Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch

[theDoctorisIn]

So that's like saying we're supposed to stop at a four way intersection for the lack of a stop sign.

I don't understand what you mean.

Okay, I thought that was rather straightforward.

What I'm trying to say is, if we need a stop sign to tell us to stop at an intersection, the BLM needs to have signs and fences indicating where it's land is. Something like "WARNING: These are federally protected lands, grazing in this area is not permitted under any circumstance *insert applicable Federal statutes here*"

That warning isn't posted, because it's not true. Grazing is absolutely permitted on BLM land, as long as they pay the fees and get the lease.

I don't think you understand how grazing cattle works. As a general rule, you're not allowed to do it on land that you don't own (or, in the case of BLM land, have a lease for) - there's no need for signs to tell you that.

There's no sign in the park across the street from my house that prohibits grazing cattle there either, but that doesn't make it ok.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You are all focusing on the wrong question here.

Why does the federal government own 85% of any state? How can the tenth amendment ever stand when the feds own 85% of the state? The feds should never be the owners of any land within a state other than DC.

If it wasn't for that problem situations like this wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

To put it simply, the federal government owns 80% of Nevada because no one else wanted it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...tle-grazing-in-Gold-Butte-area-11-29-2010.pdf
read that pdf for more info on what has been going on. It is a pdf.

The*Bureau of Land Management*(BLM) is an agency within the*United States Department of the Interior*that administers America's*public lands, totaling approximately 247.3 million acres, or one-eighth of the landmass of the country.[1]*The BLM also manages 700*million acres (2,800,000*km2) of subsurface mineral estate underlying federal, state, and private lands.*
From wiki

Are you claiming that Bundys cattle were grazing on underground minerals under private land?

So, Clark County does own that land?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't understand what you mean.

Okay, I thought that was rather straightforward.

What I'm trying to say is, if we need a stop sign to tell us to stop at an intersection, the BLM needs to have signs and fences indicating where it's land is. Something like "WARNING: These are federally protected lands, grazing in this area is not permitted under any circumstance *insert applicable Federal statutes here*"

That warning isn't posted, because it's not true. Grazing is absolutely permitted on BLM land, as long as they pay the fees and get the lease.

I don't think you understand how grazing cattle works. As a general rule, you're not allowed to do it on land that you don't own (or, in the case of BLM land, have a lease for) - there's no need for signs to tell you that.

There's no sign in the park across the street from my house that prohibits grazing cattle there either, but that doesn't make it ok.

Easy, simply amend that to "Grazing on these lands is not permitted without proper documentation" it isn't that hard.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...tle-grazing-in-Gold-Butte-area-11-29-2010.pdf
read that pdf for more info on what has been going on. It is a pdf.

Are you claiming that Bundys cattle were grazing on underground minerals under private land?

So, Clark County does own that land?

No, they don't. I don't know why this is so hard for you guys to understand.

What makes you think they do?

 

[depotoo]

Ok, I have lost the link showing how much of this was private land they have taken over to develop a conservati8n area. Will look later today and post it. Here is a little about what is going with it from a bill passed - MESQUITE, NV – Protect Nevada, a broad coalition of community and business leaders and conservation organizations, cheered Congressman Steven Horsford today for introducing legislation to protect Gold Butte and to boost the local economy surrounding this iconic landscape.“Congressman Horsford really listens to local citizens and has demonstrated that in this legislation,” said Nancy Hall, executive director of Friends of Gold Butte.* “We are hopeful that the local stakeholders will join us at the table to ensure its swift passage.”Congressman Horsford’s bill mirrors Senator Reid’s Gold Butte National Conservation Area Act with protections for Gold Butte.* It will designate a nearly 350,000-acre National Conservation Area (NCA) with 129,500 acres of wilderness on public lands just south of Mesquite.* In addition, 92,000 acres of lands currently being managed as wilderness within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area will be formally designated.

Gold Butte Protection and Economic Development Bill Introduced in the House | Friends of Gold Butte

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...tle-grazing-in-Gold-Butte-area-11-29-2010.pdf
read that pdf for more info on what has been going on. It is a pdf.

Are you claiming that Bundys cattle were grazing on underground minerals under private land?

You've posted that PDF quite a number of times already. It's the letter threatening a lawsuit that triggered the enforcement of the already standing court order.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether the land in question is state owned or federally owned, nor does it really have anything to do with anything I've said.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Okay, I thought that was rather straightforward.

What I'm trying to say is, if we need a stop sign to tell us to stop at an intersection, the BLM needs to have signs and fences indicating where it's land is. Something like "WARNING: These are federally protected lands, grazing in this area is not permitted under any circumstance *insert applicable Federal statutes here*"

That warning isn't posted, because it's not true. Grazing is absolutely permitted on BLM land, as long as they pay the fees and get the lease.

I don't think you understand how grazing cattle works. As a general rule, you're not allowed to do it on land that you don't own (or, in the case of BLM land, have a lease for) - there's no need for signs to tell you that.

There's no sign in the park across the street from my house that prohibits grazing cattle there either, but that doesn't make it ok.

Easy, simply amend that to "Grazing on these lands is not permitted without proper documentation" it isn't that hard.

There's no sign because there is no possible reason that someone would think it was OK to graze their cattle there without permission.

If you don't own the land, or don't have a lease for it, you simply can't graze your cattle there, even if there isn't a sign specifically telling you that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ok, I have lost the link showingvhow much Ofvthisvwas privwte land tgey have taken over to develop a conservati8n area. Will look later today and post it. Here is a little about what is going with it from a bill passed - MESQUITE, NV – Protect Nevada, a broad coalition of community and business leaders and conservation organizations, cheered Congressman Steven Horsford today for introducing legislation to protect Gold Butte and to boost the local economy surrounding this iconic landscape.“Congressman Horsford really listens to local citizens and has demonstrated that in this legislation,” said Nancy Hall, executive director of Friends of Gold Butte.* “We are hopeful that the local stakeholders will join us at the table to ensure its swift passage.”Congressman Horsford’s bill mirrors Senator Reid’s Gold Butte National Conservation Area Act with protections for Gold Butte.* It will designate a nearly 350,000-acre National Conservation Area (NCA) with 129,500 acres of wilderness on public lands just south of Mesquite.* In addition, 92,000 acres of lands currently being managed as wilderness within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area will be formally designated.

Gold Butte Protection and Economic Development Bill Introduced in the House | Friends of Gold Butte

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...tle-grazing-in-Gold-Butte-area-11-29-2010.pdf
read that pdf for more info on what has been going on. It is a pdf.

You've posted that PDF quite a number of times already. It's the letter threatening a lawsuit that triggered the enforcement of the already standing court order.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether the land in question is state owned or federally owned, nor does it really have anything to do with anything I've said.

It's entirely irrelevant, because that law hasn't actually passed.

It's just a bill, not a law.

 

[jon_berzerk]

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch |

Doesn't surprise me one bit

you know it pal

harry has been trying desperately to get "golf Butte" a national conservation area

so far he can not get it through congress

S.1054 - Gold Butte National Conservation Area Act

Latest Action: 05/23/2013 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (05/23/2013)

Gold Butte National Conservation Area Act - Establishes the Gold Butte National Conservation Area in Nevada.

Establishes the Gold Butte National Conservation Area Advisory Council.

Designates specified wilderness areas administered by the National Park Service (NPS) or the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Clark County, Nevada, as wilderness and as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Authorizes the Secretary, through the BLM, to establish a visitor center and field office in Mesquite, Nevada, to assist in fulfilling the purposes of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, and the Conservation Area.

States that the withdrawal of specified parcels of BLM lands for use by the Bureau of Reclamation is terminated.

S.1054 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Gold Butte National Conservation Area Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 

[theDoctorisIn]

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch |

Doesn't surprise me one bit

you know it pal

harry has been trying desperately to get "golf Butte" a national conservation area

so far he can not get it through congress

S.1054 - Gold Butte National Conservation Area Act

Latest Action: 05/23/2013 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (05/23/2013)

Gold Butte National Conservation Area Act - Establishes the Gold Butte National Conservation Area in Nevada.

Establishes the Gold Butte National Conservation Area Advisory Council.

Designates specified wilderness areas administered by the National Park Service (NPS) or the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Clark County, Nevada, as wilderness and as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Authorizes the Secretary, through the BLM, to establish a visitor center and field office in Mesquite, Nevada, to assist in fulfilling the purposes of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, and the Conservation Area.

States that the withdrawal of specified parcels of BLM lands for use by the Bureau of Reclamation is terminated.

S.1054 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Gold Butte National Conservation Area Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Wait, which is it?

Does Harry Reid want to build a solar plant there, or start a national conservation zone?

 

[TemplarKormac]

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...tle-grazing-in-Gold-Butte-area-11-29-2010.pdf
read that pdf for more info on what has been going on. It is a pdf.

Are you claiming that Bundys cattle were grazing on underground minerals under private land?

You've posted that PDF quite a number of times already. It's the letter threatening a lawsuit that triggered the enforcement of the already standing court order.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether the land in question is state owned or federally owned, nor does it really have anything to do with anything I've said.

Actually, it says that Clark County purchased the Bunkerville Allotment for $375,000, and retired it for the sake of a desert land tortoise. So, Bundy would be correct that the 250 square mile allotment does in fact belong to the State of Nevada, not to the Federal government. Believe it or not, like it or not, Bundy has a case.

"In December, 1998 Clark County purchased the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment for $375,000 and retired them for the benefit and protection of the desert tortoise."

-Via depotoo's PDF

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You are all focusing on the wrong question here.

Why does the federal government own 85% of any state? How can the tenth amendment ever stand when the feds own 85% of the state? The feds should never be the owners of any land within a state other than DC.

If it wasn't for that problem situations like this wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

To put it simply, the federal government owns 80% of Nevada because no one else wanted it.

Yet we are in an armed stand off over land nobody supposedly wants. The feds aren't going to do anything with it, Bundy is willing to graze cattle and provide food on it, Nevada could get some grazing fees out of it which he has paid. So once again why are the feds involved here?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...tle-grazing-in-Gold-Butte-area-11-29-2010.pdf
read that pdf for more info on what has been going on. It is a pdf.

You've posted that PDF quite a number of times already. It's the letter threatening a lawsuit that triggered the enforcement of the already standing court order.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether the land in question is state owned or federally owned, nor does it really have anything to do with anything I've said.

Actually, it says that Clark County purchased the Bunkerville Allotment for $375,000, and retired it for the sake of a desert land tortoise. So, Bundy would be correct that the 250 square mile allotment does in fact belong to the State of Nevada, not to the Federal government.

"In December, 1998 Clark County purchased the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment for $375,000 and retired them for the benefit and protection of the desert tortoise."

-Via depotoo's PDF

Clark County bought the grazing rights after the court order vacated Bundy's grazing rights, and retired them.

That's actually the funniest part of this whole story - Bundy keeps talking about how he's willing to pay the county, yet the county decided to retire the grazing rights to the area rather than let another rancher lease them.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You are all focusing on the wrong question here.

Why does the federal government own 85% of any state? How can the tenth amendment ever stand when the feds own 85% of the state? The feds should never be the owners of any land within a state other than DC.

If it wasn't for that problem situations like this wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

To put it simply, the federal government owns 80% of Nevada because no one else wanted it.

Yet we are in an armed stand off over land nobody supposedly wants. The feds aren't going to do anything with it, Bundy is willing to graze cattle and provide food on it, Nevada could get some grazing fees out of it which he has paid. So once again why are the feds involved here?

1. The entire issue is that he's refusing to pay the grazing fees.

2. Are you suggesting that the federal government should just donate the land to the state? I don't think they want it.

 

[depotoo]

Irrelevant? No coincidence at all? Seriously?

Ok, I have lost the link showingvhow much Ofvthisvwas privwte land tgey have taken over to develop a conservati8n area. Will look later today and post it. Here is a little about what is going with it from a bill passed - MESQUITE, NV – Protect Nevada, a broad coalition of community and business leaders and conservation organizations, cheered Congressman Steven Horsford today for introducing legislation to protect Gold Butte and to boost the local economy surrounding this iconic landscape.“Congressman Horsford really listens to local citizens and has demonstrated that in this legislation,” said Nancy Hall, executive director of Friends of Gold Butte.* “We are hopeful that the local stakeholders will join us at the table to ensure its swift passage.”Congressman Horsford’s bill mirrors Senator Reid’s Gold Butte National Conservation Area Act with protections for Gold Butte.* It will designate a nearly 350,000-acre National Conservation Area (NCA) with 129,500 acres of wilderness on public lands just south of Mesquite.* In addition, 92,000 acres of lands currently being managed as wilderness within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area will be formally designated.

Gold Butte Protection and Economic Development Bill Introduced in the House | Friends of Gold Butte

You've posted that PDF quite a number of times already. It's the letter threatening a lawsuit that triggered the enforcement of the already standing court order.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether the land in question is state owned or federally owned, nor does it really have anything to do with anything I've said.

It's entirely irrelevant, because that law hasn't actually passed.

It's just a bill, not a law.

 

[jon_berzerk]

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch |

Doesn't surprise me one bit

you know it pal

harry has been trying desperately to get "golf Butte" a national conservation area

so far he can not get it through congress

S.1054 - Gold Butte National Conservation Area Act

Latest Action: 05/23/2013 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (05/23/2013)

Gold Butte National Conservation Area Act - Establishes the Gold Butte National Conservation Area in Nevada.

Establishes the Gold Butte National Conservation Area Advisory Council.

Designates specified wilderness areas administered by the National Park Service (NPS) or the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Clark County, Nevada, as wilderness and as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Authorizes the Secretary, through the BLM, to establish a visitor center and field office in Mesquite, Nevada, to assist in fulfilling the purposes of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, and the Conservation Area.

States that the withdrawal of specified parcels of BLM lands for use by the Bureau of Reclamation is terminated.

S.1054 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Gold Butte National Conservation Area Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Wait, which is it?

Does Harry Reid want to build a solar plant there, or start a national conservation zone?

who knows but he get his palms greased either way

 

[TemplarKormac]

You've posted that PDF quite a number of times already. It's the letter threatening a lawsuit that triggered the enforcement of the already standing court order.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether the land in question is state owned or federally owned, nor does it really have anything to do with anything I've said.

Actually, it says that Clark County purchased the Bunkerville Allotment for $375,000, and retired it for the sake of a desert land tortoise. So, Bundy would be correct that the 250 square mile allotment does in fact belong to the State of Nevada, not to the Federal government.

"In December, 1998 Clark County purchased the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment for $375,000 and retired them for the benefit and protection of the desert tortoise."

-Via depotoo's PDF

Clark County bought the grazing rights after the court order vacated Bundy's grazing rights, and retired them.

That's actually the funniest part of this whole story - Bundy keeps talking about how he's willing to pay the county, yet the county decided to retire the grazing rights to the area rather than let another rancher lease them.

So, why is the Federal Government involved now? This is a state's issue, not a Federal issue. The State of Nevada is now responsible for what goes on in that area, and can just as easily end this dispute once and for all. Bundy is right. The land and the rights belongs to the state. The Feds have no right to be there.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...tle-grazing-in-Gold-Butte-area-11-29-2010.pdf
read that pdf for more info on what has been going on. It is a pdf.

You've posted that PDF quite a number of times already. It's the letter threatening a lawsuit that triggered the enforcement of the already standing court order.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether the land in question is state owned or federally owned, nor does it really have anything to do with anything I've said.

Actually, it says that Clark County purchased the Bunkerville Allotment for $375,000, and retired it for the sake of a desert land tortoise. So, Bundy would be correct that the 250 square mile allotment does in fact belong to the State of Nevada, not to the Federal government. Believe it or not, like it or not, Bundy has a case.

"In December, 1998 Clark County purchased the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment for $375,000 and retired them for the benefit and protection of the desert tortoise."

-Via depotoo's PDF

Clark County bought the grazing rights - and permanently retired them. They didn't buy the land.

In fact, they bought the same grazing rights that Bundy had lost via court order after not paying the fees or following the rules.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually, it says that Clark County purchased the Bunkerville Allotment for $375,000, and retired it for the sake of a desert land tortoise. So, Bundy would be correct that the 250 square mile allotment does in fact belong to the State of Nevada, not to the Federal government.

"In December, 1998 Clark County purchased the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment for $375,000 and retired them for the benefit and protection of the desert tortoise."

-Via depotoo's PDF

Clark County bought the grazing rights after the court order vacated Bundy's grazing rights, and retired them.

That's actually the funniest part of this whole story - Bundy keeps talking about how he's willing to pay the county, yet the county decided to retire the grazing rights to the area rather than let another rancher lease them.

So, why is the Federal Government involved?

Because they own the damn land.

Why can't you fucking understand that? Grazing rights are not the same as the land itself.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That warning isn't posted, because it's not true. Grazing is absolutely permitted on BLM land, as long as they pay the fees and get the lease.

I don't think you understand how grazing cattle works. As a general rule, you're not allowed to do it on land that you don't own (or, in the case of BLM land, have a lease for) - there's no need for signs to tell you that.

There's no sign in the park across the street from my house that prohibits grazing cattle there either, but that doesn't make it ok.

Easy, simply amend that to "Grazing on these lands is not permitted without proper documentation" it isn't that hard.

There's no sign because there is no possible reason that someone would think it was OK to graze their cattle there without permission.

If you don't own the land, or don't have a lease for it, you simply can't graze your cattle there, even if there isn't a sign specifically telling you that.

You just stated that nobody wants that land so why would anyone care if some cattle graze on it?