Another Ruby Ridge in the making?

[keystone183]

Apart from these ridiculous tactics, i don't see what this guy's leg to stand on is? The land isn't his, and if someone tells him to get off....he needs to get off. If he holds water rights, that is another issue, but i don't see those being made an issue?

[LRRPF52]

That doesn't make sense. If he was sending payments to Bunkerville, why did they start sending back payments? Why would they want him off the land?

I spoke with the Bunkerville Constable's office, as well as the desert tortoise environmental protection scientist yesterday. The person that answered the phone in Bunkerville used to have a meat processing business in their family, until the USFDA shut them down. They fought with FDA for years and years until they finally got too old and tired, and just gave up. They have no law enforcement in Bunkersville to protect the people from BLM goons, since they fall under Clark County (Vegas, and Vegas Metro PD-look at a map and see how far away they are).


Bundy's family made payments for 60 years after the BLM was created in 1946, but BLM seems to have claimed the land in question sometime, when it was really Bunkersville city land. BLM started harassing people and closing off Boy Scout and local church camping sites that they had used since the early 1900's, and began telling locals that they could no longer pull off to the side of the road and exit their vehicles even.

I also spoke with Rob Mrowka, who is a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity to hear his side of the story. Basically, once Bundy's money started getting returned to him by Bunkerville, the case was handed over to the courts, and the courts ruled in favor of the BLM, even after being appealed to the Court in San Francisco. Bundy represented himself every time. Once the Federal Appellate Court upheld the ruling against him, he said he wouldn't comply, local and State LE didn't want any part of it, and Bundy was left to continue to let his cattle graze in the area where they had all along.

Rob Mrwoka filed a lawsuit, demanding that the courts be upheld, and the BLM finally responded. Both Bundy and Mrowka say this is a sovereignty issue, and not about the tortoises, but we really wouldn't be at this point if it weren't for the question about who really owns the land- Bunkerville or BLM, and then the tortoise advocacy.

I asked if there was some kind of development planned for the area where the cattle graze, and Mrowka insisted that there was not, since it is a protected area for the desert tortoise. He also said that there are a lot of solar farms being built in Nevada, where they remove the tortoises to other locations after the solar farming company pays dislocation fees for the animals, and there is one on the Moapa Indian Reservation nearby. The only plans that BLM has for Bunkerville Ranch are to erect a monument of some kind.

I personally am not a fan of the BLM, the Federal Government claiming 87% of Nevada's land, and desert tortoises. I grew up seeing desert tortoises out where I'm from in the high desert, but haven't seen one in decades. It would be nice if the Governor of Nevada would back his statements with some force and put these BLM neckbeards in their place.

[LRRPF52]

Apart from these ridiculous tactics, i don't see what this guy's leg to stand on is? The land isn't his, and if someone tells him to get off....he needs to get off. If he holds water rights, that is another issue, but i don't see those being made an issue?

What I see this being about is who has a bigger stick in laying claims to the land, and changing the rules (their rules) as time progressed. This family has let their cattle graze on the land since the late 1800's, well before FDR pulled the Homestead Act on us. What has happened is that what was once locally-owned land, is now claimed by the Federal Government, who "allowed" this family to let their cattle graze on the land after they had been doing, then charged a fee for it, then said they have exceeded their allotment of cattle per square mile, then said they need to make payments to them, then said they are in non-compliance.

It's an issue of sovereignty and encroachment on individual rights, as well as Federal overstep into rural lands where they have no business, but were moved to act by an environmental/animal rights organization, even though the enforcement agencies just wanted the case to go away because they knew the rulings were morally and ethically wrong, and this family was getting shafted bigtime.

Or you could look at it as unruly peasants, refusing to obey the orders of their Federal overlords, and they should just submit already. It all boils down to how you view individual rights, the 10th Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the principles the US was founded on.

[keystone183]

What I see this being about is who has a bigger stick in laying claims to the land, and changing the rules (their rules) as time progressed. This family has let their cattle graze on the land since the late 1800's, well before FDR pulled the Homestead Act on us. What has happened is that what was once locally-owned land, is now claimed by the Federal Government, who "allowed" this family to let their cattle graze on the land after they had been doing, then charged a fee for it, then said they have exceeded their allotment of cattle per square mile, then said they need to make payments to them, then said they are in non-compliance.

It's an issue of sovereignty and encroachment on individual rights, as well as Federal overstep into rural lands where they have no business, but were moved to act by an environmental/animal rights organization, even though the enforcement agencies just wanted the case to go away because they knew the rulings were morally and ethically wrong, and this family was getting shafted bigtime.

Or you could look at it as unruly peasants, refusing to obey the orders of their Federal overlords, and they should just submit already. It all boils down to how you view individual rights, the 10th Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the principles the US was founded on.

You won't find a bigger advocate of private property rights than me. Or any individual rights for that matter. Which is why this is an interesting issue. To me it boils down to this. The land is not his. I haven't heard any of the possible owners of this land, besides the feds, take a stand on this. Maybe i have missed them. Seems the BLM has claimed jurisdiction for a long, long time. Have there been no court battles by the town or state in regards to this? I know the feds own most everything west of Texas. Whether they should or shouldn't is a separate issue. But seems like the horse is out of the barn. It should be a simple matter to determine who OWNS the land. I can't imagine this hasn't been done.

[LRRPF52]

Here's a link from Center for Biological Diversity: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/...-2014.html

This seems intended to show that their interests are being enforced by BLM/Federal Agents. See, the cows have been trespassing on land that their ranchers have allowed them to graze on for the past 146 years, but no LE agencies wanted to enforce the BS rulings because they knew they were wrong. The environmentalists finally got the government to do something about it against their will, and the will of the people, since the courts had ruled against local and State's rights.

[keystone183]

Ok, i'm going to admit. I'm not the most educated on these issues. But I'd like to be, so please feel free to do so, or point me in the right direction.

At one time, that (and everything west of the Mississippi, less Texas) was ALL federal land. Who OWNS the land NOW? What actions has that entity taken in regards to their ability to control said land.

Doing something on land that is not yours for 146 years or 2, does not give you the RIGHT to continue doing it. To me, squatters rights are BS, and this isn't even an issue in this case, seemingly.

Please don't read any of this as excusing the actions of the feds here. But i'd like to understand this situation before making judgements.

[bwaites]

You won't find a bigger advocate of private property rights than me. Or any individual rights for that matter. Which is why this is an interesting issue. To me it boils down to this. The land is not his. I haven't heard any of the possible owners of this land, besides the feds, take a stand on this. Maybe i have missed them. Seems the BLM has claimed jurisdiction for a long, long time. Have there been no court battles by the town or state in regards to this? I know the feds own most everything west of Texas. Whether they should or shouldn't is a separate issue. But seems like the horse is out of the barn. It should be a simple matter to determine who OWNS the land. I can't imagine this hasn't been done.

Actually, the land IS his, as no one else has a greater claim or need for the land. All land held in trust by the Federal Government is owned by the people of the United States, and is to be used by the Federal Government to benefit the greatest number of people. Since it seems no one but the Bundy's want to utilize this land, (It takes something like 100 acres to support 1 cow/calf, so its not exactly prime land!) and the desert tortoise isn't exactly a high land use animal, even the excuse of protecting the land for them is nothing but a smokescreen. Its fascinating that you can relocate desert tortoises, apparently. Plenty of desert in Nevada to move them to! However, no one has actually proven that grazing cattle seems to be an issue with the tortoises. If his family has been grazing cattle there for 100 years and there are still tortoises, doesn't that say something about the fact that grazing and tortoises are NOT mutually exclusive?

The second issue is why the States keep allowing the federal government to take over land and allow the BLM and forest service to manage it. The States rightfully own that land, they need to grow some cojones and tell the Feds to go home! Google a map of the Federally managed land in the US. A HUGE percentage of it is west of the Mississippi, and most of that is Rocky Mountain states and west. Wonder why that is? Maybe because those States are vast and much of the land was unfarmable?

1.1% of land in Ohio and 1.6% of land in Oklahoma is Federally managed, but 81.1% of Nevada, 53% of Oregon, 66% of Utah, 48% of Wyoming, 42% of Arizona and 49% of California.

Not a single state east of Colorado has more than the 13.5% of New Hampshire, but look at the western states!

[keystone183]

Actually, the land IS his, as no one else has a greater claim or need for the land. All land held in trust by the Federal Government is owned by the people of the United States, and is to be used by the Federal Government to benefit the greatest number of people. Since it seems no one but the Bundy's want to utilize this land, (It takes something like 100 acres to support 1 cow/calf, so its not exactly prime land!) and the desert tortoise isn't exactly a high land use animal, even the excuse of protecting the land for them is nothing but a smokescreen. Its fascinating that you can relocate desert tortoises, apparently. Plenty of desert in Nevada to move them to! However, no one has actually proven that grazing cattle seems to be an issue with the tortoises. If his family has been grazing cattle there for 100 years and there are still tortoises, doesn't that say something about the fact that grazing and tortoises are NOT mutually exclusive?

The second issue is why the States keep allowing the federal government to take over land and allow the BLM and forest service to manage it. The States rightfully own that land, they need to grow some cojones and tell the Feds to go home! Google a map of the Federally managed land in the US. A HUGE percentage of it is west of the Mississippi, and most of that is Rocky Mountain states and west. Wonder why that is? Maybe because those States are vast and much of the land was unfarmable?

1.1% of land in Ohio and 1.6% of land in Oklahoma is Federally managed, but 81.1% of Nevada, 53% of Oregon, 66% of Utah, 48% of Wyoming, 42% of Arizona and 49% of California.

Not a single state east of Colorado has more than the 13.5% of New Hampshire, but look at the western states!

Ok, well, i have furthered my education today. I have learned that the feds (us) DO actually own that land. I have also learned why, and why it is they shouldn't.

So, i guess this guy is looking to be a modern day Rosa Parks. Basically, the West needs to as LR put it, "grow some ball", and take what is theirs.

https://www.zianet.com/web/rebel1a.htm

[bwaites]

Ok, well, i have furthered my education today. I have learned that the feds (us) DO actually own that land. I have also learned why, and why it is they shouldn't.

So, i guess this guy is looking to be a modern day Rosa Parks. Basically, the West needs to as LR put it, "grow some ball", and take what is theirs.

https://www.zianet.com/web/rebel1a.htm

You'll note that I didn't say they OWNED the land, they hold it "in trust" for the people of the United States. In fact, there is little to allow them to even do that, but de facto, that is the case.

Its a sad state of affairs when our own government is fighting someone who has been on that land for generations, has not been accused of malfeasance or neglicence, yet is being forced off the land.

To many judges, not enough common sense!

[BjornF16]

Ok, i'm going to admit. I'm not the most educated on these issues. But I'd like to be, so please feel free to do so, or point me in the right direction.

At one time, that (and everything west of the Mississippi, less Texas) was ALL federal land. Who OWNS the land NOW? What actions has that entity taken in regards to their ability to control said land.

Doing something on land that is not yours for 146 years or 2, does not give you the RIGHT to continue doing it. To me, squatters rights are BS, and this isn't even an issue in this case, seemingly.

Please don't read any of this as excusing the actions of the feds here. But i'd like to understand this situation before making judgements.

Common law entitles all to access public lands. See Buford v. Houtz, 133 U.S. 320 (10 S.Ct. 305, 33 L.Ed. 618), 1890

[Heywood]

I know some may think this is just about a piece of land he can't squat on any longer. People do not know this is the common practice of almost all family ranches in the west and is the only way they can exist. The sad thing is, most Americans believe and feel the same. They don't realize this is more than a way of life, this is more than a way of existing, this is their families past, the future way of life for their children, it is their legacy, and their heritage. As a man with no past to be proud of and no strong roots, I envy what this family has. It is a sad day when this can be allowed to happen.

[LRRPF52]

[video=youtube;GQb0qJLhea8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQb0qJLhea8#t=1179[/video]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQb0qJLhea8#t=1179

This guy is very adept at describing these situations in their true light. The entire video is actually worth watching.

[cory]

An interesting reporting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfOVg5R4ngA

[usmc1371]

I have read that there were 50 other ranches using the same land. What happened to them to get them off of the land? History repeats itself. The same thing happened in Argentina in the early 1900s.

[bwaites]

I have read that there were 50 other ranches using the same land. What happened to them to get them off of the land? History repeats itself. The same thing happened in Argentina in the early 1900s.

A very good point! Most people don't realize it, but prior to Peron, Argentina was rapidly turning into a world power. They had the second largest railway system, (after the US) and their economy was larger than all but a small handful of countries. They held the worlds 6th largest gold reserve, etc. But Peron changed that, and if you spend some time reading you'll find a lot of parallels!

[montana]

This is just another collective "communist" land grab tactic. My property is on the Clark Fork river which has been in my family for over 54 years. The state stole some of my property in the 1990's. Any land below high water level was taken and determined state property even though it is on my deed and I was paying property tax's on it. They never payed me or any other land owners a cent. Then they tried to get a stream side set back of 150 yards where river front property owners couldn't build structures, limb trees or do any basic land maintenance like mow our own lawns. It would be dead land that I would have the privilege of paying property taxes on. They threw me out of the commissioners meeting when I conveyed my dis like of their proposed land theft. They had virtual riots in other towns. Thank God for the Republican state majority because every democrat voted for it when it failed to pass. The Mt state Supreme court ruled the theft of river side land on property deeds was unconstitutional and is still pending. These collective tactic's are happening all over this country every day.

[BjornF16]

Reprieve (for now) in Nevada!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-r...d=23302610


BTW...I'm VERY disturbed about reports of former Special Forces snipers being contracted by BLM in this stand-off. Surely we haven't created a whole new crop of Horiuchi's...

[haustinv]

I think you will be interested in this link http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-har...undy-ranch I'm sorry I don't know how to make it active but if you copy and paste I think it will be worth your while.

[LRRPF52]

When hundreds, if not well over a thousand people show up to prevent the BLM from continuing the theft of the rancher's cattle, and they are armed, it speaks pretty loudly. It also helped that the NV Governor expressed his distaste for the BLM's abuses in this matter, and that the issue gained national attention.



It all boils down to water rights that the Bundy's have had since the 1870's. Water rights are huge out here in the West for obvious reasons. We have them in our family and the County they are in has been trying to screw the family out of the rights for decades.

[montana]

A very good point! Most people don't realize it, but prior to Peron, Argentina was rapidly turning into a world power. They had the second largest railway system, (after the US) and their economy was larger than all but a small handful of countries. They held the worlds 6th largest gold reserve, etc. But Peron changed that, and if you spend some time reading you'll find a lot of parallels!

This I did not know, thanks for the info. I'll look into it.