It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A Straight Look at the Recent Nevada Land Dispute

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:26 AM
a reply to: beezzer

Why all the drama, media manipulation, name-calling, if this is such a simple cut and dried case?

One simple word answers your question. Ratings. Which would catch your attention first. Government moves in to confiscate cattle after 20 years of trespassing or oppressive government descends on poor old rancher and steals his cattle from land that his family has used for a hundred years. Now which would you watch?

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 10:13 AM
Wrabbit - I commend you on a well-thought-out and deeply researched thread, and beginning to this topic. The Bundy story is nuanced/complex and requires this kind of research to be understood - the media would have us spoon fed with their bias, whichever way they go, in the form of tantalizing tidbits to get people riled and willing to tune in for more.

I really appreciate all the time you are putting into objective, truly journalistic reporting - it is like cool water dousing the flames of media-frenzy hype - the deep feeling that "something isn't right" in regards to how the US/World is working right now are real, and I appreciate them - but should they be applied to this situation, once it is fully known?

I know there is more to come, and I can't wait to see it! Well done!

- AB

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:15 AM

originally posted by: beezzer
Still reading, a lot to take in.

But I have questions that I hope can be answered within this well written thread!

As stated in another thread, I said;

All this drama. Guns. Snipers. Tasers. Dogs. Drones (?) Racism. Media bias. If the government has such a lock-solid case, if the folks at the ranch and supporters are nothing but domestic terrorists, then what is wrong with just reporting the truth, the facts? Why hasn't the media stated, unequivocally, that Bundy is guilty and laid out the facts? - See more at:

Why all the drama, media manipulation, name-calling, if this is such a simple cut and dried case?

A very good question, beezzer, and one that absolutely NEEDS to be asked and answered to clarify this whole debacle.

Because the media no longer handles "cut and dried" very well. They no longer deal in it at all if they can help it. The media deals instead in sensationalism - "if it bleeds, it leads". So much more the better if they can help that bleeding along and intensify it.

Fact has taken a back seat to sensationalism and entertainment. The "media" has become an entertainment industry, rather than a straight news reporting one. Not much different than the blood and circuses... erm, I mean BREAD and circuses - of the ancient Romans.

Bundy lied and spun, the government overreacted, and the media was all too happy to help all of that along, and make their own dime off of the ensuing chaos.

edit on 2014/4/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:16 PM
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Excellent post Wrabbit!
I can't wait for the next parts.

Legally Bundy has no leg to stand on.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:36 PM
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Don't you think that wishing for milita and deaths and wounded people and so on isn't a little over the top, even for patriots?

Not particularly. What I do think is that many people in the US have had enough, as demonstrated by the very militia and Oath Keepers who have shown up at his ranch to protect him.

Don't you think that everyone should calm down and have this cleared up by some wise guys? If those are not available, maybe some lawyers?

No, sometimes things in our own back yard just go over the top and in this case a lot of people are angry. It was the bureaucrats and most likely their lawyers that got us into this mess to begin with.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 01:23 PM
a reply to: Bassago

While most people have "had enough" there are very few willing to risk their freedom, lives and shiny cars and houses to change a damn thing. There will never a revolution in the USA. Maybe a few people will try to make a stand, however they will be crushed.

Remember the saying "They will take my guns from my cold dead hands?" Well, they are correct, no matter how well armed they may be unless they have a few dozen drones capable of dropping hellfire missiles they will die in an armed stand-off against the USA government.

Just how many of those Oath keeper types went home and filed their income taxes? I will bet you 98%.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:30 PM
a reply to: Bassago

Sure there is bureaucracy involved in anything that deals with legal issues. Since 1934 and the implementation of the Taylor Grazing Act there have been grazing fees. It was created BY a rancher because of problems and this grazing act solved them.

Now, since Wrabbit2000 is making this whole thing into 3 threads therefore I do not want to speak in detail on some issues before they actually get posted in a thread.

There are more aspects to this issue and its important to look at the whole. As a whole, once all three threads are posted, it will be good to discuss them all and notice the bigger picture here. But it will take an entire three threads to show everything, in detail so that we can see what the issues really are.

If you want to discuss whether or not the government did anything wrong in the court documents, this is a good thread to bring it up. If you want to discuss the legality of the BLM, also a great thread. But you should keep an open mind, and wait to see all the facts before deciding anything, either way.

Searching for facts is important because without the truth I don't think any of us can know what is actually right. Wrabbit2000 is a busy man, and has spent much time and energy to bring this to us, but i am sure in due time all the threads will get posted.
edit on 28-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:47 PM
One confusing issue is the fact that Bundy made certain "declarations" on official documents.

Apparently those "declarations" were either acknowledged & confirmed, or were "overlooked".

Bundy does in fact have "Vested Water Rights"..... still valid it seems.

put "bundy" (only "bundy") in the owners name box

then click on any on 'Bundy, Cliven D." to see the status.

Then click the "Application" number in the upper left corner....

See the possible grazing claims since 1800's ?

(just from one of several Bundy rights) One of Bundy's permits

On page 2 it refers to something "before 1890"

and the papers mention "public domain with grazing rights"

Results from "bundy" search...

Not sure if this was addressed in any of the cited court actions, but Bundy not having legal representation could certainly be a big problem as that alone makes a "government" case easier to pick fruit from the low branches.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:52 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

Bundy has vested water rights (he actually purchased them with the 160 acres they own)... but being vested in water rights does not translate into unlimited free range grazing.

What Bundy's water rights gives him is the right to take his cattle to the water, allow them to drink from that water source, and take them back to his own property.

THAT, is what Bundy has the legal right to do, and no one can stop him from doing just that. But this is NOT what Bundy is either doing or asking to do, he is asking to graze on the land as well, and there is nothing in his water rights that gives him claim to the grazing rights. Also very important to note, that with each application it specifies how many cows he can water.

Use Units: 100 CATTLE. According to Nevada law, he cannot water more than 100 head at that spring etc.

The average number of head that he has the right to water under all his claims that are vested ( VST ) is 152.27 head - as not each application has the ability for the same number of head.

edit on 28-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:54 PM
To me, the oppression started when Clark county bought up and retired the grazing rights. Bundy wanted to buy them but was outbid by the state itself. If that hadn't happened, then these events and discussion threads wouldn't even exist.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:04 PM
Nice Thread Wrabbit....

I think this never had anything to do with Mr. Bundy.

I think some people are so angry with the Government they are looking for a reason.

Any reason will do. I think some well meaning people bought in to Bundy's side.

Hell, I bought in. It just looked like overkill and overreach by the BLM.

I am glad nobody got hurt....Well, except for some cows.

As we are learning the facts (no thanks to the MSM) cooler heads will hopefully prevail.

People are looking for a reason to vent. This anger is still there.

Maybe people will learn the proper venue to show their anger....VOTE

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:11 PM
"Possession is nine-tenths of the law" come and take it

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:30 PM
a reply to: OpinionatedB

All correct and he has water rights for many cattle.

But I'm questioning the "grazing" rights and the years stated on the documents.

Why was this "overlooked" and apparently certified.

Very confusing indeed.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:11 PM

originally posted by: stormcell
To me, the oppression started when Clark county bought up and retired the grazing rights. Bundy wanted to buy them but was outbid by the state itself. If that hadn't happened, then these events and discussion threads wouldn't even exist.

Good point.

It all started with the Tortoise thing reducing and limiting the cattle rights.

from the 1998 court case

In his Reply (#7), Bundy explains this action startedin 1992 when he received a "Full Force and EffectDecision Bunkerville Allotment" from the BLM. Reply(#7), p. 5. The letter to which Bundy refers is in factdated January 28, 1993. Bundy claims this "decisionconcerning the Desert Tortoise, if fully implemented,would lead to the end of ranching in Clark County," andhis ranching days would be over. Reply (#7), p. 5. The decision from the BLM does not inform [*8] Bundy he can no longer graze livestock due to the protection of the Desert Tortoise, but instead reminds Bundy that his grazing permit would end at the end of the next month,February 1993, and the new permit application was attached to the decision. The decision informed Bundy the BLM would issue him a new ten-year federal grazing permit for the Bunkerville Allotment. Mot. Dism. (#4),Exh. E. The terms and conditions for the new federal grazing permit allowed for livestock grazing with some restrictions to be determined by the BLM. For example,if tortoises were found to be active in the early spring ina specific area, then grazing would not be allowed until the amount of spring ephemeral forage had grown to a sufficient amount.

from the 2012 Complaint

20. BLM has closed the public lands within the Gold Butte area (with the exception of the Lower Mormon Mesa) to livestock grazing. Clark County previously purchased and retired all grazing privileges in the area to minimize and mitigate impacts to the desert tortoise in connection with the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Pursuant to that Plan, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued Clark County an Incidental Take Permit under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act for development activities on other County lands within desert tortoise habitat.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:17 PM

originally posted by: deadeyedick
"Possession is nine-tenths of the law" come and take it

That kind of attitude in a situation like this can lead to a lot of innocent people getting killed. Do you think a person illegally grazing cattle is worth getting killed over? Or killing someone else?

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:39 PM
FINALLY, a well thoughtout, well documented, objective presentation of the issues. Since I’m not thoroughly informed on all the background and history leading up to the confrontation in Nevada, this thread is a pleasure to read. It truly has merit. Thank you, Wrabbit2000. Seriously, this one’s a winner.

Now, I’m crossing my fingers and hoping this thread remains at a high level and doesn’t devolve into a lot of overheated, emotional crossfire. A lot of folks are just plain angry these days about a lot of things, which often leads to convoluted thinking and an itchy trigger finger. So far, it seems that cooler heads have prevailed.

I’m looking forward to the remainder of your installments. Thanks again for the rundown and your comprehensive approach...

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:09 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

Okay, perhaps I am confused as to what exactly you are questioning?

Did you have a question about the application for grazing? Or about Bundy's water rights?

Can you clarify?

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:16 PM

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: xuenchen

Okay, perhaps I am confused as to what exactly you are questioning?

Did you have a question about the application for grazing? Or about Bundy's water rights?

Can you clarify?

I'm questioning the "grazing" rights related the years stated on the water documents.

Was this "overlooked" and apparently certified.

Maybe a lawyer would have made a difference in the Federal cases. Bundy apparently was self representing.

Just a conspiracy.

I fully understand the language and authorities of the court cases.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:42 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

That which comes up is what Bundy himself filled out... that was the application in his own hand. On line 7 he was asked to say why he was applying for a water permit for this land.

if you look under that line right there is gives you some logical choices for people who don't understand the question:

Do you have the patent on the land?
Do you hold the deed to that land?
Or is this public lands to which you hold a grazing permit?

They are asking you to explain why you are putting your application for a water permit for that particular locality.

The line itself says grazing permit, but Bundy said grazing right when he filled it out.... that did not mean he had any "right" of grazing, and I am sure since he had filled it out himself they understood him to mean he had a grazing permit for grazing his cattle on that land.

That was asked in order to know why he is filing for water rights in that location. What claim does he have on the land itself. Bundy had no claim other than it is public domain land and made the State of Nevada believe that he held a grazing permit - and just possibly accidentally said right instead of permit.

Here is a link to the PDF we are talking about for everyone:

And if you see at the bottom if was filled out by Cliven Bundy and his neighbor (they owned the rights together) on October 21 1997. The 1890 is the date of the original right... but water rights, just like mineral rights.. can be purchased.
edit on 28-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:55 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

If this will help, here is another vested application where the water right went back to 1882, he said two reasons for the water, one was a patent and the other was (Nut Mountain) grazing permit.

And here is another vested water right that goes back to 1871 and they state "Public domain with grazing permit"

The one's from Cliven Bundy was just how he answered, and does not state anything about him actually having a "right" to graze, as these are only applications for water rights and questions they ask you - why are you asking for right to the water on this spot?

edit on 28-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in