What is this an example of to you?

[pErvinalia]

Looks complicated, but rural areas smell and so do the people who live in them.

Cities have civilized intelligent people in them even if some are politicians.

So that makes it a lot simpler

Uh-huh.




Comparted with:




Please just stay where you are.

It's hard to know whether Jonno is for real sometimes. But whatever he is, he lives a real sheltered life.

[Seth]

So some ChiCom solar thief want's to squat on Public Land to make grips of $$, and needs Harry Reid to shoo the cows away from their construction? What's the difference between them and Bundy? Religion?

No, Bundy is a resident steward of the land who keeps track of what goes on, keeps up improvements that serve wildlife as well as his cows, and who protects the carrying capacity of the land because if he doesn't, there won't be any forage for his cows to eat. Funny how he and his ancestors have been getting along just fine with the desert tortoise since 1870, and it's only when the BLM stuck its nose into things that the trouble started.

Guess WHY the BLM chose that particular place as a desert tortoise refuge. Was it because it was public lands that had been "raped" and "ravaged" and "destroyed" by evil public-lands ranchers? Nope. They chose his allotments for tortoise recovery precisely because he and his family have properly stewarded it and protected it for 140 years so that it can provide suitable habitat for the tortoise. You don't see the BLM bulldozing Las Vegas to make habitat do you? Nope. It was the destruction of habitat BY EVERYONE ELSE IN NEVADA who squeezed out the tortoise with development who caused the problem, not Bundy. Bundy is one of the only people left in Nevada who IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the plight of the tortoise. In fact, he is a vigorous protector of the tortoise and always has been. It's just that he knows, based on 140 years of family experience, that desert tortoises and cows can get along just fine together in that environment, especially when there is a resident land steward who has a vested economic interest in irrigating and protecting the very forage that both cows and the tortoise eat. Without his family's stewardship the area could have gone the way of the rest of it's natural habitat.

But instead of recognizing him for his long-term, lifetime, multi-generational protection and stewardship and improvement of the land that KEPT IT suitable habitat, he is on the verge of being bankrupted by BLM dunces who don't have a fucking clue about habitat preservation and what it actually takes by way of labor to make it happen. There isn't a chance in hell that the BLM has the manpower or expertise to assign people to that allotment to do the long, hard work of keeping up the land that Bundy and his family have always done, and when they drive him off, the land will suffer, become clogged with decadent invasive plants like sagebrush, which will kill off the forbs and grasses that make the biosystem work, the soil will become compacted by rainfall and wind and will not be churned up by the hooves of cows, which create billions of tiny pools that catch rainwater and keep the soil from crusting, which allows grasses and forbs to grow, and the tortoises will die off even faster under BLM non-stewardship because those dumb motherfuckers are too busy harassing ranchers to go out and work the land to keep it viable.

You can see example after example of places where grazing has been withdrawn from a parcel for up to 40 years where the ground is barren of grass and forbs, it's crusty and hardened and the only thing that grows is ancient, decadent sagebrush that crowds out everything else, but on the other side of the fence, quite literally, on a properly grazed allotment you'll find much less sagebrush and a vibrant grassland ecosystem that is actually created and maintained by cattle grazing.

The old saw that public lands rancher are destroying the west is a flat-out lie of monumental proportions pandered by insane ecozealots.

And the science that proves this to be true is being done today, and recent scientific research by grassland biologists shows that proper grazing is highly beneficial to the ecosystem, whereas withdrawing the land from all use is the MOST harmful thing they can do.

[Warren Dew]

Bundy doesn't own the land he runs his cows on.
Bundy doesn't sell his beef at any particular discount because the taxpayers feed his cows for him, so he doesn't deserve any special treatment in regard to his trespass on my lands.

Indeed. Every landlord should be able to call in gun toting paramilitary when evicting deadbeat tenants.

[Seth]

Bundy doesn't own the land he runs his cows on.
Bundy doesn't sell his beef at any particular discount because the taxpayers feed his cows for him, so he doesn't deserve any special treatment in regard to his trespass on my lands.

Just because he doesn't own it doesn't mean he doesn't have property rights under the law. The lands are as much his as they are yours, and under US law the Department of Agriculture is required to put the land to good use and is required to allow private citizens to use and enjoy their lands, and this includes commerce, from logging to grazing to water storage to mining to recreational activities. The law makes such lands "multiple use" public lands and if your family had homesteaded land for a cattle ranch in Nevada, you too would have a valuable property right in the forage and water on the adjacent public lands acquired by lawful occupation, use and improvement of the land.

Just because you're a Johnny-Come-Lately doesn't mean you have any right to interfere with established legal property rights, and neither does the BLM.

You don't like it, move somewhere else...like Cuba.

[pErvinalia]

Lol, but they aren't "legal". There's been multiple court rulings to that effect.

[Hermit]

...under US law the Department of Agriculture is required to ... allow private citizens to use and enjoy their lands, and this includes commerce, from logging to grazing to water storage to mining to recreational activities.

Yeah. Right. I'll be right over, acquire US citicenship and do me some loggin' on federally owned land.

[piscator]

Bundy doesn't own the land he runs his cows on.
Bundy doesn't sell his beef at any particular discount because the taxpayers feed his cows for him, so he doesn't deserve any special treatment in regard to his trespass on my lands.

Just because he doesn't own it doesn't mean he doesn't have property rights under the law. The lands are as much his as they are yours, and under US law the Department of Agriculture is required to put the land to good use and is required to allow private citizens to use and enjoy their lands, and this includes commerce, from logging to grazing to water storage to mining to recreational activities. The law makes such lands "multiple use" public lands and if your family had homesteaded land for a cattle ranch in Nevada, you too would have a valuable property right in the forage and water on the adjacent public lands acquired by lawful occupation, use and improvement of the land.

Just because you're a Johnny-Come-Lately doesn't mean you have any right to interfere with established legal property rights, and neither does the BLM.

You don't like it, move somewhere else...like Cuba.

Been there. It's beautiful, and ripe for American tourism...

Bundy enjoys no Squatter's Rights as he doesn't live on the Public Land in question, he just makes use of it. Moreover, Congress repealed the Preeemption Act in 1891, and Bundy and his ancestors weren't within the thresholds of the law then either..
These are just two of the many reasons why the courts have unanimously and consistently rejected every single action brought wrt this land by Mr Bundy so far.


"Settler - A person who, for the purpose of acquiring a pre-emption right, has gone upon the land in before original surveys, and is actually resident there.

Squatter - One who settles on another's land, particularly on public lands, without legal authority...A person entering upon lands, not claiming in good faith the right to do so by virtue of any title of his own or by virtue of some agreement with another whom he believes to hold the title."



Bundy also made less "improvements" on my land than was required under any Homestead Act or Mining Act. Bundy never built "Roads". He built gates across the roads the Taxpayer built, to illegally deny public access. He set his kids to work building pens and chutes for his own damn benefit, logging Federal Land for the raw materials.


Adverse Possession in Nevada:

5 years continuous hostile occupation. Check. Maybe.
All (back) taxes due and payable by taker. Ouch!
Colored title/MTR Color of Title. On Federal Land bought by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? Not happening. Period.

Were I an attorney, I would counsel Mr Bundy against continuing his present course, unless he felt like fighting the Feds for the rest of his life was a worthwhile hobby, and that the general public will generously fund the operation to fix his stiff neck.

[Svartalf]

It looks like he does feel that lifelong litigation is a worthwhile hobby.

[piscator]

...under US law the Department of Agriculture is required to ... allow private citizens to use and enjoy their lands, and this includes commerce, from logging to grazing to water storage to mining to recreational activities.

Yeah. Right. I'll be right over, acquire US citicenship and do me some loggin' on federally owned land.

Come to the Kenai Peninsula. Residents can cut 10,000bf of Sitka or white spruce a year off Chugach National Forest by filling out a short form in Seward or Trail Lakes Work Station. That's a lot of guitars, violas, and piano soundboards...maybe a nice mast or two...

If you want more, you can bid on logging lots at competitive auction, but you have to post a performance bond, a fire bond, and have suitable insurance.

[piscator]

As Seth has alluded, if Mr Bundy doesn't like the way things are going and can't make a go of ranching without a fat Federal subsidy, he can damn well move somewhere else. Just like a 3rd generation Chrysler employee put out of work by NAFTA. Adapt or perish.

Hell, maybe he can move his cows down to Cuba, where all the ranching is subsidized!

[piscator]

Bundy doesn't own the land he runs his cows on.
Bundy doesn't sell his beef at any particular discount because the taxpayers feed his cows for him, so he doesn't deserve any special treatment in regard to his trespass on my lands.

Indeed. Every landlord should be able to call in gun toting paramilitary when evicting deadbeat tenants.

Well Warren, law enforcement and courts is just one of the nice things your tax dollars buy. Indeed, Libertarianism would see an exponential increase in the size of the Judiciary and its corresponding user fees, and if you think there's a lot of flaky decisions now, just wait until stare decisis gets tossed out for being an "Unconstitutional appeal to common practice" !!


But more to your post. If I and a number of my well armed friends took a liking to your home and decided to rudely stay there to your exclusion, you'd take it as a private matter?

[laklak]

I'd imagine I and my well armed kinfolk might discuss the matter with you. Friendly like, of course, Southerners are nothing if not polite and hospitable.

[Seth]

...under US law the Department of Agriculture is required to ... allow private citizens to use and enjoy their lands, and this includes commerce, from logging to grazing to water storage to mining to recreational activities.

Yeah. Right. I'll be right over, acquire US citicenship and do me some loggin' on federally owned land.

And you're welcome to do so. Trees are a renewable resource. And that's exactly why the USDA is required to allow logging.

[Seth]

As Seth has alluded, if Mr Bundy doesn't like the way things are going and can't make a go of ranching without a fat Federal subsidy, he can damn well move somewhere else. Just like a 3rd generation Chrysler employee put out of work by NAFTA. Adapt or perish.

Hell, maybe he can move his cows down to Cuba, where all the ranching is subsidized!

It's not really subsidized because the state owns the cattle. It's more make-work for unemployed Cubans, of whom there are many.

Or, Bundy can continue to fight and others can help him and force the government to stop violating its own regulations and the law, and stop them from sending paramilitary forces to deal with civil matters.

[piscator]

As Seth has alluded, if Mr Bundy doesn't like the way things are going and can't make a go of ranching without a fat Federal subsidy, he can damn well move somewhere else. Just like a 3rd generation Chrysler employee put out of work by NAFTA. Adapt or perish.

Hell, maybe he can move his cows down to Cuba, where all the ranching is subsidized!

It's not really subsidized because the state owns the cattle. It's more make-work for unemployed Cubans, of whom there are many.

Or, Bundy can continue to fight and others can help him and force the government to stop violating its own regulations and the law, and stop them from sending paramilitary forces to deal with civil matters.

If he had the law and the right on his side, it'd be one thing. But he's just a hard headed SOB who thinks the law don't apply to him. He can move his fkn cows to his own land if he don't like it.