|
|
 Cyber World Challenged
Posts: 2526
  
Location: My Own Little World | foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:25 AM rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:21 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:18 AM rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:12 PM OK, here's my 2 cents worth. I have read A LOT of the history of both the Bundy family lease and the ownership of the land by the Fed. I don't need to rehash it over again, as many of you have already read it too. For those of you that have stated that this is a bad situation on either side, well, that's the best assesment of any. I live here in Nevada and this family is part of our rodeo family too. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to resolve this situation for either side. What I do know is what this whole thing means to me as an American. I am weary of an overbearing hypocritical government. This is not about tortoises, it's a show of power. Here recently, the Fed euthanized more than 100 tortoises due to lack of funding to manage them. But yet they had over $3 million to do this round up? Yes, Mr. Bundy has been in and out of the courts for over 20 years trying to win their battle. Now, I wasn't in court to hear testimony of either side, so, I claim no knowledge of that part of the story. What I believe about it though is that Mr Bundy took the stand that many ranchers either could not or would not. The stand being that the BLM is not using consistent, common sense practices when it comes to our public lands. This happened when the Fed was shut down and denying citizens entrance to OUR national parks. (whole other argument) The BLM again mismanaged the situation with the cattle. They ran the s**t out of the cow calf pairs in 90 degree temps with helicopters. How did that help the precious tortoise? Just made the cattle run wild, trampling everything in their path. The cattle were literally run to death. Then they purposefully chased cow calf pairs through the river. Many calves drowned because of stress and being too young to cross. Many more calves were separated from their mothers and just left to fend on their own. Then BLM took in heavy equipment and destroyed the spring fed water sources. I get the fact that the courts may have been on the side of the BLM but I have 2 questions: Why did they wait so long to do this? And if they are so interested in recouping the money they are owed, why not use better tactics to gather cattle? Killing them means no financial return. I feel it is time the BLM be run by the public and have their positions be voted on. These are public lands and should be run by the public. And The IRS Audit has yet to commence. You and I will be there together then! heheeheheh
It wouldn't be the first time I was on someone's list  | |
| | |
New Info Detective
Posts: 1551
| Have no idea to the validity of this article. If there is a shred of truth, I think it should be checked out.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/chilling-truth-siege-of-bundy-ranch-reaches-into-the-white-house/
| |
| | |
  Semper Fi
 
Location: North Texas | Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs.
This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds!
Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this!
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family...
FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!!
April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments
When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other.
Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property.
Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived.
Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service.
Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board.
Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.”
His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.”
Last hope for ranchers?
Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States.
Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution.
The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=n... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas.
Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water.
Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government.
In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights.
Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.”
Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co.
Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain.
Forest Service stepped in
When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes.
The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.”
The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment.
Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government.
Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations.
Problems from outset
Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985.
The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch.
The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement.
When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land.
Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s.
They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government.
They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land.
Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights.
Ridding the West of ranchers
For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states.
Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus.
The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans.
Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor.
Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government.
Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project.
Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives.
Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project.
The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land.
Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.”
The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights.
Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build.
He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back.
These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
| |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I posted links to the Eisenhower Report of 1962 and the listings of the land in Nevada whcich clearly shows Clark county & the land in question as a 'Code 4' jurisdiction. You continue to deny it has any bearing.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:32 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 11:24 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.
I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.
As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**
Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.
The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.
Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.
There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show.
IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?
The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible.
BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html
NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do
Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!
The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to. In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??
I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.
Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
Here is a thought I have not stated before: The BLM, IRS (to a certain extent ) and EPA, all make and enforce Policy that is NOT Constitutional Legislation, but yet is ENFORCED as if said Policy IS Constitutional Legislation. This observation is completely akin to the PROVEN Cause of The American Revolution: Taxation without Representation. IE: The Original Tea Party in the 1770s over a 3% on Tea. This event happened in Boston Harbor, Mass.
And there are groups that are taking on the Federal Govt., over just that. However, illegally grazing your cattle for 20+ years is not the way to respond, and then to put other people in dangers way, as well as your cattle, it's not only not responsible, but if someone gets hurt, I can easily see a family having a civil suit against Bundy.
One person's idea of "consitutional" is not anothers. Hence, the court system. There is a different NV family the Hages, who have won, finally in court, although they have yet to see a dime. They have written a book called Storms over Rangelands. I have yet to see that family or any of the other "ranchers that have been pushed out" coming to the Bundy's aid.
IT will be interesting to see the outcome, but again, fighting the system by hanging out in NV on your ranch, letting your cattle become feral is not the way to fight unconsitutional laws. | |
| | |
 Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | The wilderness area/corridor is part of Agenda 21. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 12:12 PM OK, here's my 2 cents worth. I have read A LOT of the history of both the Bundy family lease and the ownership of the land by the Fed. I don't need to rehash it over again, as many of you have already read it too. For those of you that have stated that this is a bad situation on either side, well, that's the best assesment of any. I live here in Nevada and this family is part of our rodeo family too. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to resolve this situation for either side. What I do know is what this whole thing means to me as an American. I am weary of an overbearing hypocritical government. This is not about tortoises, it's a show of power. Here recently, the Fed euthanized more than 100 tortoises due to lack of funding to manage them. But yet they had over $3 million to do this round up? Yes, Mr. Bundy has been in and out of the courts for over 20 years trying to win their battle. Now, I wasn't in court to hear testimony of either side, so, I claim no knowledge of that part of the story. What I believe about it though is that Mr Bundy took the stand that many ranchers either could not or would not. The stand being that the BLM is not using consistent, common sense practices when it comes to our public lands. This happened when the Fed was shut down and denying citizens entrance to OUR national parks. (whole other argument) The BLM again mismanaged the situation with the cattle. They ran the s**t out of the cow calf pairs in 90 degree temps with helicopters. How did that help the precious tortoise? Just made the cattle run wild, trampling everything in their path. The cattle were literally run to death. Then they purposefully chased cow calf pairs through the river. Many calves drowned because of stress and being too young to cross. Many more calves were separated from their mothers and just left to fend on their own. Then BLM took in heavy equipment and destroyed the spring fed water sources. I get the fact that the courts may have been on the side of the BLM but I have 2 questions: Why did they wait so long to do this? And if they are so interested in recouping the money they are owed, why not use better tactics to gather cattle? Killing them means no financial return. I feel it is time the BLM be run by the public and have their positions be voted on. These are public lands and should be run by the public.
This may have started over a turtle, but in now way shape or form is it over a turtle now. It's over blantant disregard for the law. You, and Bundy, can tell the BLM they are mismanging all over the place, but the time and place to do that, is at public meetings that the BLM holds, it's to you representatives, it's to Congress, it's to the President if you like, but he is not a real ranchman in my eyes, as HE LET the BLM - and it's NOT their job to care if the cows are calving - come in and round up his cattle (SOME FERAL) with helicopters. He could have stopped all this before now, he chose not to, because that doesn't solicit sympathy.
The BLM has to go through so many steps to do anythign it's crazy, they are simply following the laws put in place in 1970 by President Nixon. They don't sit around a table and think, "You know, that BUndy is really getting on my nerves"
They waited, because they were in court, to my understanding, from the outside looking in.
How would you have had them do it differently? They have clearly tried many different tactics. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Turner1 - 2014-04-14 1:29 PM
Have no idea to the validity of this article. If there is a shred of truth, I think it should be checked out.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/chilling-truth-siege-of-bundy-ranch-reaches-into-the-white-house/
There are many sources and references in this article that reveal just how much is @ stake w/ The Feds riding roughshod over Private American Citizens.
Live link:
http://www.independentsentinel.com/chilling-truth-siege-of-bundy-ra...
Chilling Truth: The Siege of the Bundy Ranch Reaches into the White House
April 13, 2014
By Sara Noble
Cliven Bundy
Cliven Bundy, can a cowboy defeat the Marxists?
In the end, there is only one reason why the Bundy ranch was besieged. President Obama had to have taken the lead. He knew it was going on and he sanctioned it. Beyond oil, solar, and Chinese Communists with money, lurks Obama’s Agenda.
InfoWars has found a smoking gun in the case of embattled rancher Cliven Bundy. A lucrative contract – which will benefit Harry Reid and his son Rory Reid – specifically mentions the need to rid the land of Cliven Bundy. In addition, Natural News pointed out that the BLM is in the business of selling lucrative oil and gas leases. It does answer the question, Why now?
There is a much bigger picture in all of this, however, and that is the fact Mr. Obama believes the government should control the land and water in the United States. He sees the government as the protector of the nation’s resources. It is his belief. He does not respect private property – it is the government’s to take. That should now be obvious to everyone.
Mr. Obama is social engineering citizens off their land into congested hubs to preserve the land for nature and to have it available for government use, maybe even to share the resources with U.N. member nations such as China, because he believes in globalism, an extreme form of globalism. He has already expressed a desire to share the wealth from our resources with the world through treaties such as The Law of the Sea treaty.
Natural News reported that the Bureau of Land Management is in the business of leasing government lands to energy companies. Significant exploratory drilling is being conducted in precisely the same area where the Bundy family has been running cattle since the 1870's. The “Gold Butte” area can be clearly seen in the map of areas drilled (purple demarcations).
drilling
Oil has been found in nearby areas but oil and gas drilling have worked alongside ranching over the years without a problem. Of course, if the government can lease the land on which the cattle graze, it will be lucrative for them.
In July 2011, the federal government agreed to allow China to buy up 600,000 acres of gas & oil fields in Texas. This is the same administration that would not allow new drilling; kicked Shell out of Alaska after billions of dollars of investments; shut down most offshore drilling; and tried to shut down Texas oil fields on the remote possibility that it might harm a tiny useless lizard that was most often known for being road kill.
The acreage takes in the Gold Butte area where Bundy grazes his cattle.
Mr. Obama prefers solar and windmills to oil and gas however.
Bundy’s name came up in a solar project that the government currently wants to put in place with the Chinese communists using Nevada land This time.
InfoWars posted documents found on the BLM website which BLM has since taken down. One document is titled, “Cattle Trespass Impacts” and it states that Bundy’s cattle negatively “impacts” solar development and would prevent the construction of utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”
They are talking about a very lucrative “investment” of $5 billion by Chines communists who will set up an enclave – a Chinese communist enclave – on U.S. land in Nevada.
Check out the document:
The first segment of the document pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.
The first segment of the document was pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.
Another BLM report entitled “Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone” (BLM Technical Note 444) reveals that Bundy’s land in question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for “Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land “managed” by BLM.
Check that out:
The second segment of the document pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.
The second segment of the document was also pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.
The person who will directly and immediately benefit from this is “Dirty Harry” Reid. His son, Rory, is the lobbyist for the project and will also rake in the dollars.
It goes much further than that, reaching into the White House, to a president who is seizing land under the guise of necessary preservation.
A leaked memo uncovered in 2010 exposed the Obama Administration’s land grab initiative that is intended to spread across other western states. The land grab in this memo alone covered 10 million acres of Western land in 11 states.
As part of Obama’s “Great Outdoors Initiative”, the administration met quietly with environmental groups to map out government plans for acquiring untold millions of acres of both public and private land.
It’s a stealthy power grab through executive order that promises to radically transform the American way of life. Michelle Malkin had a thorough description of what the government was doing.
In April 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum outlining his “21st century strategy for America’s great outdoors”, calling for officials to conduct “listening and learning sessions” with the public to identify places that mean the most to Americans and leverage the support of the federal government to “protect” outdoor spaces. The memo bragged about the federal government being the nation’s “largest land manager.”
They looked at millions of acres and Secretary Vilsack pleaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”
Democrats put in a provision in these packages that would require the federal government to take over energy permitting in state waters.
The amount of land the federal government owns or controls is shocking. Check out the map. Areas in red are the federal government’s to control and we now know they are willing to shoot American citizens to keep it that way.
land owned by feds
The Obama administration believes in Agenda 21 and, no, it’s not a conspiracy theory, it is clearly outlined on the U.N. website. ICLEI, its offshoot, is active throughout the United States. Agenda 21 sees the government as the best protector of the land, water and resources. The government must own the land and dole out the resources for humans and animals. That is what Mr. Obama believes.
Toads, chickens, and tortoises are excuses for a much larger vision, a vision that will give the government the power and the wealth of the country’s resources.
Recently, the EPA seized the entire town of Riverton, Wyoming and gave it to the Native-Americans. They did this because they believe they own the land and have the right to do it.
The EPA seized control over all the water in the nation, even ditches with a “rule” that is actually an unconstitutionally-written law.
The EPA is redefining the meaning of the word ‘water’ in such a way as to allow them to seize control over all water and, as a consequence, all private property in the United States.
The Supreme Court of the United States has defined the meaning of ‘water’ as ‘navigable water.’ The EPA seeks to redefine the meaning of water as all ‘connected water,’ and they are seeking to define ‘connected water as all water, so they can assume power to regulate every body of water in the United States. Any water, even ditches, on private property will be controlled. They are using a bizarre theory found in a study which says all water is connected underground.
On August 2011, Executive Order 13575 was issued and it gave the government control over 16% of our rural lands. For what reason? Are the rural lands doing badly? Did the farmers ask for this?
Executive Order 13575 allows the President to develop “sustainable communities. The government has no constitutional authority to do this but they are. Last year, Mr. Obama announced his plan to develop “promise zones.” He’s starting small.
The order is in complete agreement with the UN’s Agenda 21 - The UN’s View on Property Rights – Straight From the Marxist Manual.
Obama created the White House Rural Council, chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture. It includes 25 Cabinet secretaries. Their mission, which will cover every government everything, is to promote prosperity and quality of life in rural USA.
This is the beginning of a complete takeover of rural lands and it won’t matter who owns them. Obama’s agencies have been besieging farmers with regulations since he came into office.
All over rural America, Obama’s agencies are seizing private property, but most particularly in the West, and they use toads, tortoises, frogs and wildflowers to make it happen. They often assume control through sue and settle cases by working hand-in-hand with radical environmental groups. It isn’t about the toads and the wildflowers per se. It’s about the federal government controlling all the land, water and resources in this country.
Remember his plan to map every neighborhood throughout the country? He plans to shuffle the resources and the people among neighborhoods until all share equally in the pie regardless of how much each contributes. He has a mortgage redistribution scheme to be executed through HUD that will help make this happen. A lazy person will gain the most under this system. It is social engineering and Obama believes in it.
Before the Bundy ranch was besieged, in March, The Center for Biodiversity, a truly powerful and radical environmental agency, released a memo falsely claiming that the tortoises were “suffering” because of cattle grazing and demanded the government do something. It specifically cited ranchers who “trespass cattle” for free, destroying the vegetation.
Why did they choose to do that at this time? Were they working with someone in the administration?
In November 2012, Obama gave 9.5 million acres of Western land to the spotted owl, even though the owl already had 4 million acres. It isn’t only about the owl. It’s about all the wildlife. He believes they should have preference to the humans in the area.
President Obama has been using executive orders (EO’s) in ways they have never been used before. He is using them to do end-runs around Congress by legislating from the White House. Some EO’s are dormant but pose a potential future threat.
One of those is EO 13603 which he signed on March 16, 2012. The purpose of the EO is to delegate authority and address national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950. It provides the framework and authority for the allocation or appropriation of resources, materials and services to promote national defense.
It’s an update to prior National Preparedness Orders and normally it wouldn’t be a concern but there were some subtle changes that seem unnecessary. The definition of “national emergency” was made broader and left quite vague. There are no checks and balances within the EO but it includes all of the Executive Branch agencies, agencies that would have unlimited power if the president declared a “national emergency”.
The Executive Branch would completely control our lives through the “industrial and technological base,” and he would have the power over all commodities and products capable of being ingested by human beings and animals; all forms of energy; all forms of civil transportation; all usable water from all sources; health resources; forced labor such as military conscription; and federal officials could issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources.”
EO 13603 is the plan to control our economy and our lives in the event of a crisis endangering our national security; there are no checks and balances written into the EO and “national emergency” is too broadly defined.
Could a cyber threat be used as an excuse to use this authority? Could an economic crisis cause the president to take over retirement funds using this EO?
In Obama’s hands, this EO does give one pause.
President Obama was most certainly aware of the two-week siege in Nevada. He most certainly sanctioned it or the BLM wouldn’t have been there, hiding behind cars, fully armored with helmets, wielding military-grade weapons. The entire affair was an overreaction on the part of the government. Could they overreact to an alleged national emergency as well?
The point of mentioning EO 13603 is to point to a pattern of behavior coming from this administration. Everything must be controlled by the Big Government.
One of the Big Government commissioners in Nevada Tom Collins threatened to kill people according to Darin Bushman, a Utah commissioner, who called him to offer help. Bushman wrote this on his Facebook page: “I was just told by commissioner Collins of Clark County NV that all of us folks from Utah are a bunch of ‘inbred bastards’ and if we are coming to Clark County NV to support Cliven Bundy we all ‘better have funeral plans’. We should ‘turn our asses around and mind our own f-ing business’. Now there’s some classy leadership for you.”
That’s a little more alarming than having one’s personal sensibilities ruffled. This man was threatening violence if people didn’t do as he and his Big Government colleagues demanded. The BLM law enforcement – their army of armed bureaucrats – threatened, repeatedly, to shoot the protesters at the Bundy Ranch because they had a court order, which in the 80% Democratic Clark County wouldn’t be hard to get. The BLM already roughed people up and tasered the son of the ranch owner.
Remember in 2008 when Mr. Obama said he’d build a domestic army?
Obama certainly knew about the attack on the ranch and when Harry Reid’s solar plan was tied into the BLM, the attack was called off. Our government wants the land, the water and the resources to dole out as they see fit. That is the goal. That is the reason Bundy’s ranch was under attack.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | This deal ain't over yet! And frankly I am not surprised.
https://www.teaparty.org/blm-flip-flops-deal-dropping-actions-bundy-...
Despite standoff defeat, feds assert case will continue
(Info Wars) – Despite being forced to release hundreds of seized cattle after an astounding standoff on Saturday, the Bureau of Land Management has vowed to continue its pursuit of Cliven Bundy, asserting that no deal has been made to cease its case against the Nevada cattle rancher.
Amazing scenes unfolded on Saturday as Bundy supporters and cowboys on horseback faced off against armed BLM agents and police, demanding that hundreds of cattle seized by the BLM over a grazing rights dispute be released from a nearby corral.
With feds and law enforcement at one point threatening to shoot protesters dead, Bundy supporters fearlessly held their ground and then began advancing on the corral.
SPECIAL: Join the Tea Party REVOLUTION! The Obama Regime must be dismantled!
Around 380 cattle were eventually released and BLM agents left the scene, a remarkable victory for property rights activists against big government. However, the ‘battle of Bunkerville’ as it is now being called is unlikely to mark the end of the saga.
Despite Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie announcing on Saturday that the BLM had agreed to cease its operation against Bundy, the BLM now asserts that it played no part in the deal and will continue to pursue Bundy “administratively and judicially” for the $1 million in grazing fees it claims Bundy owes the feds.
Since Bundy has steadfastly refused to pay the fee, offering instead to pay it to Clark County, the feds will have no option other than to send armed men to arrest Bundy or restart the operation to confiscate his cattle. Such action will then prompt thousands of Americans to rally to Bundy’s defense just as they did last week, threatening another standoff.
“The door isn’t closed. We’ll figure out how to move forward with this,” BLM spokesman Craig Leff told the Associated Press, adding, “The BLM and National Park Service did not cut any deal and negotiate anything, there was no deal we made.”
This completely contradicts reports on Saturday which stated that, “A deal has been reached between the Bundy family and the Bureau of Land Management.”
In another twist, private investigator Doug Hagmann claims a Department of Homeland Security source told him that the federal stand down on Saturday was merely a temporary measure designed to “hoodwink” Bundy supporters into “believing that the situation is being resolved”.
Hagmann says his source told him the plan to release the cattle had been devised the day before and that Saturday’s activities were focused around a military assessment of the strength of the “resistance” shown by Bundy supporters.
Whatever the truth, the ‘battle of Bunkerville’ represents a seminal moment in the modern American liberty movement.
However, the notion that it represents the end of the federal government’s pursuit of Cliven Bundy is a naive conclusion to draw.
http://www.infowars.com/blm-flip-flops-no-deal-on-dropping-actions-...
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
|
the visuals on this article are great and I actually tried to upload them, they show how his feral cattle are interferring with others and other projects. It's shows how they have tried and tried to work with him..
However, thinking that Obama is personally involved in something that has been going on since 1993, is why most people on the left think most people on the right aren't stable.
This is a simple case being made into an ENORMOUS conspiracy theory and it's funny as someone sitting in the middle. Makes me wonder how many other trumped up crap stories I've bought into in the past. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-14 1:49 PM
the visuals on this article are great and I actually tried to upload them, they show how his feral cattle are interferring with others and other projects. It's shows how they have tried and tried to work with him..
However, thinking that Obama is personally involved in something that has been going on since 1993, is why most people on the left think most people on the right aren't stable.
This is a simple case being made into an ENORMOUS conspiracy theory and it's funny as someone sitting in the middle. Makes me wonder how many other trumped up crap stories I've bought into in the past.
Smiley I C&P'ed the text. There is a plethora of Executive Orders cited in this article. And I believe these EOs to be unConstitutional. Since there is NO Congressional Mandate for EOs. Remember Congress writes Legislation and The President either signs (approves/agrees with) or vetoes (disagrees/rejects it) legislation......................
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-14 2:09 PM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
Yes, other ranches in other states have had their cheap grazing gravy train taken away as well. Sorry guys but this whole "they were there first" is just what illegal immigrants are using for their cases today. Don't buy it. If your ranch can't survive without federal land, then change your business. Life happens. My husband's family lost the family farm in the 80s, it happens. It's sad and frustrating but it's reality and the reality is that this PUBLIC land belongs to more than ranchers. And those people are starting to wonder why ranchers are so special that they get to pay these crazy low fees to use public land that then keep others off of it.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 12:37 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
So Musicmaker, what is the answer? Is it to let the cattle ranches use public land free of charge? | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:52 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:49 PM
the visuals on this article are great and I actually tried to upload them, they show how his feral cattle are interferring with others and other projects. It's shows how they have tried and tried to work with him..
However, thinking that Obama is personally involved in something that has been going on since 1993, is why most people on the left think most people on the right aren't stable.
This is a simple case being made into an ENORMOUS conspiracy theory and it's funny as someone sitting in the middle. Makes me wonder how many other trumped up crap stories I've bought into in the past. Smiley I C&P'ed the text. There is a plethora of Executive Orders cited in this article. And I believe these EOs to be unConstitutional. Since there is Congressional Mandate for EOs.
And I would agree with you to an extent, that does NOT change that the BUNDYs have been illegally grazing for more than 20-25 years. Unconsitutional or not, this is NOT how our system works. They have done nothing other than to bring the full weight of the feds down on them.
What are your answers to this?? Allow Bundy's cattle to remain feral and a danger to others? Allow him to continue to run as many head as HE sees fit, despite clear and present over grazing? Allow him to use the land free of charge forever?? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-14 1:38 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:32 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 11:24 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.
I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.
As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**
Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.
The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.
Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.
There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show.
IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?
The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible.
BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html
NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do
Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!
The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to. In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??
I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.
Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
Here is a thought I have not stated before: The BLM, IRS (to a certain extent ) and EPA, all make and enforce Policy that is NOT Constitutional Legislation, but yet is ENFORCED as if said Policy IS Constitutional Legislation. This observation is completely akin to the PROVEN Cause of The American Revolution: Taxation without Representation. IE: The Original Tea Party in the 1770s over a 3% on Tea. This event happened in Boston Harbor, Mass.
One person's idea of "consitutional" is not anothers. Hence, the court system. There is a different NV family the Hages, who have won, finally in court, although they have yet to see a dime. They have written a book called Storms over Rangelands. I have yet to see that family or any of the other "ranchers that have been pushed out" coming to the Bundy's aid.
IT will be interesting to see the outcome, but again, fighting the system by hanging out in NV on your ranch, letting your cattle become feral is not the way to fight unconsitutional laws.
I do not disagree with you. However Cliven Bundy has successfully "marketed" his saga in something that resonates w/ Constitutionalists. I do not necessarily agree with Cliven Bundy. But I do AGREE with The Constitution. Threeforluck made the most accurate observation earlier in this thread in regards to American Patriots are fed up with an overreaching Federal Government. And right or wrong, these same have chosen to display their displeasure w/ The Feds in the form of resistance in connection w/ Cliven Bundy.
Now as the Hage Family, The Original Hage are deceased. However there are Court Decision ceding in their favor under The Fourth Amendment and Illegal 'Takings'. To my knowledge the Hage Estate has not been compensated to date. And probably will not either. Re: The Red River Rancher in Texas who lost 140 Acres, 30 years ago and was not compensated for it. | |
| | |
Cyber World Challenged
Posts: 2526
Location: My Own Little World | foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:35 AM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
This is exactly what I'm saying. Mr Bundy did just this, make a stand. I hope that more folks do and more citizens stand with them. Our country should be run by the opinion of the people not the opinion of the beaurocrats. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=n... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone.
However, The Constitutional Court System has recognized "Chain of Title" as per the Hage Family Court Decision. Smiley, are you sure you are not contradicting yourself here? | |
| | |
New Info Detective
Posts: 1551
| I realize it all started in 1993, the question I have, why has the BLM waited so long to do anything about Bundy? I think there are so many unanswered questions.
Like I said, I have no idea to the validity of the article.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 2:03 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:35 AM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=n... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
Hence a Representative Constitutional Republic! And America's current literal course of governing is just opposite! | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-14 12:55 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 12:37 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
The only answer is to put the states on equal footing by releasing the land...or, at the very least, stop fighting for jurisdiction that the fed does not have...the misinformation is appalling. There does exist documentation that proves jurisdiction & authority.
We need to stand up for the states rights. This isn't about the cattle...it never has b een...it's about a rancher who's standing up to an out of control gov't.
Thanks for asking!
| |
| |
| |
Folks on-line