Cliven Bundy is a welfare rancher and is not a friend of Liberty

[Dr.3D]

That picture always makes me sick.

Yeah, what a Buffalo holocaust.

 

[otherone]

"The complex formula used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service fee for grazing on their lands incorporates factors that consider ranchers’ ability to pay; the purpose of the fee is therefore not primarily to recover the agencies’ expenditures or to capture the fair market value of forage."

Christ. So what exactly IS the purpose?
Ah....HERE it is....

PURPOSE:

 

[CPUd]

Let's say that's true.

How do you get from that to the federal government being in charge of the land?

Also, whether people want to live there or not, do they perhaps want to do anything else there? Such as graze their cattle?

Because at different times in history, and some places still today, a person was able to go out there and claim that land as their own for free or for a low price, though today it is probably not worth it, due to all the stipulations that have been added.

 

[erowe1]

Because at different times in history, and some places still today, a person was able to go out there and claim that land as their own for free or for a low price, though today it is probably not worth it, due to all the stipulations that have been added.

I still don't see the connection between what you're saying and anything having to do with the federal government.

 

[Dr.3D]

Because at different times in history, and some places still today, a person was able to go out there and claim that land as their own for free or for a low price, though today it is probably not worth it, due to all the stipulations that have been added.

I suspect with all of the stipulations, it would be nearly impossible to get any land as they would keep changing the rules on an ongoing basis.

 

[CPUd]

I still don't see the connection between what you're saying and anything having to do with the federal government.

They were claiming/buying that land from the federal government.

 

[erowe1]

They were claiming/buying that land from the federal government.

Does that sound right to you? Who are these people in the federal government that they can sell people land that was never theirs to sell in the first place? Can you and I do that?

 

[phill4paul]

Yeah, what a Buffalo holocaust.

Wasn't the Buffalo holocaust those bones represent. It was the rightful land owners. Those that owned, rather shared, long before the sperm of musket fire spawned this atrocity we now have.
What would their courts say? Doesn't matter because might makes right and that is modern America.

 

[CPUd]

Does that sound right to you? Who are these people in the federal government that they can sell people land that was never theirs to sell in the first place? Can you and I do that?

They are lots of people with guns. You and I could probably do the same if we had a big enough army. You could go out and recruit, and I could build some robots.

 

[CPUd]

I suspect with all of the stipulations, it would be nearly impossible to get any land as they would keep changing the rules on an ongoing basis.

From what I've read, you can get clear title, but you are going to have to spend a lot of money up front for surveyors, irrigation, etc. Since 1976, they have to first offer the land, similar to a private sale. It is probably cheaper today to buy already-developed land in a private sale, in a much more hospitable location. In FY 2011, BLM sold or otherwise disposed over 180,000 acres.

Also, some land in the west can be owned twice- the surface and again the mineral rights.

 

[pcosmar]

They were claiming/buying that land from the federal government.

Only when it was Territory..
Once it became a state it is no longer under Federal Control. It is then a State issue. And the State in question had rules and laws governing Open Range.

The trouble I see here is that City Dwellers and folks Herd district states can not grasp the concept.

But it has worked for hundreds of years.

 

[CPUd]

Only when it was Territory..
Once it became a state it is no longer under Federal Control. It is then a State issue. And the State in question had rules and laws governing Open Range.

The trouble I see here is that City Dwellers and folks Herd district states can not grasp the concept.

But it has worked for hundreds of years.

The NV state Constitution doesn't have anything about Open Range, instead they have this:

ORDINANCE

Slavery prohibited; freedom of religious worship; disclaimer of public lands. [Effective until the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary.]  In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:

First. That there shall be in this state neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.

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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.

[Amended in 1956. Proposed and passed by the 1953 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1955 legislature; approved and ratified by the people at the 1956 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1953, p. 718; Statutes of Nevada 1955, p. 926.]

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

I don't think either austin944 or many of those arguing against him are well informed about the definition of what it means for anybody to "own land" or "own access rights" or "own water rights" or "own grazing rights". Nor do I think y'all understand how these rights were homesteaded. The federal and state governments usually started out recognizing the rights homesteaded by Indians and ranchers. But as Will Grigg has been chronicling in his recent articles at some point they always ignore or violate them. Beginning at around 27:00 minutes in the press conference video Bundy explains how the federal government understood the rights of the ranchers as recently as 1980(?).

http://bambuser.com/v/4549915

In the video Bundy explains that the federal government had officially recognized the pre-exising access, water, and grazing rights on these lands up until recent times.

But just as the federal government would countless times violate treaties and arbitrarily switch from a position of recognizing Indian rights and claims, they've done the same thing with these ranchers.

In the video, Bundy cites how after government and the Nature's Conservancy thought they had lost the federal court case that decided that the cows had no adverse effects on the turtles' habitat, that they then bought access, water, and grazing rights from some of the Clark County ranchers in 1980 (?) and tried to get the rest to sell.

So, the idea that the all powerful government--be it federal or state--can somehow "own the land" and infringe on the access, water, and grazing rights that these ranchers had homesteaded, owned, and traded for over 100 years is a viewpoint based on not being informed of how land rights are defined. All of the obligations to pay fees to fed gov bureaus were constructed in legal gobbletygook because the government had to deal with the vestiges of having been more honest in the past with regard to recognition of pre-existing rights.

 

[pcosmar]

The NV state Constitution doesn't have anything about Open Range, instead they have this:

Yeah,, I saw that.

and so what? The federal Government can NOT own it. It is not allowed. (despite the game Lincoln was playing)

Nevada does however have laws regarding Open Range,, which I had posted earlier. It Is State law. and the Federal Government has NO Authority over it.

It Can NOT.. because it is not any of those things allowed by the constitution. It is not a Magazine. It is not a Dock Yard, it is not a Needful building, it is not a Fort.. It is Not Allowed.

 

[pcosmar]

http://bambuser.com/v/4549915

In the video Bundy explains that the federal government had officially recognized the pre-exising access, water, and grazing rights on these lands up until recent times.

But just as the federal government would countless times violate treaties and arbitrarily switch from a position of recognizing Indian rights and claims, they've done the same thing with these ranchers.

In the video, Bundy cites how after government and the Nature's Conservancy thought they had lost the federal court case that decided that the cows had no adverse effects on the turtles' habitat, that they then bought access, water, and grazing rights from some of the Clark County ranchers in 1980 (?) and tried to get the rest to sell.

So, the idea that the all powerful government--be it federal or state--can somehow "own the land" and infringe on the access, water, and grazing rights that these ranchers had homesteaded, owned, and traded for over 100 years is a viewpoint based on not being informed of how land rights are defined. All of the obligations to pay fees to fed gov bureaus were constructed in legal gobbletygook because the government had to deal with the vestiges of having been more honest in the past with regard to recognition of pre-existing rights.

Yup,, and the Creation of the BLM,,not by Election or vote,,but by the stroke of a pen,, And the BLM created laws (something it should have no right to do,,even if it should exist) and those new and purpose created laws are the issue here.
They have no authority.

 

[klamath]

Does that sound right to you? Who are these people in the federal government that they can sell people land that was never theirs to sell in the first place? Can you and I do that?

I live on mining claim that my family patented 24 years ago. When people say it is not easy it is not easy. The federal agencies are fully HOSTILE to giving up title too the land. You will fight tooth and nail to get it. The stress basically killed my father. We still have court decisions (case law) stacked 5 feet high. We had to fight hard to get both mineral and surface management rights.
The trend is to get MORE land back into federal government ownership NOT less and quite a number of environmental organizations take donations from rich urbanites to buy private rural land and then sell it back to the federal government at a profit. Nature conservancy is one such organization.

 

[Peace Piper]

Here's an example of how the Feds take care of land

Google Earth images of northeastern Utah reveal networked grids, footprints where well drilling has fractured shale rock and released toxic materials from the ground into the water system, a practice known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking.

The Halliburton loophole in the 2005 Energy Bill exempts the oil and natural gas industries from the Safe Drinking Water Act, leaving the ground water of 34 states unmonitored by the EPA.
http://www.situstudio.com/blog/2010/10/08/hydraulic-fracturing/​

No turtles there!

 

[LibertyEagle]

Here's an example of how the Feds take care of land

Google Earth images of northeastern Utah reveal networked grids, footprints where well drilling has fractured shale rock and released toxic materials from the ground into the water system, a practice known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking.

The Halliburton loophole in the 2005 Energy Bill exempts the oil and natural gas industries from the Safe Drinking Water Act, leaving the ground water of 34 states unmonitored by the EPA.
http://www.situstudio.com/blog/2010/10/08/hydraulic-fracturing/​

No turtles there!

Oh dear. What we need is MOAR EPA. NOT.

 

[osan]

For almost 20 years now, Cliven Bundy has lived off government welfare that he is not properly entitled to claim under the laws of the US government.

Did he receive a positive cash flow from "government"? If not, then is is NOT a welfare recipient. Not paying a fee is not receipt of welfare. It is just the failure to pay a fee.

He has not properly paid the grazing fees required of him and used government land without permission.

"Properly paid" - nice attempt at presupposition; pretty smooth, actually, but still transparent to those with eyes. The presupposition that we are indeed required to pay such fees is, of course, eminently questionable on its best legs. Under scrutiny, the presupposition falls hard and with great thundering.

If the US government had been dealing with an group of OWS types ...

The what? You make reference to something that does not, in itself, exist. You will need to explain this in some considerable and very convincing detail if you expect to be taken seriously.

That makes Cliven Bundy a welfare rancher, no different than any other welfare recipient who is not properly entitled to their ill-gotten gains.

Unless you can demonstrate the "government" receipts for positive cash of "government" monies to Bundy, you are talking nonsense.

This means that the US government lands can be used for whatever purpose the Congress desires -- for saving turtles, or doing nothing with it at all.

Wrong again. If they decided to ship all black people to NV and turn it into a giant concentration camp, would they be so empowered? Silly example, but valid in any event. Perhaps you should exercise greater care in your choice of sentence structure. Up to you, of course.

All of Bundy's claims to the land have been reviewed by the Federal courts and all such arguments have been rejected. Therefore his cattle should be ejected from the land, and this welfare rancher should go try to live off the proceeds of his own work, instead of trying to live off the US government.

Federal courts also once rule "separate but equal". Federal courts have been WRONG more times than they have been correct. Additionally, I cede no right whatsoever to some panel of goons in gowns. Nice when they rule properly. Not so much so when the don't. Arbitrariness in such affairs is unacceptable.

 

[austin944]

If it is such a great subsidy based on the ability to pay why did 57 other ranches go broke after the feds changed the grazing rules?

If a business operation cannot survive without government hand-outs, then those businesses should be allowed to fail. It's not the proper role of government to prop up businesses that can't go it alone. That principle goes for ranchers, banks, automakers, manufacturers, individuals, or anyone else who wants to feed at the public trough.

The vast majority of ranchers use private land to feed their cattle, and are able to make a profit without needing government-subsidized access to grazing land.