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

To: SeekAndFind

The law is on Bundy’s side - strictly speaking. Nevada grazing law says that Bundy, by historic use, has a grazing easement on the land, regardless of who owns the dirt. This easement includes the forage and the water, and is similar to mineral rights in that they can be held separately from the real estate.

Bundy’s rights were established before the feds took possession of the land - the transfer of the land from the state to the feds did not end his grazing easement. He needs to start making his case based on Nevada range law and grazing easements. His rights have nothing to do with whether or not the feds own 80% of the land - his grazing easement supersedes the federal ownership. They do not have the authority to charge him for rights or easements he already owns - which is why they claim payment for “management”. However, they are supposed to manage it to maximize grazing - and they haven’t been doing that - which is why Bundy stopped paying them. They have no right to “manage” the grazing without his consent - and if they aren’t doing the job he was paying them for, i.e. managing HIS forage for maximum grazing capacity, he has every right to stop paying them.

He has the law on his side, if he and his attorneys would argue the proper laws.


27 posted on 04/16/2014 10:13:57 AM PDT by GilesB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: GilesB

RE: Nevada grazing law says that Bundy, by historic use, has a grazing easement on the land, regardless of who owns the dirt.

OK, that’s Nevada law, what does Federal Law say? And which law trumps which in this country according to the constitution?


31 posted on 04/16/2014 10:15:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: GilesB

“Nevada grazing law says that Bundy, by historic use, has a grazing easement on the land, regardless of who owns the dirt.”

You do have a point.

Hubby and I bought a piece of land (about 4.25 acres) ten years ago. At the signing, we found out that 0.25 acres of that land was an easement for two other properties.

We had to maintain the road for their use, couldn’t fence it, and had no right to keep them off of it. They had rights to drive it first.


133 posted on 04/16/2014 4:33:04 PM PDT by Marie (When are they going to take back Obama's peace prize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: GilesB
Well stated. That's my understanding too. Plus didn't it start out as a sort of voluntary arrangement for the BLM to kinda mediate the squabbles between ranchers?

Now that there are no other ranchers left, you would think that Bundy could run lots of cows, especially since it has been found that the cows actually help the tortoise, and make the soil more fertile and organic.

Pretty obvious that they want the land for some other purpose than what they have stated, and they are willing to exercise and incredible abuse of power to get their way.

159 posted on 04/16/2014 9:41:36 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

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