|
|
Grammar Expert
  
| foundation horse - 2014-04-14 9:33 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:23 PM And they are called out the auction house that said they would take in the cattle. So, in their 15 minutes of fame, they are going to take someone's livelihood with them in the form of boycotting this auction house.
Shame on the Bundys. What is wrong for outing an outfit that is willing to deal in stolen merchandise?
Again, if this man wants to go down in flames for his "right" to raise his family, then do so, but why take this auction house with him? They too are trying to raise a family in a Western business. These are NOT stolen cattle, these are a commodity for unpaid bills.
Edited by smiley 2014-04-15 9:00 AM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| daisycake123 - 2014-04-14 11:59 PM Since this,family has been grazing this land for over 100 years so i dont know how much of this is grandfathered. Hopefully thru this they will aquire a good national know lawyer. I dont think it is about the cattle. I would like to see an itemized bill from the government. Also the government owes those people for the cows that they killed. It is biggermthan the cows. Remember in california that the government cut off the water to a bunch of farmers over something that they said was on the endangered species. I know down here there was am issue with some beach beatle you could build a seawall or pier without some study over that beatle you could not even see. You know how the government goes stupid.
More likely they will send HIM a bill for their cost to round up the cattle.
SMH at the creative ways people are letting this guy off the hook. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| STABALL - 2014-04-15 5:23 AM I've read some of the 12 pages on this thread, but I just saw a Youtube video going around on Facebook stating that the Feds backed down & gave Bundy his cattle back.....now.....I'm assuming this video is a load of crap. Any truth to him getting any cattle back?
They released the cattle but it's not over, there was no deal. The man still hasn't paid and his cattle are sill on ground that isn't his.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-15 7:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today.
I think you can look it up, but not sure where. We have strangley half of our mineral rights - so 17.5 acres out of 35. I don't even know who owns the other half. Strange ways of doing business.
The fed govt., owns a huge, huge chunk of mineral rights under much land that people also don't seem to understand. | |
| | |
 BHW Jr. Cougar of the Year
Posts: 14957
 
Location: Heart of Texas | Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-15 8:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today.
It depends on what the Mineral/Royalty Deed says. Some are just the royalties for 20 years. I usually find that Royalty Deeds have a term on them. Actual Mineral Deeds, as in granting the oil, gas and mineral rights, don't have a term limit. | |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-15 7:31 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-15 7:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today.
The fed govt., owns a huge, huge chunk of mineral rights under much land that people also don't seem to understand.
It's so sad that many people didn't understand the value of mineral rights. The gov't sure did when they started retaining them...and removing land from homesteading. A lot of folks don't understand that much of the land that was viable for aggriculture, ranching, mining...was 'reserved' to the fed...they set themselves up as 'landlords' while preventing the states from enjoying economic independence. That's what this fight is really about.
I've been thinking that if those of you who are jeolous of our public land should give all yours to the fed & lease it from them like we have to do. I mean, it's such a great deal! Cheap land...someone always telling you exactly what you can & can't do...I highly recommend it! Oh wait, give it time...it'll happen.
| |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 1857
| Just want to say that I am glad this post is still going and that we have many people that are willing to think on their own and make a decision on where they stand, be it one side or the other. Now days it's too common for people to jump on the bandwagon and have no clue why or what for.
Edited by FlyingJT 2014-04-15 9:25 AM
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FlyingJT - 2014-04-15 8:07 AM Just want to say that I am glad this post is still going and that we have many people that are willing to think on their own and make a decision on where they stand, be it one side or the other. Now days it's too common for people to jump on the band wagon and have no clue why or what for.
I agree. It's just unfortunate that we have so much 'garbage' to sift through trying to find the truth...(from the varying groups who put out propaganda, including the gov't, politicians & others w/something to gain!).
This is an emotional issue for those of us who live out here...and we can't put any stock into who supports or doesn't support the Bundy's inparticular as we all know that people who have socialist leanings come from all walks of life.
It's been impossible to shine the light on the fact that our gov't has prevented the western states from having equal footing with the rest...and when ppl say to take it to court it shows how gullible & brainwashed we are to believe our courts aren't corrupt. If you can even get a hearing...it's stacked against you.
One judge & 2 lawyers = conspiracy.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| carlos - 2014-04-14 11:59 AM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:43 PM For the record, I am not "defending" my personal life. I am proud of who I am and my family. I meant it as a "teaching" moment. Every private rancher I know would jump at the chance to own a federal or state grazing permit. The better terms are 1/50th of the rent we all pay if we want more pasture. Young people can't get a start anymore because the rent it too high, land prices are through the roof and a bred cow costs $2000+. If people's anti-government sentiment is so high that they will side with a family who has obviously gone around the bend, they need to rethink things. Grazing permits that come up for lease are few and very far between and priced way out of reach of a common "rancher". The government, by letting him use that pasture for free, is robbing all of us of revenue that goes to benefit everyone. Why don't they show the people on tv who pay their rent and think these people are cheats? Because "TV" is not interested in the real story, it's not sensational enough. They want the ratings killer. It's why people watch bull riding I think, for the wrecks.
I am not taking any one side over another as far as BHW members go.... I however very very rarely trust the government. I absolutely 100% believe Bundy when he says he paid for years to the BLM on what their agreement was supposed to be and stopped after the BLM did NOT hold to their end of the agreement. There is mile after mile of red tape to contend with when dealing with any government entity. It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair. To be honest I don't care about any of that. I have a big problem with government not holding to what they were formed to do. HAPPENS IN ALL GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS. How about this tortoise refuge that our beloved government has been funding... that no longer can fund, so those tortoises will just be euthanized. I know that is trivial but that's such a waste and that is SO TYPICAL of a government run program. So when BLM comes in and bullies a citizen I have a problem with that.
"It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair."
Just a quick thought on this. My husband and I both rodeo'd for many years and if something happened that wasn't quite fair, I would be more inclined to point that out as possibly cheating, and he would just laugh and say "That's Competative Edge!" Rather than describing ranchers as "jealous" of people with Federal grazing permits, I think ranchers who do not have them compared to ranchers who do are at a decided financial disadvantage in the cattle industry. When you total cost of production for anyone who may have a mortgage on purchased land, plus taxes it far outweighs the total cost of production for people with government leases. They definately have the "Competative Edge". No matter how much they complain about the restrictions, seldom do you see anyone give up their lease. Since it is public land, maybe the lease structure should be changed from "perpetuity" to coming up every seven years like School Land leases. We rent a section of school ground for about $5000/year that will run about 30 head of cattle which comes to $13.88/month. That is ten times the rental rate of Federal Land. Every seven years, we have to "bid" against other people who want to rent the ground, paying at least the yearly rental rate plus any "bonus" to secure the lease, which in some people cases runs into the thousands of dollars. We accept that as the cost of doing business. If we refused to pay the rent, we would get kicked off, simple as that, because there is always someone waiting in line to pick up those leases. I simply can't understand why a man who went on TV and said he doesn't "recognize" there is a federal government is given a pass.
On another note, without reading what everyone has been talking about mineral leases, here in western Nebraska, a couple of oil companies have been buying up mineral leases from a bunch of old people for three bucks an acre and the old people are just happy as can be. The oil companies, too. Go figure. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-15 8:04 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 7:31 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-15 7:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today.
The fed govt., owns a huge, huge chunk of mineral rights under much land that people also don't seem to understand.
I've been thinking that if those of you who are jeolous of our public land should give all yours to the fed & lease it from them like we have to do. I mean, it's such a great deal! Cheap land...someone always telling you exactly what you can & can't do...I highly recommend it! Oh wait, give it time...it'll happen.
So, do tell, who forced you to live where you live?
This is snarky, but at some point, we tell the Mexicans to "go back" and we tell the Indians "that's over" and we tell Blacks "no 40 acres and a mule, that's history" but then we whine about what we have or do not have and think that somehow it should change for us. I'm not counting myself out of that, I've done it too "hey wait, it's MY turn, WTH?"
But again, if your business model depends on fed land, do soemthing about it. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| FlyingJT - 2014-04-15 8:07 AM Just want to say that I am glad this post is still going and that we have many people that are willing to think on their own and make a decision on where they stand, be it one side or the other. Now days it's too common for people to jump on the bandwagon and have no clue why or what for.
Agreed, and agreed! I'm not 100% on the feds owning land and learning more as I go. But think about Calif. and their activists who are often crazy, if they have complete control over the land, there will be no checks and balances, there will be no conservative view and how does that work?
Just think if we didn't have fed land we literally would NOT have Yellowstone or Yosemite. There have been good things to come out of fed control over some of the lands. And if Westerners are getting screwed, there are lands for sale in the East.
I always look at welfare people in the middle of a ghetto and wonder "why the HECK don't they MOVE?" | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 8:45 AM carlos - 2014-04-14 11:59 AM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:43 PM For the record, I am not "defending" my personal life. I am proud of who I am and my family. I meant it as a "teaching" moment. Every private rancher I know would jump at the chance to own a federal or state grazing permit. The better terms are 1/50th of the rent we all pay if we want more pasture. Young people can't get a start anymore because the rent it too high, land prices are through the roof and a bred cow costs $2000+. If people's anti-government sentiment is so high that they will side with a family who has obviously gone around the bend, they need to rethink things. Grazing permits that come up for lease are few and very far between and priced way out of reach of a common "rancher". The government, by letting him use that pasture for free, is robbing all of us of revenue that goes to benefit everyone. Why don't they show the people on tv who pay their rent and think these people are cheats? Because "TV" is not interested in the real story, it's not sensational enough. They want the ratings killer. It's why people watch bull riding I think, for the wrecks. I am not taking any one side over another as far as BHW members go.... I however very very rarely trust the government. I absolutely 100% believe Bundy when he says he paid for years to the BLM on what their agreement was supposed to be and stopped after the BLM did NOT hold to their end of the agreement. There is mile after mile of red tape to contend with when dealing with any government entity. It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair. To be honest I don't care about any of that. I have a big problem with government not holding to what they were formed to do. HAPPENS IN ALL GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS. How about this tortoise refuge that our beloved government has been funding... that no longer can fund, so those tortoises will just be euthanized. I know that is trivial but that's such a waste and that is SO TYPICAL of a government run program. So when BLM comes in and bullies a citizen I have a problem with that. "It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair." Just a quick thought on this. My husband and I both rodeo'd for many years and if something happened that wasn't quite fair, I would be more inclined to point that out as possibly cheating, and he would just laugh and say "That's Competative Edge!" Rather than describing ranchers as "jealous" of people with Federal grazing permits, I think ranchers who do not have them compared to ranchers who do are at a decided financial disadvantage in the cattle industry. When you total cost of production for anyone who may have a mortgage on purchased land, plus taxes it far outweighs the total cost of production for people with government leases. They definately have the "Competative Edge". No matter how much they complain about the restrictions, seldom do you see anyone give up their lease. Since it is public land, maybe the lease structure should be changed from "perpetuity" to coming up every seven years like School Land leases. We rent a section of school ground for about $5000/year that will run about 30 head of cattle which comes to $13.88/month. That is ten times the rental rate of Federal Land. Every seven years, we have to "bid" against other people who want to rent the ground, paying at least the yearly rental rate plus any "bonus" to secure the lease, which in some people cases runs into the thousands of dollars. We accept that as the cost of doing business. If we refused to pay the rent, we would get kicked off, simple as that, because there is always someone waiting in line to pick up those leases. I simply can't understand why a man who went on TV and said he doesn't "recognize" there is a federal government is given a pass. On another note, without reading what everyone has been talking about mineral leases, here in western Nebraska, a couple of oil companies have been buying up mineral leases from a bunch of old people for three bucks an acre and the old people are just happy as can be. The oil companies, too. Go figure.
There's so many differences out here w/leased vs private land...it may seem 'cheap' until you figure the lack of water into it. That's a huge expense. Last month a group of 'Friends of ...something' decided to remove over 2k feet of pipeline that came down a cliff side because they thought it was ugly! The rancher spent many thousands of $'s installing this to water his cows...he's been finding dead cows due to bullets & poison, his water tanks shot up...because the environmentalists hate cows & are trying to run him out. Not to mention some mystery lizard. This is part of what some groups want the pres to declare Red Rock Wilderness & remove all but foot traffic.
You speak as though the ranchers haven't invested anything in the land...the water sources are used by wildlife & migrating birds, the ...never mind. It's not possible to explain what this means to our economy.
If you want info & numbers here's a good site...we all know that if you 'follow the money' much will be revealed:
http://americanlandscouncil.org/
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 8:45 AM carlos - 2014-04-14 11:59 AM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:43 PM For the record, I am not "defending" my personal life. I am proud of who I am and my family. I meant it as a "teaching" moment. Every private rancher I know would jump at the chance to own a federal or state grazing permit. The better terms are 1/50th of the rent we all pay if we want more pasture. Young people can't get a start anymore because the rent it too high, land prices are through the roof and a bred cow costs $2000+. If people's anti-government sentiment is so high that they will side with a family who has obviously gone around the bend, they need to rethink things. Grazing permits that come up for lease are few and very far between and priced way out of reach of a common "rancher". The government, by letting him use that pasture for free, is robbing all of us of revenue that goes to benefit everyone. Why don't they show the people on tv who pay their rent and think these people are cheats? Because "TV" is not interested in the real story, it's not sensational enough. They want the ratings killer. It's why people watch bull riding I think, for the wrecks. I am not taking any one side over another as far as BHW members go.... I however very very rarely trust the government. I absolutely 100% believe Bundy when he says he paid for years to the BLM on what their agreement was supposed to be and stopped after the BLM did NOT hold to their end of the agreement. There is mile after mile of red tape to contend with when dealing with any government entity. It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair. To be honest I don't care about any of that. I have a big problem with government not holding to what they were formed to do. HAPPENS IN ALL GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS. How about this tortoise refuge that our beloved government has been funding... that no longer can fund, so those tortoises will just be euthanized. I know that is trivial but that's such a waste and that is SO TYPICAL of a government run program. So when BLM comes in and bullies a citizen I have a problem with that. "It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair." Just a quick thought on this. My husband and I both rodeo'd for many years and if something happened that wasn't quite fair, I would be more inclined to point that out as possibly cheating, and he would just laugh and say "That's Competative Edge!" Rather than describing ranchers as "jealous" of people with Federal grazing permits, I think ranchers who do not have them compared to ranchers who do are at a decided financial disadvantage in the cattle industry. When you total cost of production for anyone who may have a mortgage on purchased land, plus taxes it far outweighs the total cost of production for people with government leases. They definately have the "Competative Edge". No matter how much they complain about the restrictions, seldom do you see anyone give up their lease. Since it is public land, maybe the lease structure should be changed from "perpetuity" to coming up every seven years like School Land leases. We rent a section of school ground for about $5000/year that will run about 30 head of cattle which comes to $13.88/month. That is ten times the rental rate of Federal Land. Every seven years, we have to "bid" against other people who want to rent the ground, paying at least the yearly rental rate plus any "bonus" to secure the lease, which in some people cases runs into the thousands of dollars. We accept that as the cost of doing business. If we refused to pay the rent, we would get kicked off, simple as that, because there is always someone waiting in line to pick up those leases. I simply can't understand why a man who went on TV and said he doesn't "recognize" there is a federal government is given a pass. On another note, without reading what everyone has been talking about mineral leases, here in western Nebraska, a couple of oil companies have been buying up mineral leases from a bunch of old people for three bucks an acre and the old people are just happy as can be. The oil companies, too. Go figure.
"Land men" have been an issue for a LONG time and are up there with politicians in D.C.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:04 AM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 8:45 AM carlos - 2014-04-14 11:59 AM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:43 PM For the record, I am not "defending" my personal life. I am proud of who I am and my family. I meant it as a "teaching" moment. Every private rancher I know would jump at the chance to own a federal or state grazing permit. The better terms are 1/50th of the rent we all pay if we want more pasture. Young people can't get a start anymore because the rent it too high, land prices are through the roof and a bred cow costs $2000+. If people's anti-government sentiment is so high that they will side with a family who has obviously gone around the bend, they need to rethink things. Grazing permits that come up for lease are few and very far between and priced way out of reach of a common "rancher". The government, by letting him use that pasture for free, is robbing all of us of revenue that goes to benefit everyone. Why don't they show the people on tv who pay their rent and think these people are cheats? Because "TV" is not interested in the real story, it's not sensational enough. They want the ratings killer. It's why people watch bull riding I think, for the wrecks. I am not taking any one side over another as far as BHW members go.... I however very very rarely trust the government. I absolutely 100% believe Bundy when he says he paid for years to the BLM on what their agreement was supposed to be and stopped after the BLM did NOT hold to their end of the agreement. There is mile after mile of red tape to contend with when dealing with any government entity. It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair. To be honest I don't care about any of that. I have a big problem with government not holding to what they were formed to do. HAPPENS IN ALL GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS. How about this tortoise refuge that our beloved government has been funding... that no longer can fund, so those tortoises will just be euthanized. I know that is trivial but that's such a waste and that is SO TYPICAL of a government run program. So when BLM comes in and bullies a citizen I have a problem with that. "It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair." Just a quick thought on this. My husband and I both rodeo'd for many years and if something happened that wasn't quite fair, I would be more inclined to point that out as possibly cheating, and he would just laugh and say "That's Competative Edge!" Rather than describing ranchers as "jealous" of people with Federal grazing permits, I think ranchers who do not have them compared to ranchers who do are at a decided financial disadvantage in the cattle industry. When you total cost of production for anyone who may have a mortgage on purchased land, plus taxes it far outweighs the total cost of production for people with government leases. They definately have the "Competative Edge". No matter how much they complain about the restrictions, seldom do you see anyone give up their lease. Since it is public land, maybe the lease structure should be changed from "perpetuity" to coming up every seven years like School Land leases. We rent a section of school ground for about $5000/year that will run about 30 head of cattle which comes to $13.88/month. That is ten times the rental rate of Federal Land. Every seven years, we have to "bid" against other people who want to rent the ground, paying at least the yearly rental rate plus any "bonus" to secure the lease, which in some people cases runs into the thousands of dollars. We accept that as the cost of doing business. If we refused to pay the rent, we would get kicked off, simple as that, because there is always someone waiting in line to pick up those leases. I simply can't understand why a man who went on TV and said he doesn't "recognize" there is a federal government is given a pass. On another note, without reading what everyone has been talking about mineral leases, here in western Nebraska, a couple of oil companies have been buying up mineral leases from a bunch of old people for three bucks an acre and the old people are just happy as can be. The oil companies, too. Go figure.
You speak as though the ranchers haven't invested anything in the land...the water sources are used by wildlife & migrating birds, the ...never mind. It's not possible to explain what this means to our economy.
If you want info & numbers here's a good site...we all know that if you 'follow the money' much will be revealed:
http://americanlandscouncil.org/
NOW we're talking - it is these activists that are SO removed from the land it's not even funny. They are a threat to us all - now consider them having the control over all the land in your state!
I realize that ranchers make improvements. I have not ranched, but my husband has and we've worked for a rancher in KS and some in Calif., and I have some rancher friends in Calif., who deal with this type of idiocy all the time. Believe it or not, the BLM often protects you from the crazy crap these people want.
I say we find a way to cut off the actvists. They are the invasive species. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Another interesting site:
http://www.ewg.org/mining/report/index.php | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-15 8:56 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 8:04 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 7:31 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-15 7:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today.
The fed govt., owns a huge, huge chunk of mineral rights under much land that people also don't seem to understand.
I've been thinking that if those of you who are jeolous of our public land should give all yours to the fed & lease it from them like we have to do. I mean, it's such a great deal! Cheap land...someone always telling you exactly what you can & can't do...I highly recommend it! Oh wait, give it time...it'll happen.
This is snarky, but at some point, we tell the Mexicans to "go back" and we tell the Indians "that's over" and we tell Blacks "no 40 acres and a mule, that's history" but then we whine about what we have or do not have and think that somehow it should change for us. I'm not counting myself out of that, I've done it too "hey wait, it's MY turn, WTH?"
But again, if your business model depends on fed land, do soemthing about it.
I actually own mineral rights & land (I am a landlord! Gravel pits, lease to ranchers & businesses)...husband has some oil leases with the state, the fed & private. We're not complaining for us! Life is good!
I just want it to be good for others, too...including my friends, the Navajo, to the south, the rancher, the farmer, the miner...I want our state to be on equal footing. It's our right. We shouldn't have to fight for it, but, we're willing!
Don't forget that many of our ancestors came over as indentured servants...the indians fled Asia, Mexicans are a mix of Spanish/Inca etc...we're all here now...and I believe that we all have an inalienable right to succeed or fail according to our own ambition, without an oppressive gov't such as we fled to begin with.
| |
| | |
 Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:04 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 7:31 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-15 7:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today.
The fed govt., owns a huge, huge chunk of mineral rights under much land that people also don't seem to understand.
I've been thinking that if those of you who are jeolous of our public land should give all yours to the fed & lease it from them like we have to do. I mean, it's such a great deal! Cheap land...someone always telling you exactly what you can & can't do...I highly recommend it! Oh wait, give it time...it'll happen.
That fear is in the back of my mind. How long until our food security/safety is deemed an issue that necessitates the govt taking control of the farm land. They've already done so to a degree by making it difficult to farm "out of the program" and tying conservation compliance to program eligibility, as well as EPA regs. Which I'm all for conservation measures and we've got some good things going with that, and we do need environmental regs (at the state level) but there is a lot of back room maneuvering and the fact that we "voluntarily" give up some control in exchange for a little economic security.(which is being phased out in steps) I can't help but think we're digging our hole deeper and I'm butt-deep in it with everyone else. | |
| | |
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| smiley - 2014-04-15 8:26 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 9:33 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:23 PM And they are called out the auction house that said they would take in the cattle. So, in their 15 minutes of fame, they are going to take someone's livelihood with them in the form of boycotting this auction house.
Shame on the Bundys. What is wrong for outing an outfit that is willing to deal in stolen merchandise?
Again, if this man wants to go down in flames for his "right" to raise his family, then do so, but why take this auction house with him? They too are trying to raise a family in a Western business. These are NOT stolen cattle, these are a commodity for unpaid bills.
Smiley, you really should read the judges order before you comment. NO WHERE in the order does it give the right to the BLM to sell the cattle. The order only gives the BLM the right to remove the cattle. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Wow...they make this sound so bad when it isn't! Lots of big money has been made, millions of people put to work, communities built, roads, bridges, electricity brought in, water sources made available...ths is the stuff that built the west!!!
Now, all these ppl move out here & feel cheated somehow...think they should be able to build a million dollar home in a 'productive' zone...where do they come from?
Yeah...let's make it all nervana, buy all our beef & produce from some foreign country...rely on the middle east for oil, South America, Russia etc...for minerals. That ought to work real well. Who's going to grow their weed?
They conveniently leave out what mining does for the economy...as in jobs & $ circulation. And the risk...the start up costs...it's just too bad that the 'little guy' has been removed from the equation. All that's left are the big dogs. Nobody else can afford the payolla.
Who Owns The West?
In the ski resort town of Crested Butte, Colorado, land can sell for $100,000 for just one-tenth of an acre. On April 2, 2004, Crested Butte residents discovered that the federal government had sold 155 acres near the town to the Phelps Dodge mining company for just $875 despite a Phelps Dodge estimate that the land could produce up to $158 million in after-tax profits over 11 years (Lipsher 2004). This sale price may seem unbelievable, but under the Mining Law of 1872, the major federal law governing hardrock mining in the United States, it's business as usual.
• Click on the map (on the right) to view detailed information for each state, or go to the National Report
In the first comprehensive investigation of the hardrock mining industry's control of public assets, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has found that for as little as $0.84 an acre, mining companies and individuals control 5.6 million acres of valuable public lands and mineral rights scattered across 12 western states. Companies and individuals alike have obtained the right to mine gold, silver, copper and other metals on this property, with no requirement that they pay anything to the federal government for the value of the minerals they extract. Often the only returns the public sees are devastated landscapes, contaminated water and billions in cleanup costs.
The results of this investigation allow you to search the Western U.S. or individual states by claims, patents, plans & notices, companies, and individuals. See the previous "Site Contents" page under "Primer."
| |
| | |
  Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Smiley, let Us revisit your reference to the Gov't Land the Ancestor to the Current Day BLM, Forest Service, and Dept. of Interior. I have researched and found the history of The Government Land Office:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management
History
The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.
These statutes served one of the major policy goals of the young country—settlement of the Western territories. With the exception of the Mining Law of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of 1877 (which was amended), all have since been repealed or superseded by other statutes.
The late 19th century marked a shift in federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress decided that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.
Sheep graze on BLM land in Snake Valley, Utah.
In the early 20th century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. The Oregon and California (O&C) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.
In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. When the BLM was initially created, there were over 2,000 unrelated and often conflicting laws for managing the public lands. The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).
In FLPMA, Congress recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. Congress used the term "multiple use" management, defined as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people."
The land management policy of the federal government before 1946 involved on the one hand rapid disposal to miners, ranchers and farmers, and on the other hand reservations for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and military needs. The combination of 1946 of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service into the new Bureau of Land Management was filled with ambiguity. In terms of bureaucracy, there has been a constant tension between the local district rangers, who have typically been oriented toward the mining and ranching interests, and the centralized leadership in Washington that follows presidential guidance. Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism.[3]
Now remember the orginal intent of the Government Land Office was the disposition of land which I have defined below. The History goes on to state that the orginal intent has been completely changed by from its orginal.
Now to define the word disposition in a legal sense:
disposition legal definition of disposition. disposition ...  legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ disposition Disposition. Act of disposing; transferring to the care or possession of another. The parting with, alienation of, or giving up of property. The final settlement of a . This complete post is the reason the reason I am a Constitutitonal Orginalist! Not a Constructionist. I am all about the Orginal Intent (as stated in this History research) of Our Forefathers. Not this convoluted Federal Government of Current Day! | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line