It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bassago

250 militarized feds that brutalize protesters and then rustle someone's cattle isn't overreach? Maybe Bundy and his supporters should have just got a posse together and handled these rustler's like they used to in to in the old days. Personally I think he showed great restraint.



An interesting take. If I were going to "rustle cattle", I'll be damned if I'd serve public notice that the "rustling" was going to happen, and when. That kinda defeats the whole cattle rustling enterprise concept.

He HAD a "posse". He called them "militia", but they seemed to be a pretty lackluster group as militias go.




The Center for Biological Diversity seems like a bunch of environmentalists who like to use lawyers, so what? Cows have been grazing on this land since the late 1800's.



Paiutes roamed that land since before recorded history, and took what they wanted from it. By your logic, the Paiutes can go in any time they like and just eat steak off of any cattle they find roaming there...

.. but the BLM "rustled" cattle off their own land?




posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
There is this notion that the BLM is anti-rancher. This is completely untrue. In fact, they are pro-rancher. Do you think they round up wild horses for the fun of it? The horses compete with the cattle for the feed.

Examine this:
Steve Medlin gets sweetheart deal

Steve Medlin owes the range near the front gate of Groom Lake. He trashed BLM land. Rather than fine him, they cut a deal to sell the land to him. Granted it is an auction, but he gets the right of refusal. Such a deal. And the announcement was buried. Seriously, do you know what deeded land is worth right by Groom Lake? Think of the tourist attraction.

Lastly, fire up google earth and go to n38 1 50.75 w116 34 27.47 . Zoom in and you will see a square of sorts. [Technically a parallelogram.] This is land fenced off from grazing. The BLM does this as a study. If you could see this land in person, I assure it isn't a jungle. It has a bit more growth than the grazed area, but it is still basically desert. My point here is the BLM doesn't have to let any animal graze on BLM property. It isn't like they are providing a needed service to keep the fire fuel down. The BLM allows grazing within limits, hence the M in their name. Bundy wants anarchy.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Bassago


250 militarized feds that brutalize protesters and then rustle someone's cattle isn't overreach? Maybe Bundy and his supporters should have just got a posse together and handled these rustler's like they used to in to in the old days.


He did get a posse together, and that's the problem. It was half way expected, but then he went and announced to the BLM that he had a virtual army coming from around the nation to protect him, after the Sheriff said he wouldn't/couldn't/didn't have jurisdiction for the issues. That was a few days before the BLM showed up by the timeline I posted at the start.

Wave a red flag in front of a bull and the bull will charge. Tell the feds you will have an army to stop them from carrying out a lawful court order, and they will have more than a couple cars coming out for support.


If you read the court records, it's interesting to see that all the way back to 1993, when some first wanted to remove his cattle, the threat of violence from Bundy and others was a primary reason why they didn't. This is simple dated and filed court documents. Not any interpretation, as it's stated outright, and it's part of what is in the OP pages here.

An operation already planned, was cancelled in 2012 because of anti-government violence issues. There is history here and it's the feds, given their rather dubious history, who showed some restraint for a change. There are a dozen or more bad ways they could have played that and won, in the end. They do just that, all too often.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: OpinionatedB
So unarm the blm,ssa and other fed agencies that play no law enforcement role and let's get over all this. Sell the guy the land and let's start putting people to work building and putting in solar panels on some other of the 85% of illegally owned fed land.


"Illegally owned"?

How is it "owned" if said ownership is "illegal"?

There is no "illegally owned" federal land.

How in the hell can anyone "sell the guy the land" if no one owns it to sell?

Solar panels create shade and destroy habitat. How do cows graze on grass that won't grow?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu




He called them "militia", but they seemed to be a pretty lackluster group as militias go.


Lackluster?
militia 1
militia 2
Praetorian Guard



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: gariac

Note that Bundy at the moment has deeded land in Clark County, and this is not to be confused with the BLM land. Obviously the next step is to seize his deeded land to pay the fine. At that point, Clark County will be in charge and Bundy won't be able to make up silly defenses about jurisdiction. The BLM is doing Bundy a great favor simply by removing his cattle. They haven't gone to court to seize his property to pay his fine.



That would be the next logical step, but they will never take it. Personally, I would have sold the seized cattle at auction to offset the fines and unpaid fees, but that's just me.




Also, if you have water rights and grazing rights, you can use the water on the BLM property. You don't have to bring your cattle back to the deeded land. There are all sorts of watering holes set up around the Central Nevada range on BLM land. Some natural water flow, but most with windmills.



That's if you have water rights AND grazing rights, as you say. The problem is, Bundy does not have grazing rights. Clark County holds the grazing rights to that land, since Bundy didn't want to pay to renew them, but Clark County had no problem paying to buy them.

Therefore, Bundy has water rights, and rights to a "highway" - which I take is a colloquialism for a "right of way" - to water his cattle there, but no grazing rights to keep them there. If he drives them there for water, he must then drive them back to pasture, not graze in place.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Well, if you realistically consider where they are standing for Federal presence and resources within 30 minutes or less in flight time? It wouldn't be pizza they'd be getting...but it WOULD be delivered to the intended recipients.

Piping Hot and Fresh, as they say. (someone needs to do a comprehensive thread on the Posse Comitatus changes in the last 15 years. It's more than an eye opener)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

These industrial scale solar plants generally don't take up that much land. But there is the mitigation issue. If you grub X number of acres for your project, you need to set aside KX number of acres elsewhere (where K is some constant to be determined).

Often in real estate development, a portion of the property is set aside for mitigation. Or you may have to build habitat for the animals you will displace like a pond. Or you buy some land that is zoned for development, and then agree to have it rezoned to a park or some habitat.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Post Ruby Ridge, the feds are very very careful about Posse Comitatus, unless you are some jerk in a foreign land, which means you can be drone bait.

Post 9/11, the feds have their own weapons on par with the military. What disappointed me was the lack of testing non-lethal weapons on the militia. For instance the microwave heat gun or the sonic blasters.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: nenothtu

Who owns the BLM?



The U.S. Government, of course. Certainly not you, I, or Bundy.




That land belongs to "We the People".



Where is my deed, then? I want my deed. Now.




So, really unlike land you own. The BLM should be accountable to the People.



In theory, it is - accountable to ALL of the people, not just you, or me, or Bundy. BLM accountability is a separate issue from BLM land management. They manage it as they see fit, and are accountable for that after the dust settles.

In practice, the BLM is not accountable to us, it's accountable to Congress and the Executive. THEY in turn are accountable to us. Did you vote for the Congress Critter sitting for your district? If you did, you stamped your approval on BLM actions and management, because your Congress Critter has not fired them.




I could care less about Bundy. But, the BLM just manages the land.

I should say that's the way it is supposed to work.



You're right. The BLM manages the land. The Federal Government actually owns it. Not you. Not me. Not Bundy. Not Conservationists for a Human-Free Planet, or whatever that crackpot bunch is called.

The Federal Government.

The BLM is an arm of the Federal Government.

Therefore they own the land. They can throw toga parties on it if they want.

Until your Congress Critter fires them for malfeasance.



edit on 2014/4/29 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

My comment about the water rights was for ranchers in general. Bundy can't graze on that land. No argument from me about that.

My point is there are thousands of ranchers on BLM land that do build watering holes legally where they are permitted to graze.

The BLM isn't evil. The BLM wants the land to be used but not destroyed. My problem is with Diane Feinstein declaring everything WSA (wildlife study area). The BLM has to enforce congressionally mandated WSAs as well, even if they don't create them themselves.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

They are careful about using it and they absolutely do not advertise how it's been reinterpreted and changed in minor ways. The interruption of local government or civil order sure is how some of it seems to read now for terms it can be excepted for active deployment. The same basis as the 10th Mountain Division at Hurricane Andrew. It was support there. Badly needed support. They simply added some.

That's why I hope someone does a thread on it. It's not a specific President. It's a few recent ones putting the finishing touches on the red button of 'gotcha' if they ever feel a loss may happen, however small IMO.

If violence had erupted, and law enforcement felt even the least bit on the losing end? Well.. They'd have been screaming across radios to break windows from Carson City to Washington to 'heeeelp!'. Help would have come. After all Occupy experienced and learned by more error than trial, I have no question in my mind, whatever level of help was required would come. DHS is real vertically integrated these days..if all those ammo buys weren't good hints.

Just my bit to add.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

I use BLM land. It is our land. They don't kick me off if I obey the rules.

If you find some rancher has gated a road that leads to what he believes is HIS land, just get the coordinates and give them to the BLM. They will come and destroy the gate so you can get to OUR land.

To manage land, you establish rules. If you obey the rules, the BLM can't do a thing to you. It is called "law."

I had the BLM ranger talk really tough to me once. Things like "please don't cut down any Joshua trees" and "please make sure your camp fire is out when you leave." And you know what? He kept his gun holstered. Amazing how things work out when you aren't a total jackass.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Yes.

Lackluster.

Photo 1: Why are there gawkers standing around taking snapshots like they were at a music festival? Photo op. Nothing more.

Photo 2: One grenade would get them all, bunched up like that, and standing around like they were waiting on their turn in the latrine line.

Photo 3: Pretty cammies. Nice puffed out chests. Good targets.

Lackluster. That's what I said, and that's what I meant.

Boys playing men, with expensive toys. A Boy Scout troop could have taken them out with minimal training - if the Boy Scouts could get through the line of women them big bad boys wanted to put in the front lines.

Candy asses.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: gariac

They are careful about using it and they absolutely do not advertise how it's been reinterpreted and changed in minor ways. The interruption of local government or civil order sure is how some of it seems to read now for terms it can be excepted for active deployment. The same basis as the 10th Mountain Division at Hurricane Andrew. It was support there. Badly needed support. They simply added some.

Just my bit to add.


Just note that the National Guard is in theory under control of the state governor. The national guard is the well regulated militia in the 2nd amendment. Calling out the guard for logistics is one thing. Having them shoot at people....hey that is the job of the cops!



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

I don't know about all of that, so thanks for the enlightenment. I generally just avoid issues like that by not engaging my projects on public lands.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
There's only one solution to this issue & I have just the video for it.




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

No argument from me on any of that. The BLM isn't "evil", they are just a convenient target for non-specific ire at the feds for the moment. I say "non-specific" because, if it were specific, the ire would be properly targeted.

Now Feinstein? THERE is pure evil!



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
If one looks at the founding documents....people....perhaps Wrabbit can find it...as I recall....the Feds are NOT PERMITTED to OWN more land than the nessessary land for forts...military bases docks etc....
Wholesale ownership of public l;ands resides with the states....
Just because the Feds won a war with Mexico....doesn't negate the ownership of the lands etc by common people....
Perhaps that should be revisited by the western states as they got swindled out of 60 to 80 % of the public lands by the Feds.....
Constitutionally I don't think the feds are even in the legal ball park.....
I could be wrong....I am sitting far to the north waiting for the evolution....sic... to start so we can join it too.....



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

USING land is not the same as OWNING that land. If you want to know who owns it, look for who makes the rules for it's use.




top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join