Skip to comments.Bundy Ranch Posts Response to Readers of USA Today
Posted on 04/23/2014 11:11:10 AM PDT by ponygirl
Readers of USA TODAY:
Some have asked why didn't my father pay the grazing fee. This can be understood in two ways. One is founded on preemptive rights and the other upon state rights or state sovereignty. When my family rolled into this country in the 1800's they began to tame the land and use it for survival, settling this land the same as the rest of the United States. Each family claimed their stake and developed the area. Others respected the area and understood as long as the family was using the resources or land it was the families to claim and share. When states were initiated into the union these rights or claims became more defined and further protected by state law as rights that could be sold traded or even borrowed against...
(Excerpt) Read more at facebook.com ...
If you don't want to go to Facebook, you can view the post at bundyranch.blogspot.com
Secure the border, not the Bundys
The federal government breaks the law every day. They don’t pay THEIR taxes in the Western States, which is called PILT. They give us pennies on the dollar and even then they make us beg for it and still don’t pay. Who holds them accountable?
Why excerpt Facebook?. Full Text:
Readers of USA TODAY:
Some have asked why didn’t my father pay the grazing fee. This can be understood in two ways. One is founded on preemptive rights and the other upon state rights or state sovereignty. When my family rolled into this country in the 1800’s they began to tame the land and use it for survival, settling this land the same as the rest of the United States. Each family claimed their stake and developed the area. Others respected the area and understood as long as the family was using the resources or land it was the families to claim and share. When states were initiated into the union these rights or claims became more defined and further protected by state law as rights that could be sold traded or even borrowed against.
Now after over a hundred years of preemptive rights by beneficial use recognized and protected by the state, the federal government claims that the land is not state land but US territory and theirs for the taking or charging of fees.
So here we stand with a questions. Is this land Nevada State land or US territory? If state land, then my fathers rights are recognized and the federal government has no claim to charge for something that is not theirs. If it is US territory then Nevada is not a sovereign state. Only 11% of Nevada is declared by the federal government to be private or state. The rest they claim as their land to do what they want with and the people of Nevada have no rights to it.
Now more questions; Should the people of Nevada have the right to govern their own state? Why did the federal government retain 89% of Nevada land after statehood? Does the US constitution give the federal government the right to retaining state land? A good study of these questions will answer why Cliven Bundy refuses to pay an entity for something that is not theirs.
thanks for posting, good to see their explanation.
Also clarifies why they don’t comply with a federal court.
Not a good way to put the question, since the land was never state land.
It wasn't state land before the creation of the state, since there was no state. And it wasn't state land after creation of the state, since it never stopped being Federal land.
He needs to find another way of illustrating his point.
A poster commented last week that had Bundy paid the fees, he would have been required to acknowledge the federal dominion of the water shed and this would have cut his water usage by half resulting in losing his cattle business.
Something caused 50 or so ranchers in Nevada to be put out of business. That is the real scandal. That is what needs investigating.
It is certainly no surprise that a Federal court upholds Federal supremacy.
Sometimes it seems that expanding the scope and power of the Federal government is more important to the Federal courts than any other matter with which they are tasked.
But disobeying an order from such a court, sadly, is asking for big trouble.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
I am not clear on the concept of “presumptive right”. Can someone kindly explain what it is an why it is important? Google is not of much help.
Thanks in advance
If the government said he couldnt use the land 20 years ago, because of a turtle, why would he pay them a grazing fee? Did the government charge him for grazing on land which they forbid him to use?
Mr. Bundy has a deeded right to use the land.
These same questions, I have raised in earler posts.
I stand with the Bundy’s.
It was a Federal Territory.
Of course it was Federal land!
It’s also true that BLM can and does change the terms of the grazing agreements unilaterally, to which the ranchers have the choice of “take it or leave it”. No one could operate a business under those conditions.
“...he would have been required to acknowledge the federal dominion of the water shed and this would have cut his water usage by half resulting in losing his cattle business.
Something caused 50 or so ranchers in Nevada to be put out of business.”
I enjoyed reading this article - lean red something from it, actually.
Would it be possible to demonstrate that without going to too much trouble?
” forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States”
You are missing the ‘unappropriated’ part.
Some of it had been appropriated to ranchers like Bundy. They don’t own it, just the rights to use it for ranching.
So all federal territory is federal land, all federal land is federal territoty?
Puerto Rico and Guam are on the same legal footing as Camp David and Fort Knox? .
Territorys and the people in them can form states to self govern and have rights equal to all other states...
Random federal own land can not form states and do not self govern in any form..its federal private property
Territorys and the people in them can form states to self govern — but until they do, it is a Federal territory.
By the way, you’ll notice that Mr. Bundy says that his family has “claims” to the land — but he does not say that they ever claimed to own it.
It's preemptive Right:
4. Having or marked by the power to preempt or take precedence
It was a Right to public grazing that homesteaders received as an incentive to settle the West. Acknowledgment of these Rights can be found in the Library of Congress during the discussion concerning the selling of land for the railroad.
(Sorry for the cut & paste - the Library disables active links)
40th Congress, 2nd Session, S190, December 13, 1867 (page3, Line12)
Provided, this privilege shall not extend to lands upon which there many be rightful claims under the preemption and homestead laws
These Rights preempt, (or prevent) any government law or organization from affecting the use of the public land as long as the landholder meets his end of the bargain.
Actually Congress does that, and the agency administers.
Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act and created the Grazing Division to administer it. They weren't very successful so they changed the name to US Grazing Service and relocated to Salt Lake City.
Then the US Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office to create BLM.
Then Congress passed FPLMA in 1976 and BLM's mission was changed to Multi-use and tightening control over the lands. The Land Office duties were shifted elsewhere. Homesteading ended at that time.
Congress enacted numerous acts back in the 70s to deal with problems beside over-grazing: OSHA, MHSA, Endangered Species act, Pollution control acts and creating EPA, Logging policies to deal with clearcutting, the Magnussen Act to regulate the ocean fisheries.
Did congress also authorize BLM to militarize themselves?
The pretense of "environmental protection" via Federal authority has created a situation where the government is driving all manner of American producers of food and energy out of business by making them outlaws for doing what humankind has done for the past 5,000 years or more.
The same is happening on both coasts with American commercial fishing. Feds "protect" voracious sea mammals such as seals, otters, sea lions, and other critters. Before said protection, these smart animals learned pretty fast not to mess with fishermen and kept their distance; the critters and West Coast fishermen pretty much co-existed. Once the Feds got involved, the critter populations exploded by about quadruple and ATE FISH, not to mention clambered anywhere they pleased and sunk docks and half-sunk sailboats at anchor in the process, and are still doing so.
But gullible Americans have been bamboozled into blaming American fishermen for "depleting" the fish stocks. Meanwhile, in exactly the same fashion as the Feds clamp python-like with ever tightening "environmental protections," food producers from cattlemen to fishermen are CRIMINALIZED.
Desert turtles and fish have adapted to a lot more intense environmental change over the past hundred million years than anything man can throw at them in the course a few decades or even centuries. But the Federal government has decided that individuals no longer have the right to decide to fish the seas or harvest crops or run livestock on open land, as mankind has done for millennia. The root of tyranny lies in preventing free people from producing their own food and energy.
That's what this is about, and environmentalist "saving the planet" horse manure is its false benevolent pretense.
The best way I’ve heard it described is as a legally binding easement. My folks have an legal easement for the land the road to their property is on. The actual land owner can never take their right to that road away, not can any subsequent land owner. It seems some of the early agreements to graze land were like legal grazing rights easements.
I say put those 250 BLM guys with their tactical gear on the border and let them get some combat experience facing down the drug cartels.
I don’t know if it is exactly like homesteading. The land we own was homesteaded, the first entry on the deed is US Government to [homesteader].
I think grazing rights are more like a legal easement, the right to use the land for grazing purposes. The people that held preemptive rights or grazing rights never got a actual deed to the land. If they had got the actual deed like homesteaders did, Bundy’s wouldn’t be having the problems they are having now.
That's just one of the things you will have had to live with as more and more people have owned guns. Just like you are going to have to live with school shootings and SWAT teams in every local podunk PD and Sheriffs' office.
That's our culture.
Ammon Bundy is a very humble low key man. When he says 'survival' I'm sure that isn't even the half of it. I wonder how many people can appreciate just how difficult it must have been to stay alive much less build a profitable cattle business in that scorching hot nearly barren desert?
Yes, they built that! Not the BLM, FedMob government or even the state of Nevada. The FedMob can't even manage to raise Desert Tortoises in their native habitat. They made a refuge, fenced everything else out, gave the tortoises supplemental feed and still have a tortoise herd so sickly they have to kill half of them.
It’s easier to go after law abiding Americans than to secure our borders from non-law abiding illegal law breakers.
The states and its citizens are to be equal to other states and its citizens so why did some states get the majority of the land in them and other did not?
Two federal land purchases, one from France the other from Mexico..
A State form in each, Nebraska and Nevada.
One State and it citizen own 80 + % of it self and one is 80+% owned by the Fed..why?
How can you say the two states and there citizens were treated equal by the Federal
The land is not private Federal property. .it is land held is common by all US citizens for the benefit of US citizens
...the key is common ownership not private government ownership..
Common ownership and common right to public grazing land and water is a long understood concept...many a public place in older big cities began as common public grazing land...the Commons in Boston for one.
The common citizens had a common RIGHT to its use for its intended use.
But more, in these Federal territory once they became States there was a promise for common federal land in the territory to covert to common State and County ownership not the other way and convert to private Federal land..BLM is treating this as if it were 100% Federal private property...
Not sure what you mean by “Federal private property”, but the question is who holds title, and how it is held.
If the Bundys or their predecessors in interest held title to the land in “fee simple” at the time Congress created the Nevada territory, then the land could not have been Federalized. Thus all the old families in New Orleans continued to own their property (to which they previously acquired title under French law) after the Louisiana purchase.
As to why Nevada let the Federal government retain 80% of the land as Federal land — you’d have to look into the motives of the men who formed the first state government.
I have a sneaking suspicion that they were open range cattlemen who wanted to continue their existing arrangements for grazing etc. — never anticipating that the Federal government would change from a protector into a monster.
I didn't mean to imply it was an actual deed, but more that its a provision TO the deed, or as you said, an easement.
Thank you so much! God bless you. Looks like you got a good mark in the Book of Life. You are the only one who found this very important point that I have seen.
Camp David is Federally own private property ..
A military base like Fort Knox is Federally owned private property.
It is not going to ever form a State
and you as a citizen are not going to have access unless invited.
Vs Federal territory.
Guam is a territory own by the United States..
There is land there own by private citizens. .there is land own in private by the Federal, like military bases...
And there is public land and assets.. public road, beaches, water supplies, ect. held in common for the citizens common use..
Its own by the Federal because it a Federal territory but it is not privately own by the Federal..
else BLM could kick you off a public beach or road as if it was private property.
Its like the old story about German law..
...if it is not explicitly allowed its always forbid..
That how federal private property works..if your not explicitly allowed on a military base you are forbidden.
In contrast to the German law the American law was ...
if not explicitly forbidden, its always allowed.
That how public property works
Your allowed, its your right to use as a citizen and if your being denied its..the government, not you, need to justify why your being denied your common historical right you had before
How many were targeted by the IRS, EPA, or other rogue agencies! The feds are clearly over stepping their authority. Time to start hanging these bastards!
are his steaks for sale? (to show support)
.....I continue to be dazzled by the correctness of the writings from the Bundy’s both technically and subjectively and historically.
Good job Bundy’s!!!
Good post. Right on the mark.
Ms Fielder does well in pointing out the direction western states need to be taking. And, if hostilities can be held in abeyance long enough, I believe they will.
The mooch will have the chance to pay her fees at trial time...
Thank you for posting that. I watched the Fielder video last night. Very informative. I’ll try to get to the other two videos tonight.