Nevada rancher: “I did not graze my cattle on United States property”

posted at 7:21 pm on April 14, 2014 by Allahpundit

The fairest explainer I’ve found on the Bundy saga is Becket Adams’s post at TheBlaze. If, like me (and Ace), you came to this story after it had already been hyper-polarized and weren’t sure whose facts to trust, try Adams’s Q&A. He plays it straight. In one sense this is complicated — land ownership, grazing rights dating back decades, a court battle, the feds tasing a Bundy family member, even a Harry Reid cameo — but after listening to this Glenn Beck interview with Bundy, it seems surprisingly simple. Bundy stopped paying the BLM in 1993 for grazing rights on federal land near his ranch. Why’s that, asked Beck? Quote:

CLIVEN: Let’s talk about the — Glenn, I really want to talk about that because that’s very important. You’re talking about the Enabling Act of the people of the territory of the state of Nevada. And remember, in the — section of the Constitution, we’re talking about territories of Nevada. Let me see if I can get that straight. What it says, it says the United States Congress will have power to dispose of all rules and regulations within the territory. Now, let’s think what we’re doing. We’re talking about the territory of Nevada. People of the territory of Nevada. As they — they do not have the Constitution. They’re within the territory and Congress had an unlimited power to make all the rules and regulations. Okay. The people of the territory petitioned the United States Congress to make this a state. And they have a clouded title. So in order to clear their title, they give up their public domain — forever. It sounds terrible. Forever? But let me tell what you they had to do. They had to give it up forever so Congress would have a clear title.

And what did Congress do? It made a state of Nevada. Which [indiscernible] a lot of them — quote Ed Presley here. Here’s what Ed Presley said. It doesn’t matter what happened before statehood. What matters is what has happened at the moment of statehood. Now, if you think about that in the second. At the moment of statehood. What happened? At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution with equal footing to the original 13 states. They had boundaries around them, a state line. And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were county. I live in one of those counties: Clark County, Nevada. And in that county, Clark County, Nevada, we elect our county commissioners, which is the closest to we the peoplend we elect the county sheriff and we pay him to do what? Protect our life, liberty and property.

I’m a citizen of that county. I abide by all the state laws.

Beck’s understated reply: “That is a different point of view than everybody else that is a rancher that I know.” Here’s what the enabling act to the Nevada constitution (mentioned above by Bundy) says about public land:

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

Here’s another part from Article I, Section 2 of the Nevada constitution:

Sec: 2.  Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.  All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

What Bundy’s saying, I think, is that he simply doesn’t recognize the concept of “federal land,” at least in Nevada. It was the people of the territory of Nevada, he says, who passed the enabling act that made public land there the property of the United States. But that was just a formality to make sure that the land was organized under a single government before statehood. Once Congress formally approved Nevada as a state, the property implicitly reverted to the new state of Nevada, and unless/until the state declares that public land there belongs to the U.S., it’s Nevada property as far as Bundy’s concerned. If they want to kick him off, fine, but the BLM has no jurisdiction to kick him off. That’s a, er, “creative” view of public land transfers, enough so to prompt Beck’s comment about how much of an outlier it is. It strikes me as the land-use equivalent of a tax protest, when someone refuses to pay income tax because they insist the Sixteenth Amendment wasn’t properly ratified. I’d be curious to know if there’s anyone in Nevada state government who shares Bundy’s view. (Presumably zero given the havoc Bundy’s theory would wreak on land sales by the United States in Nevada over the past 150 years if it were accepted by courts.) Brian Sandoval, the state’s Republican governor, has objected to the BLM’s treatment of critics in herding them into a “First Amendment zone” when protesting but, as far as I know, he doesn’t dispute that the land belongs to the United States. No wonder Bundy lost his court battle.

Interestingly, per Adams’s post, Bundy did pay grazing fees for a time prior to 1993. It was that year that the feds decided to limit grazing rights in the name of protecting the desert tortoise; Bundy then decided to stop paying the fee. When he decided that the land didn’t legally belong to the feds is unclear.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

“Bundy stopped paying the BLM in 1993 for grazing rights on federal land near his ranch.”

He didn’t stop by choice. The fed started reimbursing ranchers for grazing licenses because the Left took the feds to court because cattle were endangering some species of turtle. Bundy didn’t take the money and continued grazing. They’ve since re-issued grazing permits, but I don’t know when or the circumstances behind it.

MrX on April 14, 2014 at 7:27 PM

mrs malkin is so much better on the fed land grabs than many, read your old bosses stuff on it.

dmacleo on April 14, 2014 at 7:29 PM

Just y’all wait till the Delta Smelt makes billionaires out of Pelosi and Feinstein !

burrata on April 14, 2014 at 7:32 PM

Honestly, I don’t need this particular situation to know that the scales are well and truly weighted against the rights of individual Americans by the overwhelming, arrogant, interventionist hand of the state (and by state, I mean GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY at ALL LEVELS). This situation has no bearing on that reality.

Land of the free. Right.

xNavigator on April 14, 2014 at 7:34 PM

There’s a lot more to this story. The fix seems to have been in from the start. This isn’t about overdue taxes…it’s about getting him off the land by any means necessary. Remember, he’s the last rancher in the area. The FED was using the grazing licenses to buy out and get rid of all the other ranchers in the area. He didn’t leave. When that didn’t work they restricted him to only 150 cattle. It would have gone on and on. He was more than willing to pay the fee….just not finance his own destruction. The fix was in to clear all the ranchers out. The FEDS are just using the law as a cudgel to get what they always wanted.

bingsha on April 14, 2014 at 7:35 PM

“Bundy stopped paying the BLM in 1993 for grazing rights on federal land near his ranch.”

The feds arbitrarily reduced the amount of cattle he could graze in an attempt to drive him out of business as they drove the other 52 ranchers in the area out of business.

That was over the issue of Desert Tortoises which we now know was BS.

sharrukin on April 14, 2014 at 7:37 PM

The fed started reimbursing ranchers for grazing licenses because the Left took the feds to court because cattle were endangering some species of turtle. Bundy didn’t take the money and continued grazing. They’ve since re-issued grazing permits, but I don’t know when or the circumstances behind it.

MrX on April 14, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Were the cattle eating those turtles ?

burrata on April 14, 2014 at 7:37 PM

So Beck has openly joined the other propagandists. How droll.

Another Libertarian on April 14, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Just y’all wait till the Delta Smelt makes billionaires out of Pelosi and Feinstein !

burrata on April 14, 2014 at 7:32 PM

I never associated this with the debacle in the San Joaquin Valley.

I think you are on to something.

Right or wrong on the legalese but Mr. Bundy may just put a face and an ounce of courage into every farmer being driven to bankruptcy, to enrich the already well-enriched. Control the food, control the people.

Oh….Modesto…

seesalrun2 on April 14, 2014 at 7:47 PM

My heart’s with Bundy, but my head tends to think he’s on shaky legal ground and betting big with a weak hand.

I hope I’m wrong, but wish him well.

Interestingly, I was just driving down that way, and right there, just a few days before the protest.

aquaviva on April 14, 2014 at 7:49 PM

“Finally, there is the constitutional issue of whether states, in forming the Constitution, gave the federal government power to own land.

In the decision handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of Escanaba Co. v. City of Chicago, 107 U.S. 678, 689 (1883), an important constitutionally based concept known as the “equal footing doctrine” was described as “Equality of constitutional right and power is the condition of all the States of the Union, old and new.”

Basically, this principle requires that any state added to the union do so on equal footing with the 13 original states. As reported by the legal website Justia, “Since the admission of Tennessee in 1796, Congress has included in each State’s act of admission a clause providing that the State enters the Union ‘on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.’”

An issue very similar to that in Cliven Bundy’s situation was at the heart of a Supreme Court case of Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, decided in 1845. Justia provides a short, helpful summary of the events:

Pollard’s Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama of ownership of certain partially inundated lands on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico in Alabama. The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands.

Rather than an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States. Inasmuch as the original States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an equal footing with the original States.

This, the Court would not permit.

“Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it, before she ceded it to the United States.

To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding….

[T]o Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.” [Emphasis added.]

So, regardless of the BLM’s — and by extension, the Obama administration’s — insistence that Nevada’s land was ceded to the federal government when Nevada became a state in 1864, the Constitution, common law, and relevant Supreme Court rulings have found otherwise.

The bottom line, then, is that Nevada owns the land where Cliven Bundy’s cattle fed, and Bundy — who has preemptive rights for his cattle to feed there — has faithfully and fully paid that landlord the rent he owed it….”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18038-bundy-s-case-feds-do-not-own-the-land-where-his-cattle-grazes

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 7:50 PM

bingsha on April 14, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Yep. You nailed it. The Feds want him off his own land and they will keep tightening the screws until he leaves.

esr1951 on April 14, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid told reporters, “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it.”

A lawless Senator who works with A lawless President, backed up by a Lawless legislatures has the gall to say this?

portlandon on April 14, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Who owns the Great American West?

“This map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government. The top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land looks like this:

Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6%

Notable is that all these states are in the West (except Alaska, which strictly speaking is also a western state, albeit northwestern). Also notable is the contrast between the highest and the lowest percentages of federal land ownership. The US government owns a whopping 84.5% of Nevada, but only a puny 0.4% of Rhode Island and Connecticut. The lowest-percentage states are mainly in the East, but some are also in the Midwest and in the South:

Connecticut 0.4%
Rhode Island 0.4%
Iowa 0.8%
New York 0.8%
Maine 1.1%
Kansas 1.2%
Nebraska 1.4%
Alabama 1.6%
Ohio 1.7%
Illinois 1.8%

Even the 10th place is still below the two percent mark. One territory is not specified on the map: Washington D.C. It could be argued that this is the only main administrative division of US territory to be fully owned by the federal government. It could, but that would be wrong – and upsetting to those private citizens who own part of the nation’s capital in the form of their real estate. It would be more correct to state that the District of Columbia by default falls under the direct tutelage of the Federal Government…”

Map at the link:

http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 7:55 PM

The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of its total territory.

These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture).

They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.

http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Gold Butte is where this took place.

As far a The Blaze story goes…

But despite the Reids’ best attempts to secure the land for ENN, and despite the Bureau of Land Management expressing concerns that “trespass cattle” could complicate plans to use land in the Gold Butte area for “offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development,” it was all in vain: The Chinese company eventually shelved the project in June 2013 when it failed to find a customer. The deal is over and the proposed construction will not happen.

Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy. March 2014

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.29872.File.dat/TN_444.pdf

Step 1: Select Mitigation Action(s) and Location(s): As described in Section 2.8, the recommended mitigation actions/location are: (1) increase law enforcement and monitoring activities to halt the trend in degradation of resource values; and (2) restore disturbed areas in the Gold Butte ACEC

This is exactly what happened.

h/t Akzed

sharrukin on April 14, 2014 at 7:58 PM

RENO, Nev. (MyNews4.com & KRNV) — Senate majority leader Harry Reid hasn’t been very vocal about the cattle battle showdown in recent days, but says “it’s not over.”

Reid tells News4′s Samantha Boatman his take on the so-called cattle battle in southern Las Vegas. “Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over,” Reid said.

Senator Reid had just wrapped up a speech and question and answer session with students at UNR

It isn’t, because the gov’t, the goons in DC, don’t follow the law.

I hope this mortician pays, in a hefty way.

Schadenfreude on April 14, 2014 at 7:59 PM

obama and Harry were exposed nakid.

obama pulled Harry in.

It’s too close to the 2014 elections.

:)

Schadenfreude on April 14, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Imagine the mortician, Harry, in the news, to the last day ahead of the elections.

Reid needs to be in prison.

Schadenfreude on April 14, 2014 at 8:01 PM

allahpundit, offended in one breath that his beloved beer might become more expensive because of Government overreach, yet supportive of government overreach when the government overreach is land.

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:03 PM

I never associated this with the debacle in the San Joaquin Valley.

I think you are on to something.

Right or wrong on the legalese but Mr. Bundy may just put a face and an ounce of courage into every farmer being driven to bankruptcy, to enrich the already well-enriched. Control the food, control the people.

Oh….Modesto…

seesalrun2 on April 14, 2014 at 7:47 PM

That big solar farm in Mojave desert , the one that roasts wild birds is Pelosi’s brother in law’s venture , BrightSource using taxpayer money ofcourse.
The CA high speed rail is Feinstein’s ( husbands’s) sugababy .
After these 2 hags have used up whatever is currently available , in the name of environment ofcourse , to enrich themselves, they’ll desertify CA , in the name of environment, to enrich themselves some more.
They profit off desertification.

burrata on April 14, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid told reporters, “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it.”

OK. Let’s give him an exemption, waiver, a delay, or amnesty!

If Dingy and his fellow Democrats can disregard the rule of law, why shouldn’t everyone else?

Resist We Much on April 14, 2014 at 8:05 PM

This whole story shows without a doubt…

The difference between real land managers…

And asphalt dwellers in the big cities..

Electrongod on April 14, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Interestingly, per Adams’s post, Bundy did pay grazing fees for a time prior to 1993. It was that year that the feds decided to limit grazing rights in the name of protecting the desert tortoise; Bundy then decided to stop paying the fee. When he decided that the land didn’t legally belong to the feds is unclear.

PETA, you pigs (not in a clean way), the feds euthanized 1,500 tortoises “don’t have enough food for them”, and didn’t tell you, you idiots.

Then, only when it was near time that the Bundy family win a big case in court, and Harry Reid and his goons got nervous, did they send in the BLM with guns. Why does the BLB have so many and that kind of guns?

Why did the BLB designate “free speech islands” of land?

Go fluke yourselves, leftist thugs. You have been exposed, nakid. YOU have nothing.

Best part of all this…not all the ranchers are old white men. Suffocate on this, race-baiters.

Schadenfreude on April 14, 2014 at 8:08 PM

That Bundy believes he has a legitimate legal beef with the BLM (I believe he has moral right on his side; the BLM, the law) is less important to me than what I read to be in the state Constitution regarding the powers and perquisites of the Federal gummint vs the State. Essentially, I read that Nevada gave up all its State Sovereignty and has, essentially, given the Feds the RIGHT (let alone, power) to invade the State anytime the Feds believe it is in the Feds best interest. Also, if People of Nevada believed the Federal gummint to be tyrannical and destructive of the Constitutional rights of the People of Nevada, any attempt by them to secede would be met by an immediate invasion by Federal troops. This State Constitution has all the earmarks of one forced upon the Territory by Lincoln’s gummint (Nevada statehood, 1864) as a direct result of his gummint’s invasion of the Confederate States. And, I’d really like to know wherein the Federal Constitution that the Federal gummint is given ‘warrant’ to invade a sovereign state?

vnvet on April 14, 2014 at 8:09 PM

A government of the Feds, by the Feds, and for the Feds is the problem.

claudius on April 14, 2014 at 8:09 PM

The feds claim to own 89% of that state. Why does the fed govt own 89% of any state? Bundy’s probably skating on thin ice with this theory but then the SC may like to take a look see. We never know which way those loons will jump.

Kissmygrits on April 14, 2014 at 8:09 PM

So why can’t the cattle and solar panels co-exist? The cows will throw a shadow?

Cindy Munford on April 14, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Checkout this map of potential geothermal lease zones in the US.

“Within the western United States, federal lands have abundant geothermal energy capacity. Of the 3,100 megawatts of geothermal capacity currently installed in the United States, 41% are on public lands. [1] [2] And as shown in Figure 1, federal lands constitute 192 million of the estimated 530 million acres of the potential geothermal zones. [3] This article describes the process of securing a geothermal lease on federal lands.

One of the early critical steps in developing a geothermal project located on federal land is securing a geothermal lease. The geothermal lease allows for access to and use of the federally owned, renewable, geothermal heat found deep underground in hot earthen rocks. The geothermal lease, however, does not typically grant the leaseholder the water rights associated with the geothermal resource and necessary for power production. The water rights are typically authorized through a state agency. [3]

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the delegated authority to issue geothermal leases on federal land, whether that land is ultimately managed by the Department of the Interior (e.g., BLM) or the Department of Agriculture (e.g., U.S. Forest Service). BLM issues geothermal leases through one of two processes….”

Map at the link:

https://financere.nrel.gov/finance/content/geothermal-leasing-bureau-land-management

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 8:10 PM

We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over,” Reid said.

Didn’t say that about Occupy Wall Street whom he supported…

Skywise on April 14, 2014 at 8:10 PM

OK. Let’s give him an exemption, waiver, a delay, or amnesty!

If Dingy and his fellow Democrats can disregard the rule of law, why shouldn’t everyone else?

Resist We Much on April 14, 2014 at 8:05 PM

IIRC, Holder the Big Lawyer , told us something about DISCRETION in enforcing the law , not too long ago.

burrata on April 14, 2014 at 8:12 PM

So why can’t the cattle and solar panels co-exist? The cows will throw a shadow?

Cindy Munford on April 14, 2014 at 8:10 PM

I think these folks want to turn large parts of Nevada into a geothermal energy zone?

see link above for map.

wiki link about geothermal energy

“Some of the legal issues raised by geothermal energy resources include questions of ownership and allocation of the resource, the grant of exploration permits, exploitation rights, royalties, and the extent to which geothermal energy issues have been recognised in existing planning and environmental laws.

Other questions concern overlap between geothermal and mineral or petroleum tenements. Broader issues concern the extent to which the legal framework for encouragement of renewable energy assists in encouraging geothermal industry innovation and development….”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 8:13 PM

So why can’t the cattle and solar panels co-exist? The cows will throw a shadow?

Cindy Munford on April 14, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Because the solar panels will cook our hamburgers…automatically.

And put McDonald’s hamburger flippers out-of-business.

Electrongod on April 14, 2014 at 8:13 PM

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Interesting post. I was shocked to learn that the Feds own almost 85% of the land in Nevada. Of course, most of that land has no access to water so its usefulness is extremely limited.

Captain Kirock on April 14, 2014 at 8:15 PM

We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over,” Reid said.

…but illegal immigrants can, because they don’t have anything we want to take, and we’re grooming them for their votes.

claudius on April 14, 2014 at 8:17 PM

OK. Let’s give him an exemption, waiver, a delay, or amnesty!

If Dingy and his fellow Democrats can disregard the rule of law, why shouldn’t everyone else?

Resist We Much on April 14, 2014 at 8:05 PM

An interesting conversation I had with a Landman regarding Cliven Bundy and Gold Butte that perhaps a curious and experienced lawyer might find interesting enough to investigate, was. That Gold Butte does not exist. The landman in question found this fact highly disturbing.

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:18 PM

There is some question when this video was taken, bit it seems to have been after the BLM had bugged out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jer1YidkfPY

davidk on April 14, 2014 at 8:19 PM

So why can’t the cattle and solar panels co-exist? The cows will throw a shadow?

Cindy Munford on April 14, 2014 at 8:10 PM

:O
Co-exist is supposed to be a sticker on some hippy’s VW van or suburu or a tattoo on some floozy’s behind.
It has nothing to do with the real world !

burrata on April 14, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Acreage leased for Geothermal Power…most in Nevada

Date State Acres Leased Total Year 1 Receipts ($000) * Year 1 Receipts Per Acre
June 20, 2007 ID 8,904 3,685 414
UT 6,018 5,726 951
Aug. 14, 2007 CA 2,700 8,000 2,963
NV 122,849 11,700 95
August 5, 2008 NV 105,211 28,200 268
December 19, 2008 ID 8,676 60 7
OR/WA 41,362 787 19
UT 144,372 5,695 39
July 13, 2009 CA 11,392 131 11
NV 243,727 8,909 37
UT 228 57 250
November 17, 2009 UT 3,780 209 55
February 23, 2010 ID 10,592 43 4
UT 60,320 335 6
May 11, 2010 NV 212,370 2,762 13
November 10, 2010 CO 799 29 36
March 22, 2011 NV 46,627 456 10
May 24, 2011 ID 26,728 108 4
Total 1,056,655 76,892 –

https://financere.nrel.gov/finance/content/geothermal-leasing-bureau-land-management

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 8:19 PM

So why can’t the cattle and solar panels co-exist? The cows will throw a shadow?

Cindy Munford on April 14, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Environmental mitigation

It’s like Carbon Credits.

You can go to town on a site elsewhere as long as you make some other location real pretty.

Bundy was grazing cattle on Gold Butte which was the primary selected ‘pretty’ site, so Bundy and his evil cows had to go.

sharrukin on April 14, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Interesting post. I was shocked to learn that the Feds own almost 85% of the land in Nevada. Of course, most of that land has no access to water so its usefulness is extremely limited.

Captain Kirock on April 14, 2014 at 8:15 PM

I think a lot of people are shocked by exactly who owns the West.

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 8:22 PM

I’m shocked that the ‘Establishment’ RINOs at Hot Air are against Mr. Bundy.

FIFY

The fairest explainer I’ve found on the Bundy saga is Becket Adams’s Dana Loesch’s post at TheBlaze.

http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/

reddevil on April 14, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Obviously cattle have been grazing in that region for at least 100 years (and I can only assume zillions of bison before them for thousands of years) and the turtle is still not extinct. Sounds like compromise is in order, like, alternating which areas can be grazed, or at certain times of the year, etc.

But, given the Feds’ track record, they really, really, really hate to back down even over the most trivial matters.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 14, 2014 at 8:28 PM

While not wishing for any violence, I was kind of hoping this would snowball into a massive show of the People against stupidity like this and the Delta Smelt.

Cindy Munford on April 14, 2014 at 8:30 PM

Gold Butte does not exist. The landman in question found this fact highly disturbing. oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Has he seen this?

Step 1: Select Mitigation Action(s) and Location(s): As described in Section 2.8, the recommended mitigation actions/location are: (1) increase law enforcement and monitoring activities to halt the trend in degradation of resource values; and (2) restore disturbed areas in the Gold Butte ACEC

Akzed on April 14, 2014 at 8:31 PM

I’m shocked that the ‘Establishment’ RINOs at Hot Air are against Mr. Bundy.

reddevil on April 14, 2014 at 8:23 PM

As long as Cliven Bundy’s problems do not personally impact them, (like say, them causing the price of beer to go up) than HotAir will not take Clivens Biundy’s side. To do so would be a unacceptable implication that HotAir approved of civil disobedience or armed insurrection. HotAir will not tolerate any suggestion or implication either tacit or implicit in support of civil disobedience or armed insurrection.

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Didn’t say that about Occupy Wall Street whom he supported…

Skywise on April 14, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Boom.

Mimzey on April 14, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Obama is taking us down the road of lawlessness.

Seemingly daily Obama wakes up and decides not to enforce a few laws or to unilaterally make up laws or change laws already in place.

Why would Cliven or anyone obey the laws that they don’t like if Obama ignores or makes them up at his political convenience?

RJL on April 14, 2014 at 8:34 PM

The Great Basin (Comprises most of the state of Nevada and half of Colorado) has the largest mineral deposits in the country.

Table(s) of US Govt. Assessment of mineral deposits and maps at the link:

Great Basin

Gold (Tons)
4,100

Silver
100,000

Copper (kilotons)
44,000

Lead (kilotons)
8,500

Zinc (kilotons)
10,000

“At today’s prices, the gross value of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc in undiscovered deposits is estimated to be $1.2 trillion. Included in this gross value are such things as the value of the metals; cost of salaries paid for labor to find the metals and to build and operate the facilities to extract and refine them; and the returns (profits) to investors in metals exploration and development. This can be compared with the gross value at today’s prices of the discovered (past production plus remaining reserves) gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc, which is calculated to be $1.4 trillion. Thus, for conventional-type deposits in the conterminous 48 States, about as much is left to be discovered as has already been discovered, excluding discovered materials that have not been produced and are not currently classified as reserves. The gross value of the five metals in undiscovered deposits by general mineral-deposit type is shown in figure 3. This assessment marks the beginning of an ongoing assessment by the USGS of all mineral resources in the United States….”

http://pubs.usgs.gov/info/assessment/

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Here is a brief history of BrightSource and the bird roasting solar thingy in the Mojave desert :
.
http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/brightsource-energy-lights-the-way-to-more-obama-scandals/comment-page-1/

Notice the list of who’s who that profited , straight out of Glenn Beck’s blackboards , with Pelosi and family .
This is the future of GoldButt NV, with Hairy Greed and his son.

burrata on April 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Gold Butte does not exist. The landman in question found this fact highly disturbing. oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Has he seen this?

Step 1: Select Mitigation Action(s) and Location(s): As described in Section 2.8, the recommended mitigation actions/location are: (1) increase law enforcement and monitoring activities to halt the trend in degradation of resource values; and (2) restore disturbed areas in the Gold Butte ACEC

Akzed on April 14, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Yes, he saw that. However, that does not affect the documentation of land that Landmen rely on. There is absolutely nothing on Gold Butte, he words specifically were, it simply does not exist. This was a Landman with well over 30 years experience, experience that includes federal and state land rights for mineral and resource exploitation. When he went looking for information, he was literally stunned, he has never seen this before.

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Obama is taking us down the road of lawlessness.

Seemingly daily Obama wakes up and decides not to enforce a few laws or to unilaterally make up laws or change laws already in place.

Why would Cliven or anyone obey the laws that they don’t like if Obama ignores or makes them up at his political convenience?

RJL on April 14, 2014 at 8:34 PM

This.

Under Obama, laws aren’t so much actual rules… they’re more like “guidelines.”

Stoic Patriot on April 14, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Isn’t the bigger issue here that the feds came in LOADED FOR BEAR over some cows grazing and some overdue “fees.” They were clearly prepared to KILL PEOPLE over it. But oh, yes, let’s just have a nice little conversation about whether or not this fella is within his legal rights. That’s such an easier conversation than the one about a federal government militarized against ITS OWN CITIZENS and ready to mow them down for any and all “legal” infractions. I can’t wait till we’re traipsing over the corpses while we sip our tea, cluck our tongues, and note that they were, after all, on shaky legal ground.

And just how exactly does one “hyper-polarize” a non-military federal agency’s para-military response to a domestic squabble over cow grazing? It was hyper-polarized when they showed up, armed to the teeth, and started tazing people and threatening to take them out in body bags. What would be the appropriate “non-polarizing” response to that? “Oh please, sir, don’t kill me?” Would that have been better?

Talk about being unable to see the forest for the trees.

Rational Thought on April 14, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Yes, he saw that. However, that does not affect the documentation of land that Landmen rely on. There is absolutely nothing on Gold Butte, he words specifically were, it simply does not exist. This was a Landman with well over 30 years experience, experience that includes federal and state land rights for mineral and resource exploitation. When he went looking for information, he was literally stunned, he has never seen this before.

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:40 PM

So is he saying that all documentation has been deep sixed?

I mean Gold Butte obviously does exist.

sharrukin on April 14, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Talk about being unable to see the forest for the trees.

Rational Thought on April 14, 2014 at 8:42 PM

:)

No trees in this desert…

The BLM has automatic weapons?????

Why?

Electrongod on April 14, 2014 at 8:47 PM

More info on BLM at this link:

http://rlch.org/content/federal-land-policy-and-management-act

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Unless there are some NEEDFUL BUILDINGS or military use of that land, it can’t possibly be Federal land! I know, because the US Constitution states that pretty plainly!

dominigan on April 14, 2014 at 8:52 PM

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:40 PM

So is he saying that all documentation has been deep sixed?

I mean Gold Butte obviously does exist.

sharrukin on April 14, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Not just deep sixed, made intentionally unavailable to any Landman. Before any oil, gas or mining operation can be engaged in, the mineral and water rights to said resource must be secured by the company intending to engage in such activity. Extensive documentation is kept on every single square foot of America for precisely this reason. It is in this context that Gold Butte does not exist.

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:52 PM

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:40 PM

That’s kind of amazing.

Akzed on April 14, 2014 at 8:52 PM

The BLM has automatic weapons?????

Why?

Electrongod on April 14, 2014 at 8:47 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4 @ 1: 28 mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4 @ 3: 40 mark

burrata on April 14, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Judge Andrew Napolitano appeared on Fox News to denounce the federal government’s operation against Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, asserting that BLM agents should have been arrested for seizing his property and that the case represents a “line in the sand” for Americans who have had enough of big government tyranny.

http://earththreats.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/judge-napolitano-ranch-rebellion-was-americans-line-in-the-sand/

davidk on April 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

I wondered why Hot Air finally started to write about this situation AFTER it was de escalated. They were looking for a way, any way, to come in firmly on the side of the Federal Government and Harry Reid.

Please, please, tell me again how great a president Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, even Hillary would be. I await your edgy conservatism with baited breath.

And that Ted Cruz, such a meany. He wants us to have borders and liberty and stuff.

Is allahpundit really Megan MCcain?

Exninja on April 14, 2014 at 8:54 PM

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:40 PM

That’s kind of amazing.

Akzed on April 14, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Enough to scare this guy into not wanting to be associated with the public hearing this.

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:54 PM

If, like me (and Ace), you came to this story after it had already been hyper-polarized

The one saving grace to that embarrassing confession is at least you won’t the very last person on earth who’s just learned of this story. That will be Obama, when he reads about it in the newspaper.

whatcat on April 14, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Looks like the “it’s the law” crowd at HotAir may be getting their wish. Am reading on Twitter that the feds are planning to raid Bundy’s home and the homes of his children. That’ll show the peasants not to step out of line again. If there’s bloodshed? Well, Bundy was on shaky legal ground, after all.

Rational Thought on April 14, 2014 at 8:58 PM

The BLM has automatic weapons?????

Why?

Electrongod on April 14, 2014 at 8:47 PM

The gun control people will tell you that “assault weapons” only exist to kill large numbers of people.

RJL on April 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:40 PM

So is he saying that all documentation has been deep sixed?

I mean Gold Butte obviously does exist.

sharrukin on April 14, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Not just deep sixed, made intentionally unavailable to any Landman. Before any oil, gas or mining operation can be engaged in, the mineral and water rights to said resource must be secured by the company intending to engage in such activity. Extensive documentation is kept on every single square foot of America for precisely this reason. It is in this context that Gold Butte does not exist.

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Didn’t that happen to Obama’s records?

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Environmentalists accused the bureau of capitulating to threats of violence from armed Bundy supporters and urged them to pursue action against the rancher.

“The BLM has a sacred duty to manage our public lands in the public interest, to treat all users equally and fairly,” said Rob Mrowka, senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Instead it is allowing a freeloading rancher and armed thugs to seize hundreds of thousands of acres of the people’s land as their own fiefdom.”

“The BLM is setting a dangerous precedent in announcing that it will pick and choose who has to follow federal laws and who it will reward for violating them,” he added.

In April 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the bureau for canceling a planned roundup of Bundy’s cattle at the last minute.

http://news.yahoo.com/blm-pursue-effort-end-dispute-rancher-004106775.html

davidk on April 14, 2014 at 9:01 PM

So what laws allow the BLM attack dogs, tasers and automatic weapons…plus snipers? What does the BLM do that requires them to use these weapons..?

d1carter on April 14, 2014 at 9:02 PM

Whether or not this guy has a legit gripe (doesn’t look like he has much of a case and that he arbitrarily just stopped paying one day after he had been paying for years prior), it is unrelated to and doesn’t change the following facts:

1. Harry Reid is a corrupt pile of horse dung.

2. The Democrats are dumpsters and constitute a crime family masquerading as a political party.

3. President Obama is a lying piece of garbage. Respectfully, of course.

Good Lt on April 14, 2014 at 9:02 PM

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Didn’t that happen to Obama’s records?

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Well, now that you mention it…

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 9:03 PM

In April 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the bureau for canceling a planned roundup of Bundy’s cattle at the last minute.

http://news.yahoo.com/blm-pursue-effort-end-dispute-rancher-004106775.html

davidk on April 14, 2014 at 9:01 PM

The Center for Biological Diversity is funded by the Tides Foundation, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Bank Of America and George Soros funds the activities of some of their members (Rose Braz) as well.

sharrukin on April 14, 2014 at 9:07 PM

The Center for Biological Diversity is funded by the Tides Foundation, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Bank Of America and George Soros funds the activities of some of their members (Rose Braz) as well.

sharrukin on April 14, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Oh WOOOOWWW ..it’s like history repeating itself with the same bunch of devils :

http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/brightsource-energy-lights-the-way-to-more-obama-scandals/comment-page-1/
keep scrolling for fun :) after fun

burrata on April 14, 2014 at 9:10 PM

Whether or not this guy has a legit gripe (doesn’t look like he has much of a case and that he arbitrarily just stopped paying one day after he had been paying for years prior)

Good Lt on April 14, 2014 at 9:02 PM

BS.

They reduced his grazing rights to a 150 cattle in order to bankrupt him over the fake Tortoise problem, and then he stopped paying to have the government run him out of business. Instead he sent the money to Nevada.

sharrukin on April 14, 2014 at 9:10 PM

If Mr. Bundy was an illegal alien, BLM (Harry Reid in Nevada) would have worked out a compromise…

d1carter on April 14, 2014 at 9:11 PM

I’m shocked that the ‘Establishment’ RINOs at Hot Air are against Mr. Bundy.

reddevil on April 14, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Yes, because anybody who seeks to look at both sides of this story, and doesn’t automatically react emotionally, and side with the poor, oppressed, downtrodden rancher — who defied several court orders — is ” against Mr. Bundy.”

Screw the rule of law. Bring on the militia! Don’t anyone dare point out that Bundy may have done anything wrong!

I’m wondering if and when some of you are going to wake up and realize how you’re being manipulated by Bundy and his defenders.

JannyMae on April 14, 2014 at 9:12 PM

The BLM has a “sacred duty”?

Sounds a little dramatic, huh?

wolly4321 on April 14, 2014 at 9:13 PM

You know, I think the original teaparty was an illegal act…

d1carter on April 14, 2014 at 9:13 PM

Oh WOOOOWWW ..it’s like history repeating itself with the same bunch of devils :

http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/brightsource-energy-lights-the-way-to-more-obama-scandals/comment-page-1/
keep scrolling for fun :) after fun

burrata on April 14, 2014 at 9:10 PM

The usual suspects.

Jon M. Huntsman Jr?

Figured he was a ringer and this pretty much confirms it.

sharrukin on April 14, 2014 at 9:14 PM

who defied several court orders — is ” against Mr. Bundy.”

Screw the rule of law.

JannyMae on April 14, 2014 at 9:12 PM

OMG!!11!!

He defied THE LAW.

We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.” – Harry reid

sharrukin on April 14, 2014 at 9:16 PM

It was an act of love…..

d1carter on April 14, 2014 at 9:18 PM

I’m wondering if and when some of you are going to wake up and realize how you’re being manipulated by Bundy and his defenders.

JannyMae on April 14, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Would you explain how Mr. Bundy is manipulating me?

davidk on April 14, 2014 at 9:20 PM

I’m wondering if and when some of you are going to wake up and realize how you’re being manipulated by Bundy and his defenders.

JannyMae on April 14, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Would you explain how Mr. Bundy is manipulating me?

davidk on April 14, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Shut up, that’s how.

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Janny,, where was BLM?

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/?page=all.

(btw, even though I disagree with her,, she is no leftie troll. Not by a longshot)

wolly4321 on April 14, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Well, now that you mention it…

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 9:03 PM

heh…

These BLM disputes are happening in some interesting parts of the country…

Appalachians

Utah

Texas

Follow the politics… resources…water use…and money trails…

“BLM threatens Henderson Ranch in Texas for massive land grab
April 14, 2014 11:24 AM EDT SHARE :

BLM threatens Henderson Ranch in Texas for massive land grab
The BLM is seizing rightfully owned and homesteaded property from people all over the country

By John Vibes

TEXAS (INTELLIHUB) — This month, a federal agency called The Bureau of Land Management made news by attempting to take over a large area of land that was used and owned by a rural rancher in Nevada. For now, the recent standoff in Nevada has come to a peaceful and successful end. However, other cases of BLM land grabs can be seen across the country

In one interview, the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy explained that the BLM was systematically putting ranchers nationwide out of business by taking their land. According to Cliven Bundy, he was taking a stand because he was one of the few left who actually had the chance.

“Years ago, I used to have 52 neighboring ranchers,” he said. “I’m the last man standing. How come? Because BLM regulated these people off the land and out of business.”

Cases just like the Bundy’s can be seen all throughout the country. At the Henderson Ranch near the border between Texas and Oklahoma, the BLM took 140 acres of legitimately homesteaded property from the Henderson family. Additionally, the BLM seeks to use his case as precedent to seize land along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River, which separates Texas from Oklahoma.

“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us,” Tommy Henderson told RFDTV.

“How can BLM come in and say, “Hey, this isn’t yours.” Even though it’s patented from the state, you’ve always paid taxes on it. Our family has paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We’ve got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn’t ours,” he added.

If the BLM gets their way, the government could seize 90,000 acres of property that is currently in use along the Red River.

“Originally, here the river was out there where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it’s always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north,” Henderson said.

Scott Carpenter, one of Henderson’s neighbors is in a similar position, and wants to help in the fight against the BLM. His land is also under threat from the constant changing of borders along the river.

“We have numerous places that have been in our family for over a hundred of years, and you hate to see land that people’s worked hard for would lose. As producers we are always on a defense. We have to make decisions to try to help ourselves to help one another” Carpenter said….”

http://intellihub.com/blm-threatens-henderson-ranch-texas-massive-land-grab/

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 9:29 PM

The BLM has a “sacred duty”?

Sounds a little dramatic, huh?

wolly4321 on April 14, 2014 at 9:13 PM

They say cleanliness is next to Godliness.
So whyTF doesn’t the BLM perform it’s sacred duty and clean up the tonnes of trash dumped by hoardes of illegals invading the US to pick lettuce and do our dishes ?

burrata on April 14, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Yes, because anybody who seeks to look at both sides of this story, and doesn’t automatically react emotionally, and side with the poor, oppressed, downtrodden rancher — who defied several court orders — is ” against Mr. Bundy.”

Screw the rule of law. Bring on the militia! Don’t anyone dare point out that Bundy may have done anything wrong!

I’m wondering if and when some of you are going to wake up and realize how you’re being manipulated by Bundy and his defenders.

JannyMae on April 14, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Wouldn’t going with both sides of the story mean they would have posted Dana’s writing on this?

I’m not shocked the Establishment RINOs at HotAir ignored Dana and immediately went with clown Becketts writing on this. Are you telling me you aren’t?

I’ve watched this White House for the past 6 years, don’t give me that Bull Sh*t about ‘Rule of Law’.

My post had no indication of my support/non-support for Mr. Bundy. You’ve made yourself look stupid with the comments after mine.

But by all means, Troll away.

reddevil on April 14, 2014 at 9:31 PM

The Admin won’t be happy until they pull a Waco so that Harry can blame the Koch Bros.

whatcat on April 14, 2014 at 9:32 PM

Shut up, that’s how.

oscarwilde on April 14, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Heh

.

.

(coughw/bcough)

davidk on April 14, 2014 at 9:32 PM

Harry Reid: Get off my desert!

d1carter on April 14, 2014 at 9:33 PM

“BYERS, Texas (RFD-TV) Most people think the border between Texas and Oklahoma is the Red River. Unfortunately, it’s a little more complicated than that, especially along the part of the river where Tommy Henderson and his family ranch.
Henderson lost a lawsuit 30 years ago that moved part of the northern Texas border over a mile to the south.

The Bureau of Land Management [BLM] took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.

Now, they want to use his case as precedent to seize land along a 116-mile stretch of the river.

“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us,” Henderson explained.

BLM, which oversees public land in the United States, claims this land never belonged to Texas.

The Texas landowners who have lived and cared for that land for hundreds of years beg to differ.

BLM plans on taking the land anyway. Property owners will be forced to spend money on lawsuits to keep what is theirs.

For many, that property has been in their family for generations.

“How can BLM come in and say, “Hey, this isn’t yours.” Even though it’s patented from the state, you’ve always paid taxes on it. Our family has paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We’ve got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn’t ours,” said Henderson.

Ever since the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, there has been controversy over where Oklahoma ends and Texas begins.

In layman’s terms the boundary is the vegetation line on the south side of the Red River.

Over time the river moves. This movement north toward Oklahoma is the sticking point.

The sandy soils erode in a process called accretion, which wipes out the bank. So the property line follows the river.

BLM claims that the river moved by another process called avulsion. With avulsion, the land may be changed by flood or currents, but the property line isn’t. So BLM claims that when the river moved back north the property line stayed put.

It doesn’t help that Oklahoma defines avulsion differently than Texas and the U.S.

“Originally, here the river was out there where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it’s always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north,” said Henderson.

About 90,000 acres could be seized by BLM, disappearing across a new state line. If they are allowed to take the land, it could also affect farmers and ranchers down river like Scott Carpenter, who ranches north of Nocona.

BLM couldn’t take his land, but there would be nothing to stop his neighbor across the river from claiming some of Scott’s property belongs to him. That is just one of the reasons Carpenter wants to help.

“We have numerous places that have been in our family for over a hundred of years, and you hate to see land that people’s worked hard for would lose,” said Carpenter. “As producers we are always on a defense. We have to make decisions to try to help ourselves to help one another.”

Both ranchers have been in contact with U.S. Congressman Mac Thornberry, who is working to help stop the land grab. Henderson’s land probably won’t be affected this time, but he’s hoping what happened to him won’t happen to his fellow landowners.

This report is from our partners at the Texas Farm Bureau….”

http://www.rfdtv.com/story/25206377/oklahoma-texas-border-dispute-has-ranchers-worried

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Who’s side are the feds on?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19ranch.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

I don’t believe alex jones.

I do believe a long list of fed abuses, and neglect.

Clean up to “build the dang fence”.

The BLM is supposed to be helping ranchers, not turtles. Would you pay them to hurt your self interest?

wolly4321 on April 14, 2014 at 9:36 PM

“Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s decades-long battle against the federal government over grazing rights continues, but it may get worse over a leaked memo that was uncovered in 2010 that reveals an Obama Administration land grab initiative that may spread across other western states, possibly causing the same showdown between landowners, ranchers, and the federal government.

The Tea Party Command Center on Saturday uncovered the lost news report where former Republican Senator Jim DeMint raised the alarm back in 2010 of a leaked memo about a planned, 10 million acre Western land grab by the Obama administration of 17 sites in 11 western states.

The secret memo stamped, “Internal Draft – NOT FOR RELEASE” was leaked by a Department of Interior official to Utah Congressman Bob Bishop.

The memo titled, “Prospective Conservation Designation: National Monument Designations under the Antiquities Act” proposes that many nationally significant landscapes are worthy of inclusion in the NLCS and if enacted, could very well set off another BLM and property owner standoffs.

The areas listed may be good candidates for National Monument designation under the Antiquities Act; however, further evaluations should be completed prior to any final decision, including an assessment of public and Congressional support.

Some of the areas listed include San Rafael Swell, Utah, Montana’s IS Northern Prairie, Lesser Prairie Chicken Preserve in New Mexico, Berryessa Snow Mountains in California, Heart of the Great Basin in Nevada, Otero Mesa in New Mexico, Northwest Sonoran Desert in Arizona, Owyhee Desert that crosses Oregon and Nevada, and expanding the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in California.

Interestingly enough, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that is at the center of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s battle over grazing rights, proposed a program of land consolidation for its checker boarded lands, particularly in Oregon, California, Wyoming, Utah and in Nevada.

The standoff in Nevada between the Bureau of Land Management agents and Mr. Bundy entered a new phase on Friday when where militia groups across the country have joined Mr. Bundy’s fight against the feds (BLM) who have circled his land and have stated that they are not afraid to open fire.

According to the Washington Times, a spokesperson for the one of the militia groups said to local “8 News Now” media station that he is not afraid to shoot….”

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-administration-land-grab-memo-leaked

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Audio of a conversation with the agent in charge. Scroll down for rough transcript. Also picture of protestor front line before reinforcements showed up: http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/01-1373/

davidk on April 14, 2014 at 9:46 PM

Judge Andrew Napolitano appeared on Fox News to denounce the federal government’s operation against Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, asserting that BLM agents should have been arrested for seizing his property and that the case represents a “line in the sand” for Americans who have had enough of big government tyranny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iayVoKJbRNo

reddevil on April 14, 2014 at 9:47 PM

I think a lot of people are shocked by exactly who owns the West.

workingclass artist on April 14, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Not in Texas. :)

“The largest single land transaction made by Texas from the unappropriated public domain was the transfer to the United States in connection with the Compromise of 1850 of an estimated 67,000,000 acres in settlement of the boundary dispute, Texas receiving from the United States $10 million in bonds and in 1855 an additional $2,750,000 in cash. This vast acreage became parts of New Mexico, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. The transaction not only settled a burdensome state debt inherited from the republic, but also left Texas, unique among the states, with full control over her public domain.”

SanJacinto on April 14, 2014 at 9:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3