Nevada Ranch Armed Standoff - Everyone vs The Feds

[zinfamous]

I'm sure Kim Jong over in Korea believes countrymen he does not control or command are freeloading off of him. Thank goodness they have a good and strong leader dedicated to the safety and security of their land.

Uh, you do realize that Bubba in the story is Kim Fat III in this analogy, right?

 

[Fern]

I'm not talking about "white privilege" here. Grazing preferences are inheritable. If your parent had a federal grazing lease then you would be allowed to take over that lease for life simply because you were born to your parents. No competition, no bidding, no fair market action, you just get the lease. Basically ranchers get no-competition federal contracts based solely on birth. Grazing leases open the door to additional handouts so the financial benefits being bestowed by the government upon ranching families on no other basis than birth is enormous. The flip side is that folks not born into this privileged class who might want to obtain a federal grazing lease are out of luck unless one of the privileged ones decides to sell the lease. That's right, lessees get to sell government leases for private profit. The system is completely corrupt and un-American.

It's called being "Grandfathered in". And it's perfectly fair. See more below:

It appears they did? I'm assuming that's pseudo-talk for they don't own the land.

It's been explained a number of times.

Go up and see my post #622.

The fed govt got title to the land. These people got open range rights. It's absolutely normal that they could pass it along to their heirs. They would pass along the rights the same way title to a ranch could be passed along.

Here's some info from one of Bundy's daughters:

Post from Shiree Bundy.

I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell.

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 is called preemptive rights. Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.

My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they’re own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.

So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes. In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the endangered species card. You’ve already heard about the desert tortoise.

I would guess when those rights are handed down to heirs gift or estate tax must paid, just like with any other property whether tangible or intangible. (I've been looking for confirmation of gift/estate tax but haven't found anything yet.)

The Great Smoky Mountains National parks, and others, still have families living in it in their cabins. These families were there before the national parks were created. They were Grandfathered in and are allowed to stay. Of course they can pass them down to their heirs.

Fern

 

[Jaskalas]

Why is it that when the real problems with what you guys are trying to argue are put on display you always resort to crazed hyperbole?

The guy wouldn't pay for the land he was using. He is a moocher and a thief. If you guys approve of his stealing that's fine, but just own it.

I've already presented my position and solution to this. Demand that Nevada accept payment.

If the State wishes to decline and pursue criminal charges against him, then that too I yield to them. Whichever way Nevada chooses to solve this problem at least the people of that State have a FAR greater efficacy at being heard and enacting change in policy than anyone does for our glorious leaders in DC.

I want Mr. Bundy's peers to judge him. Men of his own land. Most certainly not the Federal Government.

 

[IronWing]

It's called being "Grandfathered in". And it's perfectly fair. See more below:



It's been explained a number of times.

Go up and see my post #622.

The fed govt got title to the land. These people got open range rights. It's absolutely normal that they could pass it along to their heirs. They would pass along the rights the same way title to a ranch could be passed along.

Here's some info from one of Bundy's daughters:



I would guess when those rights are handed down to heirs gift or estate tax must paid, just like with any other property whether tangible or intangible. (I've been looking for confirmation of gift/estate tax but haven't found anything yet.)

The Great Smoky Mountains National parks, and others, still have families living in it in their cabins. These families were there before the national parks were created. They were Grandfathered in and are allowed to stay. Of course they can pass them down to their heirs.

Fern

The Bundy family has no rights to the federal land. They can believe and say anything they wish were true but it doesn't make it so. There is no such thing as a grazing right. The Bundy family had a hereditary grazing preference to obtain leases that was likely extinguished when Mr. Bundy chose to be a deadbeat.

The Smoky Mountain situation is completely different. There, the federal government purchased land from private sellers to assemble the park. Some folks didn't sell and still own inholding within the park, others retained rights when they sold. In Nevada, the land in question is original public domain and has never left federal ownership. The Bundy family owns their 160 acre homestead but have no legitimate claim on the federal land.

 

[werepossum]

Something I don't understand - this guy is supposedly a millionaire with a judgement against him. Why then would the feds confiscate his cattle (killing 13% of them in the process) rather than freezing the account and taking the owed money?

 

[fskimospy]

Something I don't understand - this guy is supposedly a millionaire with a judgement against him. Why then would the feds confiscate his cattle (killing 13% of them in the process) rather than freezing the account and taking the owed money?

Taking the cattle allows them to end the ongoing stealing and continuing violations.

 

[Fern]

The Bundy family has no rights to the federal land. They can believe and say anything they wish were true but it doesn't make it so. There is no such thing as a grazing right.
-snip-

IDK personally, but I've heard other ranchers make the same claim. I.e., they paid for them.

If this were private property I don't believe they could be thrown off. The ranchers would have acquired easement rights for using the property for so long. And if they fenced in areas of the land, and I believe they have, they would also outright own that land. BUt the fed govt is 'special' because it says so.

Fern

 

[Vic]

I've already presented my position and solution to this. Demand that Nevada accept payment.

If the State wishes to decline and pursue criminal charges against him, then that too I yield to them. Whichever way Nevada chooses to solve this problem at least the people of that State have a FAR greater efficacy at being heard and enacting change in policy than anyone does for our glorious leaders in DC.

I want Mr. Bundy's peers to judge him. Men of his own land. Most certainly not the Federal Government.

This is not a solution. The state of Nevada has a conflict of interest in Bundy's favor.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It appears they did? I'm assuming that's pseudo-talk for they don't own the land.

is that the best you can do.....you really fail in the comprehension department -- Fern said what he meant and you on the other hand are trying to twist or put your own spin on what was said...

Is that really ur position? So, as long as someone has been collecting welfare for 100 years, it's ok.

Just wow....you really have nothing better to do than make idiotic comparisons>??

 

[IronWing]

IDK personally, but I've heard other ranchers make the same claim. I.e., they paid for them.

If this were private property I don't believe they could be thrown off. The ranchers would have acquired easement rights for using the property for so long. And if they fenced in areas of the land, and I believe they have, they would also outright own that land. BUt the fed govt is 'special' because it says so.

Fern

You are correct, adverse possession does not apply to federal land (and I would be shocked if any state allowed adverse possession to apply to state owned lands).

 

[fskimospy]

You are correct, adverse possession does not apply to federal land (and I would be shocked if any state allowed adverse possession to apply to state owned lands).

Not only that, but adverse possession requires that their ownership of that land go uncontested for a certain period of time. The feds clearly and obviously challenged his use of that land. Even if adverse possession did apply to federal lands he still wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Vic]

You are correct, adverse possession does not apply to federal land (and I would be shocked if any state allowed adverse possession to apply to state owned lands).

This is correct, however, what Bundy wants is rights to use in perpetuity for free. IMO, that's ownership. Hell, that's better than ownership. If he actually owned it, he'd have to pay taxes and maintenance.

 

[werepossum]

Taking the cattle allows them to end the ongoing stealing and continuing violations.

Yet they could be taking penalties which would allow them to not kill the endangered desert tortoises.

This is correct, however, what Bundy wants is rights to use in perpetuity for free. IMO, that's ownership. Hell, that's better than ownership. If he actually owned it, he'd have to pay taxes and maintenance.

His point is that the BLM stopped holding up its end of the bargain. In fact, by buying out the ranchers, the BLM is starving itself of the funds it needs to protect its lands.

 

[IronWing]

Yet they could be taking penalties which would allow them to not kill the endangered desert tortoises.


His point is that the BLM stopped holding up its end of the bargain. In fact, by buying out the ranchers, the BLM is starving itself of the funds it needs to protect its lands.

No, grazing fees are set by Congress at a rate below the cost of administering the grazing program. Grazing leases are a money loser for the BLM.

BLM generally gets beat up and sued by environmentalists for endlessly pandering and catering to ranchers at the expense of ecosystems and in violation of their own regulations. BLM finally enforces the law against a deadbeat rancher and folks come unhinged.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is not a solution. The state of Nevada has a conflict of interest in Bundy's favor.

We're making progress. You openly admit to opposing the right of self determination. Both for the people and their State representatives.

I may be getting ahead of myself. The important part is the solution. You only discussed where I accept their judgement of him. None of that would be necessary if they allow payment and he honors his word to do so. Imagine, for a moment, if he paid Nevada. It'd be a win for both sides and the contest is over.

We may have to start calling deescalation a virtue, made modest by its rarity. It does not have to be so, and I call on everyone to embrace it.

 

[werepossum]

No, grazing fees are set by Congress at a rate below the cost of administering the grazing program. Grazing leases are a money loser for the BLM.

BLM generally gets beat up and sued by environmentalists for endlessly pandering and catering to ranchers at the expense of ecosystems and in violation of their own regulations. BLM finally enforces the law against a deadbeat rancher and folks come unhinged.

Neither is a reason to not do its job.

 

[Vic]

His point is that the BLM stopped holding up its end of the bargain. In fact, by buying out the ranchers, the BLM is starving itself of the funds it needs to protect its lands.

Bundy is not being bought out. He never owned the land to begin with. Nor has he paid for his use of it in 20 years.

 

[IronWing]

Neither is a reason to not do its job.

I agree, BLM needs to do its job. Its current job is to remove trespass cattle from the public lands as specified in law.

 

[werepossum]

We're making progress. You openly admit to opposing the right of self determination. Both for the people and their State representatives.

I may be getting ahead of myself. The important part is the solution. You only discussed where I accept their judgement of him. None of that would be necessary if they allow payment and he honors his word to do so. Imagine, for a moment, if he paid Nevada. It'd be a win for both sides and the contest is over.

We may have to start calling deescalation a virtue, made modest by its rarity. It does not have to be so, and I call on everyone to embrace it.

Maybe, if the state of Nevada is less corrupt than the BLM and does what the BLM should be doing - which some say would also require a significant cost increase.

 

[werepossum]

Bundy is not being bought out. He never owned the land to begin with. Nor has he paid for his use of it in 20 years.

The BLM has for decades been buying out ranchers around BLM lands. In theory, that allows more tortoise habitat. In practice, that allows powerful developers to minimize the private land allocated to tortoise habitat. And it reduces the grazing fees because if you no longer have a ranch in the area, you won't be running cattle there.

 

[Vic]

We're making progress. You openly admit to opposing the right of self determination. Both for the people and their State representatives.

I may be getting ahead of myself. The important part is the solution. You only discussed where I accept their judgement of him. None of that would be necessary if they allow payment and he honors his word to do so. Imagine, for a moment, if he paid Nevada. It'd be a win for both sides and the contest is over.

We may have to start calling deescalation a virtue, made modest by its rarity. It does not have to be so, and I call on everyone to embrace it.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html

"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"

 

[emperus]

"My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed," Bundy told the station.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/

Lol...

 

[Jaskalas]

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html

"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 if the State so chooses it can simply forward those payments to the BLM. You seem to be pretending it wouldn't, when that was never my intent when presenting this immediate solution.

The whole point is deescalation. Though I am sorely tempted to respond to that portion of the NV Constitution, such reply does not serve the discussion I want to exemplify today. I'm looking for some common ground before addressing our impasse.

 

[sportage]

You might know this thread would bring out all the big bad federal government wack-o's.
Thing is, this family had legit rights to use the land as long as they paid fee's.
And I'd fully assume this was an agreement made BY THEIR VERY OWN family relatives long ago in earnest. AND... no doubt for some profit at that time for the family.

But here we have a bunch of the extended family members, now acting all pissy, and disrespecting the agreements THEIR VERY OWN relatives made with the fed's, claiming "THEY" the family are the poor souls being picked on by the big bad nasty federal government?
GiVe mE a fReAkIn BrEaK !!!!

First of all, who are the "feds" ?
Well... they are U and ME. We the people ARE the federal government.
And this family has long been trespassing on ""YOUR"" land.
Plus, they neglect to pay YOU for the rights to use YOUR land.
Yes, YOUR LAND!

Lets put it this way...
Imagine one morning you wake up and a herd of cattle are in your back yard.
YOUR very own PRIVATE PROPERTY back yard.
The cattle have already trampled down you wife's tulip garden.
Pooped all over your lawn.
Ran down you privacy fence.
Pissed in your outdoor cement swimming pool.
Knocked over the kids swing set.
Broke their bike.
And, well, just made a hell of a mess of your back yard.
Lets just imagine THAT for one second.

So... you want to tell me YOU would NOT be royally PISSED and would not DEMAND law enforcement come out IMMEDIATELY and get the neighbors damn cows OFF your property???
Plus, you'd also fully expect justice for the cost to you to repair all the damage caused by your ass-wipe neighbors cows?
Not to mention that very neighbor feeling THEY had some God given right to allow their cows to intrude on YOUR property, destroying everything, and your wife standing there crying over her smashed tulips?
You want to tell me that YOU'D be ok with THAT happening on YOUR private property?

Well... THAT is exactly what has happened here.
THIS land is YOUR land, as the song goes, and the neighbor has long been trespassing on YOUR land.
You, the federal government of the peoples of United States.

And NOW, same nut job neighbor also want your OTHER neighbors to gather up their arms and weapons to fight in support of your ass-wipe neighbor, going against YOUR personal property rights which you own and no doubt cherish a great deal.
So really.... who's side ARE you on here???
And remember, you wife is still crying her eyes out over her smashed tulips.

 

[CanOWorms]

I would guess when those rights are handed down to heirs gift or estate tax must paid, just like with any other property whether tangible or intangible. (I've been looking for confirmation of gift/estate tax but haven't found anything yet.)

The Great Smoky Mountains National parks, and others, still have families living in it in their cabins. These families were there before the national parks were created. They were Grandfathered in and are allowed to stay. Of course they can pass them down to their heirs.

Fern

No, of course they cannot pass down privileges to their heirs. These leaches need to be kicked out of National Parks. It's just sickening how crazy the American government capitulates to white privilege. Evict them, drone strike them, whatever. These thugs need to be removed. The original leases should be designated as life estates only with the rest reverting to every American.