Yahoo comments on Bundy Ranch are depressing.

[LibertyEagle]

I think a large part of the confusion is that the Bundy's (and others in the know) don't realize that most Americans don't know what they know or understand what they understand. It needs to be laid out in a very simple manner, but without any assumption that the reader (or listener) knows about "common" terms and conditions.

That's good stuff you posted. I remember Bundy talking about preemptive rights. Did he say he bought the rights to use that land? He probably did, but I don't recall.

It's a bit different, but when I was a kid, my father bought the rights to use what was termed, "school land". He owned a bunch of property around it too. But, on the school land, there were a bunch of improvements. A house, a rustic cabin, a large pond complete with its own dam, a large stone cattle barn, horse barn, etc. Years later they decided it was time to sell it, because something changed and they were concerned that the government would just take it and of course, the improvements with it. So, they did. I should say that they didn't build any of the improvements; they were there when they bought it.

 

[Deborah K]

I think this is a big part of the problem. I don't like the idea of having "rights" to public land. It would be much better just to have the land privately owned. Not that I'm saying Bundy is at fault. My guess is that buying the land was never an option. I don't see any reason why the state or feds should own the majority of the land out west. I'd rather see them auction off all that land and pay down the debt.

And they'd STILL be the winners because they'd get property taxes off of it forever.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Google rewilding North America and follow the links.

Here's one: http://www.wildlandsnetwork.org/

 

[Madison320]

And they'd STILL be the winners because they'd get property taxes off of it forever.

That's true, although out of all taxes I think property taxes are the worst since it means you don't really own it, you are just renting it. But it's still a much better way than having "rights" to public land. There's so many ways that can turn into a cluster fuck.

 

[Madison320]

Everything I have found is that he paid the BLM up until 1993 and stopped then when they reduced his allocation to only 150 head of cattle, he then went to the county, then the courts and lost every time.

He himself says it and that's where he loses me, either you don't pay them and fight from the start based on the fact that they are on county land, or you continue to pay them, pay them extra for the added head over the allocation and fight it in the courts.

his daughter and his own words confirm, he was paying the BLM before 1993 until they did the head allocation reduction.

Maybe he couldn't afford those fees? Apparently none of the other ranchers could afford it.

I was trying to think of an analogy that people could relate to, since most of us aren't ranchers. Suppose the feds found an endangered species in your subdivision and put up a toll on the only entrance for $20. What would you do? Do you pay it until your day in court? Sell your home at a huge loss since no one wants to buy it with that toll there? I keep hearing the argument that it's not HIS land, but it's not that simple. You can have your property stolen/ ruined in other ways.

 

[Deborah K]

That's true, although out of all taxes I think property taxes are the worst since it means you don't really own it, you are just renting it. But it's still a much better way than having "rights" to public land. There's so many ways that can turn into a cluster fuck.

Anything the fedgov gets involved in turns out to be a cluster fuck.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

they are all a bunch of yahoos over there anyway.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

That's good stuff you posted. I remember Bundy talking about preemptive rights. Did he say he bought the rights to use that land? He probably did, but I don't recall.

It's a bit different, but when I was a kid, my father bought the rights to use what was termed, "school land". He owned a bunch of property around it too. But, on the school land, there were a bunch of improvements. A house, a rustic cabin, a large pond complete with its own dam, a large stone cattle barn, horse barn, etc. Years later they decided it was time to sell it, because something changed and they were concerned that the government would just take it and of course, the improvements with it. So, they did. I should say that they didn't build any of the improvements; they were there when they bought it.

Yes, those rights were purchased long before the BLM or EPA existed.

My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887, around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights.

Google rewilding North America and follow the links.

Here's one: http://www.wildlandsnetwork.org/

Yep, A.g.e.n.d.a

 

[klamath]

Maybe he couldn't afford those fees? Apparently none of the other ranchers could afford it.

I was trying to think of an analogy that people could relate to, since most of us aren't ranchers. Suppose the feds found an endangered species in your subdivision and put up a toll on the only entrance for $20. What would you do? Do you pay it until your day in court? Sell your home at a huge loss since no one wants to buy it with that toll there? I keep hearing the argument that it's not HIS land, but it's not that simple. You can have your property stolen/ ruined in other ways.

Here is something to throw at them. When people hear court they think criminal court. Guilty until proven innocent, Right? The burden of proof is on the prosecution, right? Well all of these court cases involve Administrative law courts. All the government has to do is have associates degree, environmental BLM employee state that Bundy is killing turtles and the burden of proof shifts to Bundy to prove he isn't killing turtles. It is called a prima facie case. It is extremely hard to overcome a governments prima facie case as My family and friends found out the hard way.

 

[PRB]

What are you doing on yahoo anyways? The mail sucks, the stories suck, everything sucks about it

because i don't want to perpetuate Google's monopoly on search and news and mail

 

[limequat]

According to the wiki on this, Bundy has not been able to come up with any evidence of his rights. I keep reading about pre-emptive rights, grazing rights, and water rights. Seems like it was all ad-hoc. The government changes the rules and there's no paper trail.

Also, I can't quite wrap my head around the end-game. This has been going on for some time, so there is precedence. I don't buy the Reid/Solar Energy thing. That deal fell through. Obviously it's not really about the turtles. Why does the BLM REALLY want this land?

 

[klamath]

According to the wiki on this, Bundy has not been able to come up with any evidence of his rights. I keep reading about pre-emptive rights, grazing rights, and water rights. Seems like it was all ad-hoc. The government changes the rules and there's no paper trail.

Also, I can't quite wrap my head around the end-game. This has been going on for some time, so there is precedence. I don't buy the Reid/Solar Energy thing. That deal fell through. Obviously it's not really about the turtles. Why does the BLM REALLY want this land?

It is environmentalism. They want development of any rural land stopped. Take the time to read the agendas and goals of the environmentalist organizations. They for the most part ARE in control of the federal administrative agencies. They set out to become the administrators that control policy in the 70's and have largely done so. They elect democratic politicians and hold the politicians feet to the fire.

 

[CPUd]

According to the wiki on this, Bundy has not been able to come up with any evidence of his rights. I keep reading about pre-emptive rights, grazing rights, and water rights. Seems like it was all ad-hoc. The government changes the rules and there's no paper trail.

Also, I can't quite wrap my head around the end-game. This has been going on for some time, so there is precedence. I don't buy the Reid/Solar Energy thing. That deal fell through. Obviously it's not really about the turtles. Why does the BLM REALLY want this land?

I never got what he was saying about pre-emptive rights either, because the issue is not over land ownership. He referenced 1877 a few times, which was the year of the Desert Land Act. Using that, along with other homestead acts, they could have claimed a couple thousand acres back then. That's why they also grow melons. There was a Preemption Act, but that basically said if you are physically set up on some land that is about to become federal land, you have a right to buy it.

Maybe 'grandfather' is what he means.

 

[klamath]

I never got what he was saying about pre-emptive rights either, because the issue is not over land ownership. He referenced 1877 a few times, which was the year of the Desert Land Act. Using that, along with other homestead acts, they could have claimed a couple thousand acres back then. That's why they also grow melons. There was a Preemption Act, but that basically said if you are physically set up on some land that is about to become federal land, you have a right to buy it.

Maybe 'grandfather' is what he means.

Do you have the right to walk in the national forest? Do you believe that government has the right to restrict all visitation and viewing of federal lands except for a the agents of the US government?

 

[CPUd]

Do you have the right to walk in the national forest? Do you believe that government has the right to restrict all visitation and viewing of federal lands except for a the agents of the US government?

Walking in the national forest, yeah. Camping too, for people who know how to do it without leaving trash everywhere. I don't think people should be able to go in there and start chopping down trees though.

 

[pcosmar]

Walking in the national forest, yeah. Camping too, for people who know how to do it without leaving trash everywhere. I don't think people should be able to go in there and start chopping down trees though.

Why?

Why not?

Oh,, and people do cut trees in the national forest.. If they have the right connections and have paid the bribes.

I can get a permit to collect dead wood.

 

[klamath]

Walking in the national forest, yeah. Camping too, for people who know how to do it without leaving trash everywhere. I don't think people should be able to go in there and start chopping down trees though.

You didn't answer the question. Does the government have the right to shut it down, remove all land from public use?

 

[pcosmar]

According to the wiki on this,

Not a particularly good source.

According to wiki Tim McVeigh was part of the Patriot Movement.. when in fact he was run off by every group he tried to infiltrate.

 

[Ender]

According to the wiki on this, Bundy has not been able to come up with any evidence of his rights. I keep reading about pre-emptive rights, grazing rights, and water rights. Seems like it was all ad-hoc. The government changes the rules and there's no paper trail.

Here's an interesting article about how the history of western US gov land grabs.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...ted-treaty-violating-unlawful-war-mexico.html

Also, it is my understanding is that Bundy actually does have evidence, which is why he hasn't been allowed to take this to court. The Bundy land was originally part of the Arizona territory, and was annexed into Nevada, illegally- throwing out all the original laws that governed the Arizona frontier.

 

[PRB]

Not a particularly good source.

According to wiki Tim McVeigh was part of the Patriot Movement.. when in fact he was run off by every group he tried to infiltrate.

which ones?

and what constitutes a patriot movement group that he can't claim he is one himself?