Posted on 04/16/2014 5:42:00 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
While distancing itself from the legal issues that prompted the Bureau of Land Management to round up Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy’s range cattle then release hundreds of them as the threat of violence loomed, the conservative Nevada Cattlemen’s Association issued a statement Wednesday that sympathizes with Bundy.
“The situation in Nevada stands as an example (of) the federal agencies’ steady trend toward elevating environmental and wildlife issues over livestock grazing,” reads the statement from Ron Torell, the cattlemen’s group president.
The statement adds that ranchers like Bundy, who graze livestock on multiple-use public lands, which include habitat for the threatened desert tortoise and other federally protected species, “have found themselves with their backs against the wall as, increasingly, federal regulations have infringed on their public land grazing rights and the multiple-use management principle.”
“This is not only devastating to individual ranching families; it is also causing rural communities in the West to (wither) on the vine. In the West, one in every two acres is owned by the federal government,” the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association statement notes. “Therefore, the integrity of the laws protecting productive multiple use is paramount to the communities that exist there.”
The group contends that the Endangered Species Act and other such laws “are being implemented in a way that are damaging to our rights and to our Western families and communities. In Bundy’s case the designation of his grazing area as a critical habitat for the endangered desert tortoise gave the BLM the rationale they needed to order a 500% decrease in his cattle numbers. There never was any scientific proof that cattle had historically harmed the desert tortoise.”
The BLM halted its roundup Saturday as gun-toting militia and protesters in support of Bundy converged on a corral near Mesquite where government cowboys were preparing...
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
The government is deliberately acting in contravention of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. The people of the West need to stand up in opposition to their organized criminal activity.
This particular government is truly for sale for the benefit of the Friends Of Obama. If you didn’t pay enough to gain admission than you are an Enemy of Obama.
And the MSM sits there....reporting garbage.
1866 Water Law/ USC CHAPTER 15 §661
U.S. v. Estate of E. Wayne Hage
Typical trade association, a bunch of cowardly weasels playing musical chairs with FedGov running the sound.
NOW they issue a statement
Absent all of this is, as always when around liberals, any common sense. For example, in the range land that the BLM has been steadily working on closing to all grazing for nearly a generation, to supposedly protect a desert turtle, the common sense question is: If the land was much more heavily grazed in the past, how was it that there are any turtles there today? Wouldn’t they have been wiped out in the past by the very grazing that the BLM wishes to quash?
Then again, the same story applies to lots of pet projects - owls, for example, in a logging forest. Somehow these creatures have survived (and thrived) in the environment which now must be changed (eliminate logging, eliminate grazing, eliminate ATVs) so that they can survive - well, umm, how are they there today if those activities actually drastically impacted on them? Oh, right, they didn’t.
But hey, there’s millions and millions to be made off of closing public land and then letting the protected few come in later (special use projects like say a huge solar farm...)
Cattle cannot graze on those lands for fear of harming the tortoise.
But.....If you pay the fines we are levying on you, you can graze your cattle there.
Got it.
***In Bundy’s case the designation of his grazing area as a critical habitat for the endangered desert tortoise gave the BLM the rationale they needed to order a 500% decrease in his cattle numbers.***
Maybe this is Obama’s way to decrease cows from passing gas, decrease the cows!
Better late than never. Really it is.
The Fed judge that signed this order needs to be brought to heel. When he signed this he knew it wasn’t right and it could blow up into a political hot potato. He wrote it as a permissive order for the BLM to carryout with the Sheriffs help. Given contracts, Federal land, and asset forfeiture it would have been the U.S. Marshall’s Service to service and enforce. But, the judge did not want the court to be involved and therefore gave it to BLM so it would no be seen as a court action. This is telling and this judge should be questioned. Federal judges are political beast. Was he compromised by Dingy Harry? What other similar orders did he sign in the past? Did Harry push his confirmation to the Federal bench through?
Wiki:
“The United States recognizes two types of water rights. Although use and overlap varies over time and by state, the western arid states generally follow the doctrine of prior appropriation, while water rights for the eastern states follow riparian law.”
“The legal details vary from state to state; however, the general principle is that water rights are unconnected to land ownership, and can be sold or mortgaged like other property. The first person to use a quantity of water from a water source for a beneficial use has the right to continue to use that quantity of water for that purpose. Subsequent users can use the remaining water for their own beneficial purposes provided that they do not impinge on the rights of previous users.”
Why not point out that the Feds "own" approx. 85% of NEVADA? After all they are not a regional association but a State Association.
Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge
You have to realize, most of them also have grazing contracts than can revised or revoked, should they piss off the BLM overlords.
You forgot-
OR
reduce the amount of cattle in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and have your herd number drop so low, you violate the range rights stipulation in your property's Deed and lose access to the water altogether.
City Boy.
So where’s ‘This Land Is Your Land’ Brucy Springsteen and the rest of the ‘music industry’ on this matter? Didn’t they come out for the ‘farmers’ years ago? *Crickets*
I’m wondering why it is not right for the Bundys to run
cattle on that piece of federal land, but it will be just
fine for a Chinese Solar Company to put their solar pieces
on it? I imagine putting the company there, the company
will not have to PAY TAXES for some years, as the Bundy family did until 1993.
Better late than never...
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.