• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

One Bundy "Deed" From 1948

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
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.

We've been on this place for 75 years but I don't think we would be here much longer if we quit paying the lease fee.
Not going to argue about who claimed what but Bundy did pay Grazing fees from what we are told until 1993 when he quit. I am aware that they wanted him to reduce numbers but he did acknowledge the BLm before hand.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
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?


Wonder why hypo hasn't come up with the Grazing and or water rights title?

He must be slipping. :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I'm more worried about how the government can unilaterally decide that rights become permits, which can be taken away at their sole discretion.

When will we be needing to apply for those free speech permits?
 

Mike

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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?

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

Well-known member
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?

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.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
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.

Thank you,
Ammon Bundy
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
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.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-bundy-ranch-dispute-as-blm-exploiting-fracking-rights.3439/


This article said he originally grazed 158,000 acres and when he got into dispute his cattle ranged much more. I thought i had read that 600,00 number when the cattle were getting into the lake mead area.
I60 acres was the size of a homestead. Many in this area were able to get an additional 160. That deed was for land purchased in 1948 were grazing rights attached? I didn't see any. If that is all his deeded land was he just squatting on land since 1870?
 

Mike

Well-known member
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).
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
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).

Or put a lien on his cattle and when he died, they got paid.
 

Tam

Well-known member
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? :?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Yes we don't understand "ALL: the issues.
Yes the BLM went in heavy handed.

Would I be able to support Bundy more if he had kept his cattle to his "original" permit. Yes

If this map will copy or go to the link and see where his cattle were in Trespass and tell me how much bigger was that then the 158,000 acres. Would you allow your neighbor to run on your ground?


Here are the regions under discussion. Note the actual Bundy Ranch is the small green square. Just 160 acres. The grazing area (which is all public land) is nearly 1,000 times as large at 158,000 acres. The red outline shows the area of public land he originally had leased grazing rights to, but lost in the 1990s. The black shaded areas are regions he never had grazing rights to, but the BLM claims he's been grazing cattle illegally there too. And again, what he actually owns is just the area indicated by the green square.
[​IMG]

Don't think I can get the map to copy so just go to the link.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-bundy-ranch-dispute-as-blm-exploiting-fracking-rights.3439/
 

crr

New member
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).

Actually back in 1993 he had grazing rights for 200,000 acres. Since he stopping paying fees and started trespassing he expanded to several hundred thousand more acres.

The BLM has no power to levy or lien anything.

Considering the BLM had patience to the tune of over 20 years, and Bundy called in armed militia from throughout the country, threatened he'd use guns, and he implied that this may be another Waco, the show of force was not excessive.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
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? :?

It doesn't. I made that remark because of what Mike said:
"when all they had to do was levy his bank account(s)". We weren't referencing getting the cattle off the land. We were referring to how the BLM could get paid.
 
Top