Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Grazing allotment is property

Been down that road already.

It didn't sink in. Tried explaining it, and got threatened with a "2x4 education" by him...

Oh. Is THAT what he posted?
=======

Yes, it was. But, even before his edit, my response still covered both dynamics.


A family that settled and homesteaded and ranched that land abiding by all the rules and paying all the fees like they did, SHOULD have a reasonable expectation that he can continue to do so without molestation by radical environmental groups backed by big government.
=======

No rockinbar, he did not pay all his fees.

IMO, it's a mess because the government,during an emotionally infused dynamic and without any sensitivity to the devastation modern history is going to inflict upon this hard working family, chose to deal with it by OD'ing on egomaniacal power trips rather than continuing to peacefully deal with the matter judiciously.

Bundy's ignorance,the law,changing times and the fact this man is going to lose everything he worked his whole damn life for mandates a remedial fix a bit more respectful than the undeserved arrogance of governmental kicks to the nuts.

=============

No, it wasn't how the general arguments began the first couple of days. Most of the majority, if not yourselves, stated the land was Bundy's. Perhaps there were some later edits.

As to the 2x4 comment,rockinar,that was a general metaphorical comment, not a statement saying I would do such a thing to you personally.

When someone says some folks can only learn by the 2x4 method, do you actually take that to mean the person wanted to beat you with a 2x4?

Did he quit paying fees before or after the feds stole 3/4 of his allotment?

He did until they kicked him off of his allotment/permit 20 years ago because a radical environmental group used the BLM as the instrument of eviction.

I agree the government could have, and should have, and probably still should handle things differently. They could do that in most cases.

Not saying Bundy has a degree in nuclear physics either. He has about as much to do with all this as Rosa Parks did with the Civil Rights Movement. They were both only the straw that broke the camel's back...

In both cases, the real cause of the headlines was that they stood up and said "enough". THAT made the headlines.

But when somebody proclaims "enough is enough" it's generally premised upon some "right" to something.

Please explain to me what he had a "right" to, other than what he already knew wasn't a right that inured to him, ie permits,land,grazing?

The law and his own signed permits expressly stated he had no "rights" to anything that couldn't be immediately modified,changed,depleted or even taken away.

Knowing that was the case, as Bundy certainly did, and that all this legal wrangling was confirmed in 2 federal courts and 1 appellate court, against Bundy, what then happened to create the "enough is enough" mantra?

Issac,

Do you have access to a permit form?

I have never actually seen a permit. Does the permit actually state that it may be withdrawn at any time?

When one purchases something, one expects it to not have an undisclosed termination date.

I honestly don't know about Bundy's actual permit but in the Gardner case, I did see the actual permit and such language was expressly on the permit.

As to Bundy's specific permit, I can not say I know for a fact it was on it.

However, the TGA, the law controlling all such permits, expressly states such is the case.

Isaac, this is the exact reason I gave the advice that I did last week to both you and Birdwatcher. You can still go get some background education by reading-up on the Hage situation. I would suggest reading the stuff written by the Hage family first. Read-up on the history, then court cases and rulings (don't forget to check-in on the most recent cases and rulings) When you get to the part about the takings case, chime back in here, I would like your expert legal opinion on several parts of it. Take care. GOD Bless.

ok but the rest of the story is that this was only after lower courts had ruled the other way . but then the USSC is the highest court so their ruling stood , well until Bush took office and said " NOPE" and changed just about everything that allowed the court to rule the way it did .

this is nothing new . it didn�t start with the Taylor act nor did the act finish it . which by the way , the act was brought as a way to stop big Eastern corps who jumped into the cattle business with 0 land at all and then began free grazing across everyone else�s claims.
Frankly the Bundy fight has been a short one as there are cases that have been in the courts for 50 -60 years

So now if that ruling of the USSC stood as precedence then how is it that the Nevada federal court rule completely opposite in Hage v. U.S in 2012 and again last may �2013 � in its 104 page brief on the case
Which was basically the same issue . IE long standing, historic grazing claim . BLM cut the numbers just as in the Bundy case .
The difference is Huges then reapplied for permits on and above his original claim . The BLM refused them .
Also I believe hubes included issues with his water right , which as I stated before was the original validation for these very old grazing rights . If Bundy hasn�t done that , he should .
Federal Judge Rules for Property Rights, Smacks Down Abusive Feds

you beat me to it Tim . i guess i didt see your comment on the Huge vs US comment earlier . for those who dont get it . that case was over clasic BLM and USFS actions . which if nothing else the Bundy situation has shown that nothing has change with the BLM. its up to it same old ways

What I don't get, especially on mostly conservative boards like this, is why people are siding with the BLM?

Aren't the BLM senior leaders sworn to uphold and defend the constitution like other public officials? Yet, they arbitrarily decide to suspend public speech and protests except in 'acceptable areas'; they seize a citizen's property and basically declare martial law on/near his property; yet, they are not fired, impeached, fined or held accountable for trampling the bill of rights.

These elected officials as well as the ones in New Orleans during Katrina, should be put on trial and jailed if convicted for tossing aside the constitution for the dictatorial leadership. Instead, none are held accountable unless they piss off a journalist.

Yet, many wannabe subjects and serfs on these boards constantly side with the oathbreaking official.

Being a citizen is supposed to have some guarantees abroad, and especially at home....

PLC v. Babbitt is a red herring.

PLC didn't ask the supremes to say whether or not the abrogation of their grazing rights was proper, only whether or not the law made it possible.

The unanimous decision was because the law clearly allows for such a purpose *in the proper circumstances*.

The purpose of the law was to have the govt referee grazing rights, so that in bad years a few didn't take advantage of a limited resource. As always, a good concept, and as always, perverted by unscrupulous government officials. The law does specifically refer to the preservation of grazing rights, not government projects.

PLC didn't have a very good lawyer and didn't ask the supremes, while they were there, whether or not the actions of the government were proper in the circumstances. So that question didn't get answered.

Like in the case of the photographer who didn't want to crack a lens on some homos, the wrong question gets asked. Rather than first amendment, the photog insisted on an artistic license not to perform. That ain;t in the constitution. Ask the magic eight ball (supremes) the wrong question, you get a poor result.

Hage asked the right question. Can these SOBs just decide to stop letting me graze cattle cause they want to? Answer was no.

Bundy is in the same situation as Hage. But it appears that he got screwed in court, either by a liberal judge or a poor choice in attorneys. Sometimes, you think you know a good attorney, but it turns out that isn't the case.

The Rule Of Law is gone in the US.

PS So many people misunderstand the meaning of the term Rule Of Law. It doesn't refer to a condition where there are laws. Nazi Germany had plenty of laws, but law didn't rule. Those in official positions of authority did.

The Rule Of Law refers to a condition in which there is no one who possesses the sanction to exercise arbitrary power, i.e., officials may not exert their will over citizens based solely on their authority. They must only act in accordance with law, and if they do otherwise, they would face the same consequences as would anyone else who did so.

Actualy Isaac , I think its more then that . . Im assuming that do to a later post then the one a just quoted , you have or at least have looked at a permit. Which lists the things one must agree to IE under "mandatory" terms and conditions�
*the number of active or suspended AUMs
*salt or mineral supplement locations
*maximum allowable use of forage levels����.,..

What you don�t however see is the process for that permit . You don�t just walk in , hand them the money and they hand you a permit. You have to agree with everything under the conditions and sign or they wont take your money .its a contractual agreement . Also you maybe confusing buying a permit vs. someone who already has a permit . In which case you pay X amount based on your AUM � animal units per month� . again and again and again , based on the permit you already have . you dont go buy a new one each year .

This is why I brought up in a previous thread that the case could very well be made that if Bundy had continued to pay which meant signing the new agreement , he would then have been bound by that new agreement and thus dropped claim to the old agreement . Which was the actual binding agreement which he had been paying on in good faith .
So when the BLM canceled his permit, did they do so because he would not agree to a new contract . Did they then make law concerning this piece of ground , which a judge would then have no other choice but to rule in favor of .
IE they are the law , the make their own rules . If so then there is no wonder 2 courts ruled in favor of the law and against Bundy . After all what else were they to do .

However I submit , that if that was the case , then they were doing the very same thing as they were penalized for doing in the Huge case .



Actual at this point I would say your wrong . What does the man factually have to lose, his grazing rights ???? Seems he already lost those .
His cattle ??? Maybe some of them , but what difference really does that make as he wont have the means to feed them anyway . If he tries to sell them , the fed may very well garnish the sale , so no real loss there . Why not just let them come and take them . Then set back and either laugh your ass of over the city boy antics or scream thief. The US government has burned their bridges here in the west to the point that they could be 100% right , very few are going to believe them. more then likly only a slightly smaller % would be very glade to see or willing to help get ride of the vermin for him . which is what we saw happen . the people we saw were those that made it in 24 to 48 hours after the call for help . how many more were on the way . what would it have been if this had gone on for a week or more ???

Lose His land ?? I would bet you that he doesn�t own it . that�s right , its just a guess but I wonder if his name is actually on the deed . He may already passed it on to his son OR if he is Morman as some are saying , the church may be share holder or he may have signed some of it over to the church as a safty net .

Lots of possibilities. So he may factually have nothing to lose and simply wants the joy of sticking his boot to the government .
Who is to say . But I can tell you that at lest concerning the older folks around here . They don�t do much without thinking things through real hard .
They are not the spur of the moment ,mental brain dead being reared today . So I would bet he has a few cards to play and this call for help was just one

My point is you keep posting misinformation, even after being shown proof

Bundy didn't "own" anything

He leased grazing privileges until he stopped making payments

You just keep repeating the same lines after multiple people have shown you proof it's incorrect

The "historical use was Native Americans and the Fed Govt
Bundy was a latecomer

Yeah. That was real fair, and nobody got upset, or hurt or killed in all that, now did they?

I never said anything about all that
You brought up historical use, but want to ignore anything before Bundy
It should be all or none if you say thats whats fair

Who was using it before Bundy, in 1877?

My guess is you'd have been hard pressed to even find a jackrabbit within a day's ride.