|
|
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
   
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true. I agree with you.... I know that I am right, they took two gov entites threw in some more rules and regulations and created the BLM. It isn't the same entity ( this comment is for Smiley). They are being civilly disobedient but that is how we; 1) became a country, 2) women gained the right to vote, 3) civil rights movement...etc. The examles go on and on.
Sure, good things can come from civil disobedience. You named some great ones. It can also give us anarchy. Our immigration system is the best example.
So do you think it's Bundy's civil disobedience gives anyone the right to graze as many animals as they want on public lands for free? | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
   
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-17 4:13 PM So I guess the federal government can keep changing the rules to suit their current needs without the people's input or consent and we just have to roll over and take it. Ok.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."
Congratulations on the first argument in 29 pages that actually has merit as a constitutional breach.
Article 1, Section grants the authority to congress.... not the executive branch. We should all have a voice through our congressmen in how these lands are used and managed. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 2036
  Location: Montana | TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:20 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true. I agree with you.... I know that I am right, they took two gov entites threw in some more rules and regulations and created the BLM. It isn't the same entity ( this comment is for Smiley). They are being civilly disobedient but that is how we; 1) became a country, 2) women gained the right to vote, 3) civil rights movement...etc. The examles go on and on. Sure, good things can come from civil disobedience. You named some great ones. It can also give us anarchy. Our immigration system is the best example.
So do you think it's Bundy's civil disobedience gives anyone the right to graze as many animals as they want on public lands for free?
No, I don't. That said, what are we to do? There are so many rules, fees, regulations that our beef industry is half what it was 15 years ago. You could buy a bottle baby for $100 a few years ago, now they are going for $600 plus. Meat prices have increased another 7% this year. Water rights are being taken by the feds, county by county. In some states you can't plant a veg garden without paying a tax or having it permited (Pennsylvania and some counties in Florida) or Oregon where they can dictate what you grow in your yard. How about Colorado where you are taxed on rainwater, that you are not allowed to collect, based on the size of your house. Ranchers and farmers have been trying to fight in the court system; it is kinda hard to do when the system has become corrupt. | |
| | |
  Semper Fi
             Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-17 4:07 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-17 4:00 PM Remember in Legal Scholarly Circles and Constitutional Circles, The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court is commonly known/referred to as "The Ninth Circus". I cannot restate this enough! The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has the unenviable record for holding the most Court Decisions overturned actually reversed by The Supreme Court. This is documented fact. Anyone cause to dispute this Fact, feel free to check out Google.
I have no need to verify your scholarly research, FH.
However, off the top of my head, I can name one case from the 9th District that wasn't overturned by the Supreme Court....... US vs Bundy.
To the best of My Knowledge, The Bundy Case has not reached The Supreme Court..............Yet. | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
   
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:20 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true. I agree with you.... I know that I am right, they took two gov entites threw in some more rules and regulations and created the BLM. It isn't the same entity ( this comment is for Smiley). They are being civilly disobedient but that is how we; 1) became a country, 2) women gained the right to vote, 3) civil rights movement...etc. The examles go on and on. Sure, good things can come from civil disobedience. You named some great ones. It can also give us anarchy. Our immigration system is the best example.
So do you think it's Bundy's civil disobedience gives anyone the right to graze as many animals as they want on public lands for free? No, I don't. That said, what are we to do? There are so many rules, fees, regulations that our beef industry is half what it was 15 years ago. You could buy a bottle baby for $100 a few years ago, now they are going for $600 plus. Meat prices have increased another 7% this year. Water rights are being taken by the feds, county by county. In some states you can't plant a veg garden without paying a tax or having it permited (Pennsylvania and some counties in Florida) or Oregon where they can dictate what you grow in your yard. How about Colorado where you are taxed on rainwater, that you are not allowed to collect, based on the size of your house. Ranchers and farmers have been trying to fight in the court system; it is kinda hard to do when the system has become corrupt.
Let me first point out that Bundy's civil disobedience solves none of those challeges. All of the civil disobedience victories that you mentioned improved liberty for generations of society. Unless we can all graze public land without fees, Bundy's civil disobedience served only him. Additionally, it put any rancher that follows the law at a competitive disadvantage to all of the challeges you mentioned. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 2036
  Location: Montana | TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:45 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:20 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true. I agree with you.... I know that I am right, they took two gov entites threw in some more rules and regulations and created the BLM. It isn't the same entity ( this comment is for Smiley). They are being civilly disobedient but that is how we; 1) became a country, 2) women gained the right to vote, 3) civil rights movement...etc. The examles go on and on. Sure, good things can come from civil disobedience. You named some great ones. It can also give us anarchy. Our immigration system is the best example.
So do you think it's Bundy's civil disobedience gives anyone the right to graze as many animals as they want on public lands for free? No, I don't. That said, what are we to do? There are so many rules, fees, regulations that our beef industry is half what it was 15 years ago. You could buy a bottle baby for $100 a few years ago, now they are going for $600 plus. Meat prices have increased another 7% this year. Water rights are being taken by the feds, county by county. In some states you can't plant a veg garden without paying a tax or having it permited (Pennsylvania and some counties in Florida) or Oregon where they can dictate what you grow in your yard. How about Colorado where you are taxed on rainwater, that you are not allowed to collect, based on the size of your house. Ranchers and farmers have been trying to fight in the court system; it is kinda hard to do when the system has become corrupt. Let me first point out that Bundy's civil disobedience solves none of those challeges.
All of the civil disobedience victories that you mentioned improved liberty for generations of society. Unless we can all graze public land without fees, Bundy's civil disobedience served only him. Additionally, it put any rancher that follows the law at a competitive disadvantage to all of the challeges you mentioned.
I already stated that I thought he should pay his taxes; as we all should. I don't think it is only serving him, it is bringing to light what is actually going on in the west. Is his avenue the right way? I have no idea. Maybe all of the ranchers need to get together and quit paying their taxes, that would definately send a message....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
   
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt?
Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically? | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 2036
  Location: Montana | TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically?
Honestly, the Bundy case and the other issues that I stated. How do you reign them in when our courts and representives have become so corrupt. | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
   
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:22 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically? Honestly, the Bundy case and the other issues that I stated. How do you reign them in when our courts and representives have become so corrupt.
Civil Disobedience is certainly an option but hopefully a last resort. Vote for officials that want to follow the constitution. Musik is so right about one thing.... the apathy of deteriorated rights is our biggest challege.
In Bundy's case, I don't think he was wronged by corruption. | |
| | |
 Hog Tie My Mojo
Posts: 4847
       Location: Opelousas, LA | TXBO - 2014-04-17 5:32 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:22 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically? Honestly, the Bundy case and the other issues that I stated. How do you reign them in when our courts and representives have become so corrupt. Civil Disobedience is certainly an option but hopefully a last resort. Vote for officials that want to follow the constitution.
Musik is so right about one thing.... the apathy of deteriorated rights is our biggest challege.
In Bundy's case, I don't think he was wronged by corruption.
Are there any? Seems like they all say the right words to get elected then they get into office and decide it would be much nicer to gain social status and pad thier wallets. | |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
     Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | History is so...'rich'! Reading through some of these links is so interesting & makes me realize even more how mankind just never changes...that's why we must be ever vigilant. It's the nature of the beast. History of: Dept of Interior (created in 1849) http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/utley-mackintosh/interior1.htm
More on Dept of Interior: http://www.doi.gov/whoweare/history.cfm
USGS (created in 1879) http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1050/intro.htm
GLO (1812) Taylor Grazing Act/US Grazing Service (1934)
Man has been fighting corruption, abuse of power & such since the beginning of time...all the 'checks & balances' we enjoy in our Nation have done wonders to help prevent our loss of liberty...yet, nothing has stopped it completely & some of it, even though it's been 'on the books', doesn't work & is long past it's expiration date. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 2036
  Location: Montana | TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:32 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:22 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically? Honestly, the Bundy case and the other issues that I stated. How do you reign them in when our courts and representives have become so corrupt. Civil Disobedience is certainly an option but hopefully a last resort. Vote for officials that want to follow the constitution.
Musik is so right about one thing.... the apathy of deteriorated rights is our biggest challege.
In Bundy's case, I don't think he was wronged by corruption.
I whole heartedly agree with this statement. One of the issues that I have been party to discussion of, by county and state officials is; six representives that were voted in as GOP have consistantly voted against the party in my state. I have seen their voting record so I know it is true. We citizens are held accoutable, unfortunately our officials are not. Just to clarify; I am not in favor of civil disobedience though it does have its place. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 1857
      
| TXBO - 2014-04-17 5:32 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:22 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically? Honestly, the Bundy case and the other issues that I stated. How do you reign them in when our courts and representives have become so corrupt. Civil Disobedience is certainly an option but hopefully a last resort. Vote for officials that want to follow the constitution.
Musik is so right about one thing.... the apathy of deteriorated rights is our biggest challege.
In Bundy's case, I don't think he was wronged by corruption.
I'll have a better chance of finding a unicorn than finding a politician that follows the constitution. | |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
     Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Barnmom - 2014-04-17 4:44 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 5:32 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:22 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically? Honestly, the Bundy case and the other issues that I stated. How do you reign them in when our courts and representives have become so corrupt. Civil Disobedience is certainly an option but hopefully a last resort. Vote for officials that want to follow the constitution.
Musik is so right about one thing.... the apathy of deteriorated rights is our biggest challege.
In Bundy's case, I don't think he was wronged by corruption. Are there any? Seems like they all say the right words to get elected then they get into office and decide it would be much nicer to gain social status and pad thier wallets.
The Last Resort has arrived, I'm afraid. Many see Cliven Bundy in the same light that they see Rosa Parks...it's about time somebody stood up to the bully and faced it down. I'm beginning to wonder that if we had social media back then that Parks would have been torn to shreds like Bundy is today. The States Rights Movement's time has come. (Don't try to say that one out loud! Ha) | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 2036
  Location: Montana | musikmaker - 2014-04-17 3:54 PM Barnmom - 2014-04-17 4:44 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 5:32 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:22 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically? Honestly, the Bundy case and the other issues that I stated. How do you reign them in when our courts and representives have become so corrupt. Civil Disobedience is certainly an option but hopefully a last resort. Vote for officials that want to follow the constitution.
Musik is so right about one thing.... the apathy of deteriorated rights is our biggest challege.
In Bundy's case, I don't think he was wronged by corruption. Are there any? Seems like they all say the right words to get elected then they get into office and decide it would be much nicer to gain social status and pad thier wallets. The Last Resort has arrived, I'm afraid.
Many see Cliven Bundy in the same light that they see Rosa Parks...it's about time somebody stood up to the bully and faced it down. I'm beginning to wonder that if we had social media back then that Parks would have been torn to shreds like Bundy is today.
The States Rights Movement's time has come. (Don't try to say that one out loud! Ha)
It has, there are some very strong groups forming who will hopefully turn some of the issues that we have been talking about, around legally. | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
   
| musikmaker - 2014-04-17 5:54 PM The Last Resort has arrived, I'm afraid.
Many see Cliven Bundy in the same light that they see Rosa Parks...it's about time somebody stood up to the bully and faced it down. I'm beginning to wonder that if we had social media back then that Parks would have been torn to shreds like Bundy is today.
The States Rights Movement's time has come. (Don't try to say that one out loud! Ha)
The states rights move is about 150 years past due. Time for a Constitutional Convention.
Clive = Rosa! LMAO! | |
| | |
 Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
       
| Viva la -----------------------------!!!!!
I just felt left out and wanted to post. Seemed like we are on the verge of a revolution and I don't want to miss out on the fun | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
      
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true. I agree with you.... I know that I am right, they took two gov entites threw in some more rules and regulations and created the BLM. It isn't the same entity ( this comment is for Smiley). They are being civilly disobedient but that is how we; 1) became a country, 2) women gained the right to vote, 3) civil rights movement...etc. The examles go on and on.
It's just fact that the GLO was morphed into the BLM, not sure why that would even be an argument. Just like businesses grow and expand, so do govt. agencies. story by Mary Apple, Montana State Office, with information compiled by the National Park Service, BLM, and Wikipedia   Ignatz Mrizek, in the 1930s near Camp Crook, South Dakota. How many of you live where you do because of the 1862 Homestead Act and its successor laws? Perhaps some of you live on land homesteaded by a family member or have a homesteader in your family tree. Many of you rural dwellers may live on a piece of land that was originally patented by a homesteader and was subsequently sold or divided. If you live by a river or creek, it’s more than likely your property was once part of a homestead. Don’t feel like you’re part of a select group though; 93,000,000 people alive today (or rather in 2007 when the stats were compiled) are descendants of homesteaders. The year 2012 is the 150th anniversary of the Homestead Act, an occasion we’re celebrating in the BLM. Why? The BLM’s precursor, the General Land Office (which has its 200th anniversary in 2012), was the administrator of homesteads, and many of those records now reside with the BLM. Some of the BLM-managed public lands were once homesteads that were abandoned or returned to the government. So we as an agency have a homesteading legacy too. Three Homestead Acts The Homestead Act of 1862 has been called one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of the United States. Signed into law in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln after the secession of southern states, this act turned over vast amounts of the public domain to private citizens. Under the act, homesteaders claimed and settled over 270 million acres, or 10 percent of the area of the United States. Because much of the prime low-lying alluvial land along rivers had already been homesteaded by the turn of the twentieth century, a major update called the Enlarged Homestead Act was passed in 1909. It targeted land suitable for dryland farming, increasing the number of acres to 320. In 1916, the Stock-Raising Homestead Act targeted settlers seeking 640 acres of public land for ranching purposes. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 substantially decreased the amount of land available to homesteaders in the West. Because much of the prime land had been homesteaded decades earlier, successful homestead claims dropped sharply after this time. The Homestead Act remained in effect until it was repealed in 1976 by the Federal Land Management Policy Act, the BLM’s “organic act.” However, FLPMA included provisions for homesteading in Alaska until 1986. Alaska was one of the last places in the country where homesteading remained a viable option into the latter part of the 1900s. The Homestead Act of 1862 had an immediate and enduring effect on America and the world that is still felt today. Agriculture, industrialization, immigration, American Indian tribes, and prairie ecosystems-all were somehow impacted and forever changed by the implementation of this revolutionary land law. Research Your History Over the course of the Act’s 123-year history, more than two million individual homestead claims were made. Each and every one of these claims generated a written record known as a case file that was kept by the U.S. General Land Office. Today, these case files exist only as paper originals and nearly all are stored in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. The complete collection of case files created under the Homestead Act contains more than 30 million individual pieces of paper. Homestead case files are treasure troves of historical and genealogical information. Within them can often be found information about a homesteader’s date and place of birth, the names of children that lived on the homestead, naturalization information about immigrant homesteaders, notations regarding military service, the types of crops planted on the homestead, the value and kinds of homes and other buildings on the site, and more. The BLM’s General Land Office (GLO) Records Automation website (http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/) provides live access to federal land conveyance records for the public land states, including image access to more than five million federal land title records issued between 1820 and the present. It also has images related to survey plats and field notes dating back to 1810. Due to the organization of documents in the GLO collection, the site does not currently contain every federal title record issued for the public land states. Share Your History To demonstrate the impact of homesteading in Montana and the Dakotas, we’re asking you to send in a brief vignette of your homesteading history in these three states (hopefully we don’t get one from all 93 million descendants ). We’ll publish as many of these as we can throughout the year in the Quarterly Steward and/or post them on our webpage. Please email them to [email protected] or mail them to Ann Boucher, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, MT 59101. Electronic copies are much preferred over paper ones. Please note in your submission whether we can publish your name. Here’s my Montana/South Dakota homesteading history to get the ball rolling. About all I knew about my great-grandfather and mother Ignatz and Marie Mrizek, immigrants from Bohemia, was that they had homesteaded in Harding County, S.D., very near Capitol, Mont. After working for the BLM for several years and learning that some of my family history might reside in the Montana State Office (which has jurisdiction over North and South Dakota), I started my research. Through the information access center (commonly known as the public room), I obtained a copy of my great-grandfather’s land patents. From this information I could pinpoint on a map the heretofore unknown to me location of the homestead. I then wrote to the National Archives and Records Administration for a copy of the case files. After wading through many pages of affidavits, applications, reports, and petitions, I came across a big surprise—my grandfather Earl Newell’s signature. He vouched for my great-grandfather Ignatz on one of the applications. Earl was also married to Ignatz and Marie’s daughter Ann. Earl and Ann eventually moved to Sheridan, Wyo., and lo and behold, I was born (my parents entered the picture at some point). Thank you homesteaders! From the National Archives case file, I also learned the following: the Mrizek homestead consisted of 320 acres patented under the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 and another 320 acres patented under the Stock-Raising Homestead Law of 1916. Ignatz entered the homestead in 1911, moving into the house in 1912. Between 1912 and 1918, when he received the first patent, he planted from 10 to 56 acres a year in corn, oats, barley, and wheat. In 1917, most of the crops failed because of “drouth.” He built a four-room house, two barns, a chicken house, a work shop, a hog pen, granary, hay corrals, outside cellar, two miles of two-wire fencing, and three shallow wells. The improvements totaled $1,300. He described the land in his homestead entry as “high and rough, cut up with draws, rocky, uneven, very rough.” Ignatz received the second patent in 1927. The GLO inspector reported that on the original homestead, “He and his wife care for 42 head cattle, 12 horses, 39 hogs and some chickens. . . . Entryman is a naturalized citizen and a successful farmer and stock raiser.” The land was described as “rolling to rough, the soil is a hardpan gumbo.” Ignatz wrote, “I have broken up 65 acres on my original entry, a few acres each year, and have planted crops each year, and have always cut the grain and corn for hay and fodder, and have never made a grain crop that could be considered a successful crop.” His three wells were too shallow to provide any irrigation water, and the land contained no flowing water. Furthermore, “That because of high altitude, short season, lack of rainfall, hot winds, and hard, compact soil, this land is not suitable for grain farming, and is chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops.” At some point he sold the homestead and moved to Sheridan, but he is buried near Capitol in a very small cemetery. Compiled by Homestead National Monument of America Historian Todd Arrington, April 24, 2007 10: Percentage of U.S. land given away under the Homestead Act. 24: Presidential administrations during which the Homestead Act was in effect (Lincoln to Reagan). 30: Number of states in which homestead lands were located. 40: Percentage of homesteaders that “proved up” on their claims and earned the deed from the federal government. 45: Percentage of Nebraska’s acres distributed under the Homestead Act [Largest percentage of any state]. 123: Years the Homestead Act was in effect (1863-1986). 160: Number of acres in a typical homestead claim. 4,000,000: Approximate number of claims made under the Homestead Act. 11,000,000: Acres claimed in 1913, the peak year of homestead claims. 93,000,000: Estimated number of homesteader descendants alive today. 270,000,000: Total number of acres distributed by the Homestead Act. Montana (151,600 homesteads) — most of any state; 30,000 more than runner-up North Dakota Total acreage: 93,155,840 Total homestead acreage: 32,050,480—most of any state by 10 million acres Total percentage: 34% North Dakota (118,472 homesteads) Total acreage: 44,156,160 Total homestead acreage: 17,417,466 Total percentage: 39%—second of all states South Dakota (97,197 homesteads) Total acreage: 48,573,440 Total homestead acreage: 15,660,000 Total percentage: 32% For some great stories, both fiction and non-fiction, about the homesteading experience, check out one of these books. O Pioneers! Willa Cather Bad Land Jonathon Raban Letters of a Woman Homesteader Elinore Pruitt Stewart Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder Giants in the Earth Ole Rolvaag The Children’s Blizzard David Laskin When the Meadowlark Sings: The Story of a Montana Family Nedra Sterry In Open Spaces Russell Rowland On Sarpy Creek Ira S. Nelson Land in Her Own Name: Women As Homesteaders in North Dakota H. Elaine Lindgren 900 Miles from Nowhere: Voices from the Homestead Frontier Steven R. Kinsella The Long Death: The Last Days of the Plains Indians Ralph K. Andrist Winter Wheat Mildred Walker 
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
      
| smiley - 2014-04-17 5:53 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true. I agree with you.... I know that I am right, they took two gov entites threw in some more rules and regulations and created the BLM. It isn't the same entity ( this comment is for Smiley). They are being civilly disobedient but that is how we; 1) became a country, 2) women gained the right to vote, 3) civil rights movement...etc. The examles go on and on. It's just fact that the GLO was morphed into the BLM, not sure why that would even be an argument. Just like businesses grow and expand, so do govt. agencies.
story by
Mary Apple, Montana State Office,
with information compiled by the National Park Service, BLM, and Wikipedia
Ignatz Mrizek, in the 1930s near Camp Crook, South Dakota.
How many of you live where you do because of the 1862 Homestead Act and its successor laws? Perhaps some of you live on land homesteaded by a family member or have a homesteader in your family tree. Many of you rural dwellers may live on a piece of land that was originally patented by a homesteader and was subsequently sold or divided. If you live by a river or creek, it’s more than likely your property was once part of a homestead. Don’t feel like you’re part of a select group though; 93,000,000 people alive today (or rather in 2007 when the stats were compiled) are descendants of homesteaders.
The year 2012 is the 150th anniversary of the Homestead Act, an occasion we’re celebrating in the BLM. Why? The BLM’s precursor, the General Land Office (which has its 200th anniversary in 2012), was the administrator of homesteads, and many of those records now reside with the BLM. Some of the BLM-managed public lands were once homesteads that were abandoned or returned to the government. So we as an agency have a homesteading legacy too.
Three Homestead Acts
The Homestead Act of 1862 has been called one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of the United States. Signed into law in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln after the secession of southern states, this act turned over vast amounts of the public domain to private citizens. Under the act, homesteaders claimed and settled over 270 million acres, or 10 percent of the area of the United States.
Because much of the prime low-lying alluvial land along rivers had already been homesteaded by the turn of the twentieth century, a major update called the Enlarged Homestead Act was passed in 1909. It targeted land suitable for dryland farming, increasing the number of acres to 320. In 1916, the Stock-Raising Homestead Act targeted settlers seeking 640 acres of public land for ranching purposes. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 substantially decreased the amount of land available to homesteaders in the West. Because much of the prime land had been homesteaded decades earlier, successful homestead claims dropped sharply after this time.
The Homestead Act remained in effect until it was repealed in 1976 by the Federal Land Management Policy Act, the BLM’s “organic act.” However, FLPMA included provisions for homesteading in Alaska until 1986. Alaska was one of the last places in the country where homesteading remained a viable option into the latter part of the 1900s.
The Homestead Act of 1862 had an immediate and enduring effect on America and the world that is still felt today. Agriculture, industrialization, immigration, American Indian tribes, and prairie ecosystems-all were somehow impacted and forever changed by the implementation of this revolutionary land law.
Research Your History
Over the course of the Act’s 123-year history, more than two million individual homestead claims were made. Each and every one of these claims generated a written record known as a case file that was kept by the U.S. General Land Office. Today, these case files exist only as paper originals and nearly all are stored in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. The complete collection of case files created under the Homestead Act contains more than 30 million individual pieces of paper. Homestead case files are treasure troves of historical and genealogical information. Within them can often be found information about a homesteader’s date and place of birth, the names of children that lived on the homestead, naturalization information about immigrant homesteaders, notations regarding military service, the types of crops planted on the homestead, the value and kinds of homes and other buildings on the site, and more.
The BLM’s General Land Office (GLO) Records Automation website (http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/) provides live access to federal land conveyance records for the public land states, including image access to more than five million federal land title records issued between 1820 and the present. It also has images related to survey plats and field notes dating back to 1810. Due to the organization of documents in the GLO collection, the site does not currently contain every federal title record issued for the public land states.
Share Your History
To demonstrate the impact of homesteading in Montana and the Dakotas, we’re asking you to send in a brief vignette of your homesteading history in these three states (hopefully we don’t get one from all 93 million descendants ). We’ll publish as many of these as we can throughout the year in the Quarterly Steward and/or post them on our webpage. Please email them to [email protected] or mail them to Ann Boucher, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, MT 59101. Electronic copies are much preferred over paper ones. Please note in your submission whether we can publish your name.
Here’s my Montana/South Dakota homesteading history to get the ball rolling.
About all I knew about my great-grandfather and mother Ignatz and Marie Mrizek, immigrants from Bohemia, was that they had homesteaded in Harding County, S.D., very near Capitol, Mont. After working for the BLM for several years and learning that some of my family history might reside in the Montana State Office (which has jurisdiction over North and South Dakota), I started my research. Through the information access center (commonly known as the public room), I obtained a copy of my great-grandfather’s land patents. From this information I could pinpoint on a map the heretofore unknown to me location of the homestead. I then wrote to the National Archives and Records Administration for a copy of the case files. After wading through many pages of affidavits, applications, reports, and petitions, I came across a big surprise—my grandfather Earl Newell’s signature. He vouched for my great-grandfather Ignatz on one of the applications. Earl was also married to Ignatz and Marie’s daughter Ann. Earl and Ann eventually moved to Sheridan, Wyo., and lo and behold, I was born (my parents entered the picture at some point). Thank you homesteaders!
From the National Archives case file, I also learned the following: the Mrizek homestead consisted of 320 acres patented under the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 and another 320 acres patented under the Stock-Raising Homestead Law of 1916. Ignatz entered the homestead in 1911, moving into the house in 1912. Between 1912 and 1918, when he received the first patent, he planted from 10 to 56 acres a year in corn, oats, barley, and wheat. In 1917, most of the crops failed because of “drouth.” He built a four-room house, two barns, a chicken house, a work shop, a hog pen, granary, hay corrals, outside cellar, two miles of two-wire fencing, and three shallow wells. The improvements totaled $1,300. He described the land in his homestead entry as “high and rough, cut up with draws, rocky, uneven, very rough.”
Ignatz received the second patent in 1927. The GLO inspector reported that on the original homestead, “He and his wife care for 42 head cattle, 12 horses, 39 hogs and some chickens. . . . Entryman is a naturalized citizen and a successful farmer and stock raiser.” The land was described as “rolling to rough, the soil is a hardpan gumbo.” Ignatz wrote, “I have broken up 65 acres on my original entry, a few acres each year, and have planted crops each year, and have always cut the grain and corn for hay and fodder, and have never made a grain crop that could be considered a successful crop.” His three wells were too shallow to provide any irrigation water, and the land contained no flowing water. Furthermore, “That because of high altitude, short season, lack of rainfall, hot winds, and hard, compact soil, this land is not suitable for grain farming, and is chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops.”
At some point he sold the homestead and moved to Sheridan, but he is buried near Capitol in a very small cemetery.
Compiled by Homestead National Monument of America Historian Todd Arrington, April 24, 2007
10: Percentage of U.S. land given away under the Homestead Act.
24: Presidential administrations during which the Homestead Act was in effect (Lincoln to Reagan).
30: Number of states in which homestead lands were located.
40: Percentage of homesteaders that “proved up” on their claims and earned the deed from the federal government.
45: Percentage of Nebraska’s acres distributed under the Homestead Act [Largest percentage of any state].
123: Years the Homestead Act was in effect (1863-1986).
160: Number of acres in a typical homestead claim.
4,000,000: Approximate number of claims made under the Homestead Act.
11,000,000: Acres claimed in 1913, the peak year of homestead claims.
93,000,000: Estimated number of homesteader descendants alive today.
270,000,000: Total number of acres distributed by the Homestead Act.
Montana (151,600 homesteads) — most of any state; 30,000 more than runner-up North Dakota
Total acreage: 93,155,840
Total homestead acreage: 32,050,480—most of any state by 10 million acres
Total percentage: 34%
North Dakota (118,472 homesteads)
Total acreage: 44,156,160
Total homestead acreage: 17,417,466
Total percentage: 39%—second of all states
South Dakota (97,197 homesteads)
Total acreage: 48,573,440
Total homestead acreage: 15,660,000
Total percentage: 32%
For some great stories, both fiction and non-fiction, about the homesteading experience, check out one of these books.
O Pioneers! Willa Cather
Bad Land Jonathon Raban
Letters of a Woman Homesteader Elinore Pruitt Stewart
Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Giants in the Earth Ole Rolvaag
The Children’s Blizzard David Laskin
When the Meadowlark Sings: The Story of a Montana Family Nedra Sterry
In Open Spaces Russell Rowland
On Sarpy Creek Ira S. Nelson
Land in Her Own Name: Women As Homesteaders in North Dakota H. Elaine Lindgren
900 Miles from Nowhere: Voices from the Homestead Frontier Steven R. Kinsella
The Long Death: The Last Days of the Plains Indians Ralph K. Andrist
Winter Wheat Mildred Walker
And this:
The 1946 debates over the Grazing Service led the Secretary of the Interior to combine that agency with the General Land Office to form the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM inherited the Grazing Service's mission of managing the public domain while it was still public and the General Land Office's mission of disposing of the public domain. In the eyes of some cattlemen, it was a temporary agency only necessary until they could gain title to the public domain. But the Bureau survived and managed to hold on to most of its lands until 1976. In that year, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which ended the policy of land disposal. This law--which was largely written by the BLM--attempted to bring that agency up to Forest Service standards by prescribing inventories, a planning process, and sustained-yield and multiple-use management. FLPMA also readjusted the distribution of grazing fees, with 50 percent going to range improvement. Two years later, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act helped ranchers by fixing grazing fees well below market levels with a grazing fee formula that is still used today.
Which comes from here and appears to NOT be a fan of the BLM: http://www.ti.org/blmintro.html | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
      
| TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:45 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:20 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true. I agree with you.... I know that I am right, they took two gov entites threw in some more rules and regulations and created the BLM. It isn't the same entity ( this comment is for Smiley). They are being civilly disobedient but that is how we; 1) became a country, 2) women gained the right to vote, 3) civil rights movement...etc. The examles go on and on. Sure, good things can come from civil disobedience. You named some great ones. It can also give us anarchy. Our immigration system is the best example.
So do you think it's Bundy's civil disobedience gives anyone the right to graze as many animals as they want on public lands for free? No, I don't. That said, what are we to do? There are so many rules, fees, regulations that our beef industry is half what it was 15 years ago. You could buy a bottle baby for $100 a few years ago, now they are going for $600 plus. Meat prices have increased another 7% this year. Water rights are being taken by the feds, county by county. In some states you can't plant a veg garden without paying a tax or having it permited (Pennsylvania and some counties in Florida) or Oregon where they can dictate what you grow in your yard. How about Colorado where you are taxed on rainwater, that you are not allowed to collect, based on the size of your house. Ranchers and farmers have been trying to fight in the court system; it is kinda hard to do when the system has become corrupt. Let me first point out that Bundy's civil disobedience solves none of those challeges.
All of the civil disobedience victories that you mentioned improved liberty for generations of society. Unless we can all graze public land without fees, Bundy's civil disobedience served only him. Additionally, it put any rancher that follows the law at a competitive disadvantage to all of the challeges you mentioned.
 Agreed. | |
| |
| |