Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

East Moapa Valley, Mormon Mesa Restricted By BLM
Moapa Valley Progress ^ | April4, 2014 | VERNON ROBISON

Posted on 04/07/2014 2:00:31 PM PDT by RicocheT

Federal authorities moved last week to restrict access to a huge swath of federal land in northeast Clark County as they prepare to round up what they are calling “trespass cattle” in the region.

The Bureau of Land Management’s temporary closure of roughly 288,000 acres took effect on Thursday, March 27. The restricted land takes in all of the Mormon Mesa south of I-15 and includes everything on the eastern bench of the lower Moapa Valley, directly east of Logandale and Overton.

(Excerpt) Read more at mvprogress.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: blm; cattlegrazing; navada
We are from the government and here to help you. The battle against ranchers and cattle grazing v, BLM and the desert tortoise continues.

Cliven Bundy's son, Dave, was arrested while standing along a state hywy 4/8/14 for filming the BLM rounding up cattle. “I counted, they had 11 vehicles all with at least two agents in each one, maybe more,” he said. “They also had four snipers on the hill above us all trained on us. We were doing nothing besides filming the area.”

http://mvprogress.com/2014/04/06/one-of-bundy%E2%80%99s-sons-arrested-in-roundup-incident/

1 posted on 04/07/2014 2:00:31 PM PDT by RicocheT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RicocheT

What, are the going to introduce Moose (shells)?


2 posted on 04/07/2014 2:10:32 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT

HOW DOESN’T THE 1ST AMENDMENT RULE OVER THE WHOLE AREA?


3 posted on 04/07/2014 2:13:06 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT

He hasn’t paid grazing fees for years yet continued to graze. I would say action is long overdue.

We can argue about whether grazing fees are just or not but it has been a long standing order of business for federal lands. THe fees are relatively small. I think the tortoise issue is bogus. There is always some bug, reptile or whatever that ONLY LIVES here BS.

Hopefully cool heads prevail and it can be settled.


4 posted on 04/07/2014 2:15:43 PM PDT by SolidRedState (I used to think bizarro world was a fiction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT

http://www.infowars.com/federal-snipers-train-guns-on-family-for-filming-cattle/


5 posted on 04/07/2014 2:16:07 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidRedState

His family has been there way before the BLM was.


6 posted on 04/07/2014 2:16:55 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

The govt won’t re-introduce anything. They want to cut off the water rights to the cattle ranchers on leased land. They want the cattle off so mother earth can heal itself of all the cow farts.

IMO the ultimate goal of the evil Agenda 21 empire currently holding its boot on our throats is to get rid of as much meat as possible and organic vegetables. They want to force all of us proletariat to eat very little meat and buy all of our food in the grocery stores where we will get the big agra GMO food and the new improved chicken from China. The govt wants to control our means to acquire food. Read the Food Safety Act sometime and then thank your RINO senators and reps who voted it in. Its actually frightening.

Then go out and buy a plot of land somewhere so you can grow your own food.


7 posted on 04/07/2014 2:18:45 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
" The govt wants to control our means to acquire food."

Wickard

8 posted on 04/07/2014 2:24:14 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

“HOW DOESN’T THE 1ST AMENDMENT RULE OVER THE WHOLE AREA?”

I see more and more of these “free speech zones”. We must disarm the government.


9 posted on 04/07/2014 2:28:24 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

” The govt wants to control our means to acquire food.”

That too. The Agenda 21 goal is what 500,000 people worldwide? They need to get the US down to about 60 mil?


10 posted on 04/07/2014 2:29:57 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

After the Fed Gov’t “performance” during the “last “shutdown”, it’s clear that most of the Federal Land need to be immediately transferred to the respective States and/or sold off to reduce the US Debt.


11 posted on 04/07/2014 2:35:56 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
"get the US down to about 60 mil?"

Just 'zactly what tax slave group is going to pay off the Debt?

12 posted on 04/07/2014 2:37:05 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT

I wonder if any video is being posted somewhere, even from the little plot of the remaining USA ‘given’ as a “free speech zone”, or is anybody filming being arrested as was the family member?


13 posted on 04/07/2014 2:38:38 PM PDT by Carthego delenda est
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

His family has been there way before the BLM was.

************

So were the Indians. Washington, like honeybadger, doesn’t give a ‘F’. It takes what it wants.


14 posted on 04/07/2014 2:47:56 PM PDT by Psalm 144 (FIGHT! FIGHT! SEVERE CONSERVATIVE AND THE WILD RIGHT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carthego delenda est

I think ya’ll are getting it confused with ...
Speech Free Zones. Hush now.


15 posted on 04/07/2014 2:51:55 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
Bundy quit paying his grazing fees 20 years ago. He insists that the land is part of his ranch, but he has no legal title to it and was previously paying grazing fees.

In 1998, he was ordered by the courts to remove his cattle from this land, four years after he quit paying grazing fees.

On July 9th, 2012, Nevada District Judge Lloyd D. George ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from BLM and National Park System lands in the Gold Butte and Overton Arm areas of southern Nevada. He was given 45 days to comply with the order or face seizure of his livestock by the BLM. The order says that the BLM was entitled to protect the lands from trespass and all further trespass by Bundy’s cattle and can seize them as long as he is given proper notice.

Here is the order.

16 posted on 04/07/2014 2:56:28 PM PDT by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Excuse me. The order was issued in 2013.


17 posted on 04/07/2014 2:57:18 PM PDT by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
"Bundy has insisted that he does not need to recognize federal government jurisdiction on land that his family has used, improved and ranched since 1877. Though he recognizes that he doesn’t own the land, Bundy says that it should be under the jurisdiction of the state of Nevada and that it belongs to the people of Clark County. He has repeatedly said that he will now “do whatever it takes” to protect his property rights on the land.

Federal officials have ordered Bundy to remove his livestock from a grazing allotment that was retired back in 1999 out of concern for the federally-protected desert tortoise.

To strengthen their case, the feds say that Bundy stopped paying his federal grazing fees back in 1993. But Bundy responds that he stopped paying the fees because he realized that they were being used to finance an agenda to drive him and his cattle off of his ancestral allotment. Lawsuits have been ongoing back and forth in the federal courts for more than two decades now, ordering Bundy to remove his cattle. But throughout all of that, the cattle have nevertheless remained on the land.

In 2012, the BLM hired a contract cowboy to remove the livestock. But the effort was quickly pulled back at the last minute; in part because of a fear of a violent encounter. At that time, federal officials vowed they would return to the courts to strengthen their position. Last fall, a series of federal court orders did just that. The orders required Bundy to remove his cattle within 45 days. If he did not, the federal agencies were authorized to seize any cattle left on the land and Bundy was expressly forbidden to interfere."

Source.

The language in the transfer of title from the State of Nevada to the BLM makes it clear that neither the State of Nevada nor Clark County has title to these lands, contrary to what Mr. Bundy may claim.

18 posted on 04/07/2014 3:03:48 PM PDT by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
His family has been there way before the BLM was.

Not very likely. The BLM, or rather the various agencies it is descended from, go back to before the Constitution.

The federal government has held title to this land since it was acquired by the USA via the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo in 1848.

Unless the gentleman can provide some documentation of his title to it. We don't generally allow people to take over a few hundred thousand acres of land simply by claiming ownership.

19 posted on 04/07/2014 3:09:23 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

The BLM was created in 1946. His family goes back at least three generations on that property.


20 posted on 04/07/2014 3:28:01 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

The BLM was created by combining several earlier agencies.


21 posted on 04/07/2014 3:46:37 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
Yet his family does not have title to the land, even under the theory of adverse possession.

First, the law requires that his possession be 'hostile.' If his cattle were there with the consent of the BLM or State of Nevada (which became a state in 1864, predating his family's use of the land), then the family's use of the land was never "hostile."

Second, Nevada law requires 'color of title,' which means the family must have a legal document which purports to convey title of the land to the family.

Third, Nevada Revised Statutes 11.150 requires that "the party or persons [claiming title], their predecessors and grantors have paid all taxes, state, county and municipal, which may have been levied and assessed against the land for the period mentioned, or have tendered payment thereof."

The family has always been using somebody else's property and title has never reverted to the family under Nevada law.

22 posted on 04/07/2014 3:52:51 PM PDT by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

>> “ The BLM, or rather the various agencies it is descended from, go back to before the Constitution” <<

.
That is gibberish!

Do you have the slightest idea when the US gained title to Nevada, and the conditions under which it did so?

All private land claims take precedence in these purchases, so the BLM or it’s predecessor have the weakest of all claims to any particular parcel.


23 posted on 04/07/2014 4:06:38 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT

These sons of bitches need to fear going to work.


24 posted on 04/07/2014 4:39:39 PM PDT by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I ran into a real snotty BLM person working along a transmission line ROW. A construction crew replaced a damaged structure and used a bulldozer and cleaned the old construction trail to the structure a few days before I was there. The BLM guy rolls up in a SUV jumps out screaming at me that I needed to restore the environment. The lines were owned by the department of energy.

If the rancher family has been there since 1877 then the BLM is out of line.


25 posted on 04/07/2014 4:44:05 PM PDT by the_daug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SolidRedState

Sounds like you were one of the few to actually read it all. The guy paid fees for years and then stopped, because the land was previously “Mormon-owned land”, so as a Mormon, he decided he should no longer need to pay.

I, for one, do not want any rancher or farmer using public lands to raise livestock or grow crops. Get the hell off and use your own land. If ya can’t find any, downsize accordingly. These guys typically pay pennies on the dollar, which is bull crap.


26 posted on 04/07/2014 5:47:45 PM PDT by SgtHooper (If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

“Just ‘zactly what tax slave group is going to pay off the Debt?”

Yeh I’m with you but I think these loons are so insane they either don’t dwell on that or they just don’t care. Its all about not disturbing Mother Earth.

Whats sane about 100 BLM people and snipers with assault weapons surrounding a cattle rancher and his family and stealing his cattle in plain sight?


27 posted on 04/07/2014 6:12:59 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
"Whats sane about 100 BLM people and snipers with assault weapons surrounding a cattle rancher and his family and stealing his cattle in plain sight?"

WACO wannabes?

At least it's not the Dept. of Education SWAT team.

28 posted on 04/07/2014 6:18:00 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Yea, free Bammy burgers coming to a Mickey’s near you.


29 posted on 04/07/2014 6:20:25 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

There ya go. LOL!


30 posted on 04/07/2014 6:24:19 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Bundy had no private land claim.

The State of Nevada owned the land before the Bundy family began using the land.

The Bundy family never met the requirements of color of title, hostile possession, or payment of taxes to gain title to the land, and grazed cattle there with permission from the state, and later, the BLM. Nevada law specifically provides that making improves to land does not confer ownership.

The Bundy family has never contested ownership of the land. He admits that. In fact, they've confirmed ownership by another party by entering into contracts to use the land for grazing cattle and by paying a fee to do so.

Twenty years ago, Bundy didn't like the terms of the new contract presented to him, so he refused to sign it and quit paying grazing fees. He's been ordered to pay grazing fees multiple times over the last twenty years. He's ignored those orders. The last order gave him 45 days to remove his cattle or else they would be treated as trespassing cattle. He never attempted to remove his cattle.

31 posted on 04/08/2014 4:38:32 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Do you have the slightest idea when the US gained title to Nevada, and the conditions under which it did so?

Uhh, yes I do.

Nevada, or at least the vast majority of it, was ceded by Mexico in the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo of 1848, which closed out the Mexican War.

Land grants from the period of Spanish and Mexican control were supposed to be honored, but weren't always.

Federal title to unclaimed land did not originate with the BLM. That agency was established to control land already in federal possession and not previously assigned to another agency such as the National Park or National Forest services.

32 posted on 04/08/2014 6:55:20 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: the_daug
If the rancher family has been there since 1877 then the BLM is out of line.

Possibly, though just because a family has lived in an area for a long time, it does not automatically acquire title to several hundred thousand acres of land.

There are no doubt at least several families with long time residence in the area. Which of them therefore owns the land? Why should any of them get title, since Indians were living in the area long before their ancestors showed up?

A private person using public land for his private profit without authorization is just as wrong as doing the same on private property.

I'm perfectly willing to consider evidence that this guy owns the land, but AFAIK there isn't any such evidence.

33 posted on 04/08/2014 7:06:43 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

The institution of fees on those lands was never lawful, it was an administrative action, instituted to drive the cattle off of the land. The same goes for grazing permits.

If anyone had a private claim to the land, the Fed Gov has no rights to it. That is a solid premise WRT lands from Spanish or Mexican control. It was a part of the treaty.

Thus Bundy probably does have a legitimate claim by prescription over the previous occupant.

None of the BLM’s actions on grazing lands are legitimate.
.


34 posted on 04/08/2014 7:51:31 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

>> “Possibly, though just because a family has lived in an area for a long time, it does not automatically acquire title to several hundred thousand acres of land.” <<

You simply do not understand the treaty. The only lands that the Fed Gov can lay claim to were the historically unused lands.


35 posted on 04/08/2014 7:53:31 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

The State of Nevada held title to the land before the Bundy family began to use it in the same way cattle ranchers did in any ‘open range’ story.

Cattle ranchers’ desire to use land they didn’t own to feed their cattle is a part of western history and gave us the Lincoln County War, the Pleasant Valley War, the Mason County War, and the Johnson County Range War, among others. Even the Robert Duval/Kevin Costner movie, Open Range, deals with this issue.

The State of Nevada owned the land the Bundy family has used before the Bundy family ever used it. The State of Nevada conveyed the land to the federal government.

The Bundy family never gained title to the land by prescription.

First, their use of the land would have had to be ‘hostile,’ meaning use without the permission of the lawful landowner. There’s no indication that was ever the case.

Second, Nevada requires color of title to gain title to land by prescription. The Bundy family has never claimed color of title. In fact, Bundy concedes that the BLM holds title to the land.

Third, Nevada requires that a party claiming title to land by prescription have paid all taxes on the land due by himself and ALL previous occupants.

The Bundys want to bring back the days of old west cattle barons who ignore the laws of private ownership of land.


36 posted on 04/08/2014 8:11:08 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

The lawful owner of the land, the State of Nevada, transferred ownership of the land to the federal government. The federal government didn’t just claim ownership.


37 posted on 04/08/2014 8:13:09 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

The lawful owner of the land, the State of Nevada, transferred ownership of the land to the federal government. The federal government didn’t just claim ownership.


38 posted on 04/08/2014 8:13:09 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

The treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo transferred sovereignty over Nevada to the USA, with unoccupied or ungranted land entering US ownership.

This dude’s family (supposedly) moved into the area in 1877. On what basis can he claim they owned the land prior to 1848?

Do you know how utterly desolate this area was in 1848? There were no cattlemen in the area, certainly not Anglo cattlemen, for the entirely logical reason there was absolutely no market and no way to get herds to market. Even in CA, which had a long coastline, cattle were raised almost entirely for hides and tallow. The rest was left for scavengers.

Cattlemen didn’t come in till after the Civil War, as his family did in 1877.

What your claim boils down to is that an entity owns worthless land. It allows other parties to use that land, initially without charge and then for fees. When the parties using the land don’t like the fees requested, they insist they have a right to keep using the land as they choose without charge, or possibly even that they have somehow acquired title.

Why should the principle be any different depending on whether the entity owning the land is a private individual, a corporation or the government?

If he grazed cattle on anybody’s else’s land, they’d charge grazing fees. Why should he be exempt?

BTW, for most of the time his family has lived in the area, they probably had an option to buy this land, at a very low cost. They chose not to.


39 posted on 04/08/2014 9:00:18 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: the_daug

I ran into a reverse situation a few years back in southern UT while backpacking. A rancher insisted I was on his ranch, though I knew perfectly well it was public (BLM) land. He apparently thought because he ran cattle on public land it had become his private property. Had quite the confrontation.

Checked with the county when I got back to civilization. Nearest patch of private property from where I ran into him was about 10 miles. (As the crow flies. By trail/road about 40.)


40 posted on 04/08/2014 9:14:01 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

>> “On what basis can he claim they owned the land prior to 1848?” <<

.
That isn’t the issue. Only that somebody owned it. That automatically excludes the Feds from any ownership.
.


41 posted on 04/08/2014 11:09:06 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

What makes you think this land was in private ownership in 1848?


42 posted on 04/08/2014 11:51:55 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Almost all Spanish/Mexican land was in private ownership.

Here in California, literally all arable land was in private ownership at the time of the treaty. Likely the same prevailed in the rest of the treaty land.

Our constitution does prohibit federal ownership of anything but the listed reservations, like DC for example. So private ownership is the rule, rather than the exception.


43 posted on 04/08/2014 2:08:12 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson