Big Muddy rancher said:So near as I can tell he has title to 160 acres and an allotment of irrigation water from a canal/ditch. :?
Where is the PDF of the Grazing permit or Water rights on the 600,000 acres he is claiming?
Before you shoot me I don't agree with the BLM's action or even the fact that the Feds own most of the western states But as H so eloquently states they have purchased Grazing rights so there must be some form of record.
iwannabeacowboy said:Big Muddy rancher said:So near as I can tell he has title to 160 acres and an allotment of irrigation water from a canal/ditch. :?
Where is the PDF of the Grazing permit or Water rights on the 600,000 acres he is claiming?
Before you shoot me I don't agree with the BLM's action or even the fact that the Feds own most of the western states But as H so eloquently states they have purchased Grazing rights so there must be some form of record.
It is a valid request. However, I haven't heard .gov make a accusation that the grazing and water rights were not originally purchased and then subsequently sold to be obtained by Bundy. That would be a different situation than what they've claimed of him not paying BLM "grazing fees". Add to that, the issue of use for that many years and there is a high potential to claim rights based on that alone- I don't much care for that type of claim, like a fence that has been in use for 15 years qualifies as the property line. But whatever the reasoning, I have yet to see where .gov has claimed his family didn't originally have rights to the grazing. The fact that they offered him the BLM grazing fee would support that they believed he did.
Mike said:http://www4.8newsnow.com/docs/2014/bundy/deed.pdf
Big Muddy rancher said:Mike said:http://www4.8newsnow.com/docs/2014/bundy/deed.pdf
So Mike what do you think is the purpose of the release of this Deed?
Mike said:Big Muddy rancher said:Mike said:http://www4.8newsnow.com/docs/2014/bundy/deed.pdf
So Mike what do you think is the purpose of the release of this Deed?
Information to the public I suppose. There is enough misinformation out there now.
Why do you ask?
Big Muddy rancher said:Mike said:Big Muddy rancher said:So Mike what do you think is the purpose of the release of this Deed?
Information to the public I suppose. There is enough misinformation out there now.
Why do you ask?
I was just curious why a deed to 160 was important to the claim of the 600.000 or so. Is it where he lives or out in the middle of the graze?
Mike said:Big Muddy rancher said:Mike said:Information to the public I suppose. There is enough misinformation out there now.
Why do you ask?
I was just curious why a deed to 160 was important to the claim of the 600.000 or so. Is it where he lives or out in the middle of the graze?
Did Bundy actually claim to own or graze 600,000 acres? I have read that the total acreage of Bundy's grazing is anywhere between a few thousand acres and up.
The deed to the 160 ac. was the maximum allowed to homestead at the time. It shows that he does own property there while some say it's ALL Federal Land.
If there is a push for the Feds to gain control of his land for a solar/wind generating facility, they'll need that 160 acres too if it's in the middle of the proposed site.
I have more questions than I have answers to all this except that the heavy-handedness of the "Troops" that came in were definitely out of line.
Mike said:In 1993 or 1994, they cut Bundy's grazing permit back to 150 animals for the Tortoises. That is a known.
That could not have been associated only with the 160 acre Homestead plot because we know that 150 animals on 160 acres will not work in that desert environment. The BLM has to know that too.
Point is, he had grazing rights at that time and if it was for the 600,000 acres mentioned, it would be asinine to think that 1 Animal Unit per 150 acres would even be feasible for cattle or economically sustainable.
I'm pretty sure the 160 acres is where his melon farm is located.
Like I say, too few facts are known for me to take a side in the grazing situation, but the BLM definitely over-stepped the line in their infamous "Show Of Force" when all they had to do was levy his bank account(s).
Mike said:In 1993 or 1994, they cut Bundy's grazing permit back to 150 animals for the Tortoises. That is a known.
That could not have been associated only with the 160 acre Homestead plot because we know that 150 animals on 160 acres will not work in that desert environment. The BLM has to know that too.
Point is, he had grazing rights at that time and if it was for the 600,000 acres mentioned, it would be asinine to think that 1 Animal Unit per 150 acres would even be feasible for cattle or economically sustainable.
I'm pretty sure the 160 acres is where his melon farm is located.
Like I say, too few facts are known for me to take a side in the grazing situation, but the BLM definitely over-stepped the line in their infamous "Show Of Force" when all they had to do was levy his bank account(s).
The BLM has no power to levy or lien anything.
Mike said:The BLM has no power to levy or lien anything.
I'm sure that a properly venued Court does. :roll:
Tam said:As I read it he did not have access to 600,000 acres he "took" access to 600,000 after he lost his permits to access any land due to NONPAYMENT of permit fees in 94.
His permits a were up for renewal in 93 when he had his dispute with the BLM over his alloted AUM's, they left them open until 94 and then revoked them as he said he no longer recognised them to be the legal land owners and was not going to pay them anything. He stopped paying his fees over the dispute over the cut in his AUM's then started growing his herd to the reported 900 to 1000 head it is now by accessing land that was NEVER PERMITED TO HIM. Court documents have been looked at by legal beagles at FOX News and it has been reported by that very Conservative network that the Government had Bundy dead to right in the lawsuits they filed on him due to his own illegal actions as he was trespassing on Federal Land and in doing so he was the law breaker not the BLM, as some on here would have us believing. Like I said before and will say again if he had stayed on the land he was once permitted to that would have been one thing but he chose to access land he had NEVER HAD LEGAL ACCESS TO hence the trespassing charges put on him by the National Park Service right along with the BLM trespassing charges.
I don't agree with the way it was handled AT ALL but that doe not change the fact the BLM was in charge of the land and Bundy was trespassing and after all his protesting for the public attention he ADMITTS HE WAS TRESPASSING FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS. If anyone else did that to a Private land owner they would be in jail under Nevada Livestock Trespass Laws but because it was the Federal Government he was trespassing against everyone seems to think we should all jump on our horses and ride to his defense. :roll:
There are cases out there where the land owners did the right thing and their government over reaching cases are being ignored due to this lawbreaker and his armed standoff with the BLM is distracting every ones attention.
As far as putting a lien on his land and cattle how does that deal with his refusal to remove the cattle from land he is trespassing on? :?