dingy Harry Reid down to the BLM director have all conspired to set aside the land that Mr. Bundy's family legally owned before the turn of the 20th century for a turtle habitat.

The only problem is that the Bundy family never owned it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Here is an interesting tidbit. Lawmakers from multiple western states, including Nevada, are at a summit, planned before the Bundy standoff, to discuss taking back the federally controlled lands. Sounds to me like this situation with BLM has been building up all over the western states. We are just seeing the results of the first case to challenge the Feds at the Bundy ranch.

The question here is: If Nevada reclaims that land, what is Bundy's legal situation then? Are his fees and fines nullified? How will the Feds react to multiple states claiming they control that land, and blocking federal attempts to control it?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-lands-lawmakers-federal.html.csp

Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover
‘It’s time’ » Lawmakers from 9 states gather in Utah, discuss ways to take control of federal lands.

By Kristen Moulton
| The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Apr 18 2014 03:07 pm • Last Updated Apr 18 2014 10:21 pm

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

"It’s simply time," said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. "The urgency is now."

Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.

"What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem," Lockhart said.

Fielder, who described herself as "just a person who lives in the woods," said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

"Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands," Fielder said, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls.

"We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms," Fielder said.

Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke said Idaho forests and rangeland managed by the state have suffered less damage and watershed degradation from wildfire than have lands managed by federal agencies.

"It’s time the states in the West come of age," Bedke said. "We’re every bit as capable of managing the lands in our boundaries as the states east of Colorado."

Ivory said the issue is of interest to urban as well as rural lawmakers, in part because they see oilfields and other resources that could be developed to create jobs and fund education.

Moreover, the federal government’s debt threatens both its management of vast tracts of the West as well as its ability to come through with payments in lieu of taxes to the states, he said. Utah gets 32 percent of its revenue from the federal government, much of it unrelated to public lands.

"If we don’t stand up and act, seeing that trajectory of what’s coming … those problems are going to get bigger," Ivory said.

He was the sponsor two years of ago of legislation, signed by Gov. Gary Herbert, that demands the federal government relinquish title to federal lands in Utah. The lawmakers and governor said they were only asking the federal government to make good on promises made in the 1894 Enabling Act for Utah to become a state.

The intent was never to take over national parks and wilderness created by an act of Congress Lockhart said. "We are not interested in having control of every acre," she said. "There are lands that are off the table that rightly have been designated by the federal government."

A study is underway at the University of Utah to analyze how Utah could manage the land now in federal control. That was called for in HB142, passed by the 2013 Utah Legislature.

None of the other Western states has gone as far as Utah, demanding Congress turn over federal lands. But five have task forces or other analyses underway to get a handle on the costs and benefits, Fielder said.

"Utah has been way ahead on this," Fielder said.

 

[Dotini]

80% of the land in Nevada is federal.

This is because of crooked politics in 1864 to get Nevada into the Union, and is probably unconstitutional.

Even so, it is the fact on the ground and the letter of the law.

On the other hand, might makes right; the coming struggle will be instructional.

Beware authoritarian national government. They may take it upon themselves to carve out a new state for aliens, Israel 2.0, or bisexual Muslim dwarfs.

 

[Keef]

80% of the land in Nevada is federal.

This is because of crooked politics in 1864 to get Nevada into the Union, and is probably unconstitutional.

Even so, it is the fact on the ground and the letter of the law.

What are these crooked politics? Where is the law? Nobody has posted anything that definitely says the land is Federal but we've posted all sorts of stuff saying the Feds think it's theirs but it isn't.

 

[Dotini]

What are these crooked politics? Where is the law?

Your ship comes in.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/

 

[Keef]

Your ship comes in.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/

So the Nevada Statehood Act of 1864 is itself unconstitutional. This has never been shot down by the Supreme Court, apparently. But if it were to be, that would mean that the measures taken to force Nevada into statehood would be taken away, which means Nevada would be rendered a territory once again, with no legal entry into statehood ever having been granted.

But that doesn't have anything to do with landgrabs in other Western states.

 

[FoolKiller]

Some news today.

First, Cliven Bundy asks sheriffs across the US to disarm the BLM.

And he's not the only one looking to stop the BLM with local officials.

Meanwhile, in Texas:

After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.

“I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.

 

[niky]

Whether or not the removal of Bundy's Cattle is legal... I agree with that sentiment. The BLM is not a paramilitary organization. They're there to remove cattle? That's the job they should do. Any enforcement carried out against interference should be by the State Police.

-

As to the second item, there's no question that that's fairly illegal and very, very questionable. Nice to see the State taking a very strong stance against it.

 

[GTsail]

Meanwhile, in Texas:

View attachment 146493

Wonderful find @FoolKiller

If you ask me, the BLM would have been better off not getting involved in this issue.

The dispute is a continuation of the border dispute between Oklahoma and Texas (which uses the Red River to define the border) since the founding of the two states.

But, because the BLM has a fidiciary responsibility to the Apache, Comanche and Kiowa tribes, and some of the land in this disputed area is land actually allocated to these Indian tribes, I guess the BLM decided that they needed to step in and get their feet wet (and create more controversy).

The questions proposed by the Texas Attorney General to the Bureau of Land Management are pretty good and are probably where all the discussions should start.👍

Reading some of the links, its interesting how the Texas/Oklahoma border is defined: "The vegetation on the south bank of the Red River" is the state line. Not the middle of the river as you might expect.

Also, the border will move if the Red River moves due to accretion, but the border doesn't move if the River moves due to avulsion. This can cause some difficult situations depending upon individuals property lines and if they are Texas residents or Oklahoman residents.

So the dispute at issue is caused when the Red River moves north into Oklahoma due to avulsion.

In this case, the border/property line doesn't move, and the land area between the "new" River bed and the "old" River bed is now technically in Oklahoma! (and BLM is considering whether they should claim it as "Federal" land) Even though its on the "Texas" side of the Red River

Tommy Henderson, the Texas farmer who lost a Federal case to the BLM back in 1986 over this very same issue, got the impression that the BLM was always viewing the Red River border/movements in a manner benefiting their view/position to the detriment of the Texas farmers.

Further back in time in the discussion about this border dispute, the States expected a certain amount of border movements due to the movement of the Red River, but they thought was that this would more or less equalize between to the two States (one State might get a few more acre's in one area, but would lose a few acre's in another area). However, at the individual property owner level, I'm not sure if they thought much about how this could be completely un-fair to specific individual property owners, even if it was fair at the total "State" level.

I wonder if it still makes sense to use the Red River as the boundary between the two States since its seems to move quite a bit from year to year. Maybe surveyed borders would make more sense now. Movements by the Red River would no longer cause property borders to move. Though individual property owners could lose land to the River, and would only re-gain the land when the River moved again.

It will be interesting to watch to see what happens with this case.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Jump_Ace]

I just read about this today. I love lol'ing at republicans. Domestic terrorists indeed. This guy owing what is it 1.2 million and gets supporters, yet if tons of families can get 1.2 million in assistance, it's bad because they look in black and white, yes or no. Yes every single family on assistance is lazy and will never look for work..wow what are the odds!?


Jerome

 

[Keef]

Nevada should challenege the Statehood Act of 1864 in the Supreme Court, get it struck down as unconstitutional, which would revert Nevada's statehood, but afterwards immediately grant Nevada a proper, constitutional statehood because it now meets the requirements and already has all the functions of a state.

But that would never happen because that would actually guarantee the Feds have to jurisdiction over that land.

 

[DK]

An armed militia has stormed a wildlife refuge centre in Oregon, demanding the release of two ranchers whose sentences for arson were extended. Amongst the militia is Ammon Bundy, the son of the subject of this thread. BBC article

 

[prousonhairy]

An armed militia has stormed a wildlife refuge centre in Oregon, demanding the release of two ranchers whose sentences for arson were extended. Amongst the militia is Ammon Bundy, the son of the subject of this thread. BBC article

I'm pretty sure that's not going to turn out well. They are calling for other "militias" to join them. Good luck with that one.

Militia members occupy federal building in Oregon

http://usat.ly/1OC0imr

 

[IforceV8]

A little history on the rancher from 1994. http://www.hcn.org/issues/20/582

 

[Sanji Himura]

An armed militia has stormed a wildlife refuge centre in Oregon, demanding the release of two ranchers whose sentences for arson were extended. Amongst the militia is Ammon Bundy, the son of the subject of this thread. BBC article

The Blaze is reporting that not only is Ammon Bundy is involved with the stand off, but two more sons of Cliven Bundy are involved. (Source)

 

[Rallywagon]

This is quite an interesting predicament. In theory I am not altogether against the tactic. I would expect of course to eventually be arrested and charged with some sort of unlawfully occupying a federal building charge. I would also have to have a far better reason than being upset that some friends got minimum sentencing on a crime they committed allegedly to cover another crime, and grumpy that I can't just own all of the land that I want.
Given the ilk of those confirmed on site, as well as the fact that they are armed, and could have up to 150+ (only 15 actually confirmed, 150 was said by one of the occupiers), I do not feel these guys are part of the"occupy" movement. Nor am I of the opinion they should be allowed to stay. I think it maybe to early to call this treason, and its certainly not terrorism. Not a big fan of people making it a race issue either. I think that pulls away from both the Bundys agenda, but also the political implications of how and why this has occurred and will be resolved.
That said, in this case I feel the gov should begin slowly moving in and arresting people. Any that resist should be met with proper escalations of force and those detained charged for appropriate crimes and sentences. Those that expect to fight the government with force should expect the same in return.