BLM, Forest Service and Nevada Ranchers

[Grizzley]

In the last two days I have watched or read about conflicts between Nevada Ranchers, BLM, and the Forest Service...one on Fox News last night and the other article on the Fox website. All of you are more informed than I, so I would like to hear a few of your views on this. Buzz you out there?

 

[huntRme]

The big question here was if the FS didn't know where the forest boundary was, how could they determine that any of the cows were across the line? And, why has the case been referred to the 9th Court of Appeals, which is for environmental cases, when this is a civil trespass case? Why didn't the FS just tell the ranchers that, hey we're going to go out and find the line and if necessary we'll have you come out and round up your cows, instead of the gestapo tactics? Hmmm.

 

[BuzzH]

I would guess you're referring to the situation with the Bundy grazing his cattle illegally for many years???

It looks to me like the BLM and at least 2 judges have told him its time to get his cattle off the BLM that he's not paying for.

I dont know much about it, other than what I've read. Maybe 1-pointer can chime in with what he thinks.

 

[1_pointer]

I've only just read the article on Fox News. It sounds like the agency has crossed their Ts and dotted the I's. It reads that at least one, possibly two, decisions were issued ordering the cattle off. These were apparently upheld by at least two different judges. I'm not sure if the tortoise or non payment was the cause for issuing the decision, but regardless the permittee lost in court. The cows have to come off. He cannot pay the county as they do not have the authority to issue grazing permits for that land.

Impoundment is absolutely the last resort. The solicitor's are very cautious to suggest taking that action for the threat of TORT claims. Therefore, these types of actions recieve huge amounts of scrutiny from both sides and very likely wouldn't be taking place without all the ducks in their proper rows.

Regarding the issue of where the property lines are, which was not mentioned in the article I read, but was above. That may or may not matter. If the private land is in Exchange of Use (through a signed agreement), the landowner has abdicated grazing management for that land to the federal agency and therefore the land is managed in common with the federal lands within that grazing allotment. This is common on allotments with checkerboard ownership. The lands can be withdrawn from that agreement easily by the landowner. However, if the lands are not fenced or animals placed on that land are allowed to wander on to federal lands they are considered in tresspass.

 

[MThuntr]

I finally read a couple of the articles. I agree with 1_pointer. It looks like the BLM has the poop in a group and have tried multiple times to get their payments. Trespass livestock is a big thing especially when talking Endangered species. The BLM is bound by the laws (and court rulings) to protect the habitat.

His claim that his Mormon ancestors hold legal right to the land is unfounded. If this claim were the case, multiple Native American tribes would actually control the land.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

I thought the part about his Mormon ancestors using the land in the 1800's was his strongest point. I used similar arguments from 2nd - 5th grade with great success.

It's possible this guy or one of his animals saw some stuff he wasn't supposed to over at Area 51 and that's the real reason the animals are getting booted.

 

[Blacktailbc]

Sounds like he just doesn't want to follow the rules. Everyone wants to be "special"

 

[mrmedora]

It has been interesting following the story. I applaud his "fight for what you believe in" attitude, with that being said, he needs to pick his battles a little wiser. Our county has a lot of FS land, and they can be difficult at times to deal with, but can't we all!!

 

[Grizzley]

Thanks for taking time to reply...It is an education when reading posts on this site. What appears to be cut and dry in newspaper or on TV is often times one-sided. Thanks again!

 

[Straight Arrow]

...they can be difficult at times to deal with..

Most landlords are when you assert "squatters rights" and don't pay your rent (low-cost grazing fees).

 

[mrmedora]

S.A., you are correct. $1.35/AUM is a deal any cattle producer would love an opportunity to have!

 

[JoseCuervo]

The guy decided in 1994 to quit paying his grazing fees, resulting in his cattle trespassing for 20 years and failing to pay over $1 million to the US Treasury.

As a taxpayer, I have ZERO sympathy for somebody who causes our nation's deficit to increase so that he can fatten his cattle on My Public Lands.

 

[drahthaar]

So he was paying grazing fees and then quit? Well then....sheesh.

I never got that in the articles I read. I think that makes his case even worse for him. I was under the impression he had never paid, and they tried to make him, and then all this festered.

 

[Zach]

Thanks for taking time to reply...It is an education when reading posts on this site. What appears to be cut and dry in newspaper or on TV is often times one-sided. Thanks again!

That's a funny statement.

I sat on a murder trial for 6 months as a juror. I asked my wife to save all the newspaper clippings so I could read them after the trial was over. The reporters must have been sitting in a different court room.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/n...ed-clark-county-rancher-clash-federal-rangers

No matter who's right, it's gonna get ugly.

 

[Zach]

I thought the part about his Mormon ancestors using the land in the 1800's was his strongest point. I used similar arguments from 2nd - 5th grade with great success.

It's possible this guy or one of his animals saw some stuff he wasn't supposed to over at Area 51 and that's the real reason the animals are getting booted.

Now folks are gonna tell you to get out the tin foil.

 

[tjones]

Run BHR, run now, Jose is baaacccck.

 

[dainer]

So, this is just about non payment of grazing fees? Nothing to do with endangered desert tortoises? Nothing to do with 2,000 Feral horses still roaming the range that has a carrying capacity of 300? Now, please take the tinfoil off of your rabbit ears and place another layer on your hat...Nothing to do with water rights? Development? Fracking? I have been a casual observer of this story, just wondering...

http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

Nevada is #1 on the list, distantly followed by Alaska. 84.5% of Nevada is federally owned. 67% of that is BLM.

 

[Straight Arrow]

dainer, likely all those complex issues play a part in this debacle. However, those issues don't constitute justification for not paying the relatively low grazing fees and for squatting and claiming ownership.

 

[noharleyyet]

Those pesky right wing insurrectionist rags...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/cliven_bundy_and_eric_holders_rule_of_law.html

 

[SFC B]

The whackos surely are trying to give this traction, aren't they....see Jose's comment above. The sweetheart grazing deal apparently just wasn't good enough. It is amazing what greed will lead folks to try an justify.