What's new
By:

Yesterday - Bundy Ranch

cowhide said:
Man I can't believe you are still defending this clown, PKM? Now you are threatening people with being a dick. Seriously, this guy should travel back in time about 150 years ago because that is where he belongs. The guy never owned the land and he was screwing people/taxpayers out of a lot of money. This isn't about freedom it is about money. Which is usually the case with most unprincipled folks. No information is going to change the fact that the guy didn't own the land.

A definition for you.

Patriot---One who loves their country, and supports its AUTHORITY and INTERESTS. This guy doesn't believe in the existence of the U.S. government. You can hate the gov't all you want but it truly exists. What this guy is a hypocrite and a tax cheat? I don't care what secret information you have.

Cliven Bundy Facts:
I. He and his Family has never owned the Disputed Land.
1. Bundy Claims his family has owned the land since 1877, before the BLM existed and before grazing permits were required.
2. However, Clark County property records show Bundy bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 and included no rights to BLM land.
The Bundys didn't start grazing on the land until 1954.
3. The land is part of the Las Vegas Grazing District, established under the Taylor Grazing Act on Nov. 3, 1936. This was 10 years before the Bundys owned the land.
4. The BLM was founded in 1946, two years before they bought the land.

II. $16 Million Profits From Federal Land.
Why can't Bundy use his 160 acres for grazing?
Answer: money. Bundy is using Federal Land to graze cattle because he wants more cows and 160 acres isn't big enough to handle all the cows he wants. With Federal Land, he can have more cows and make more money.
Nevada land only supports one cow per 20 acres so he can only graze about 8 cows on his land. But using Federal Land, Bundy is grazing an extra 3,387 head of cattle. (We know this because Bundy owns $1.1 million in grazing fees over a 20 year period. So $1.35 per cow per month works out to 3,395 cows.)
Net Profit per cow is running about $250. That means Bundy is making an extra $848,765 a year by using Federal Land. Even if he paid the government grazing fee, his profit would still be $818,765.
Over the 20 years of the dispute, Bundy has made $16 million.

III. Ranch Welfare. Bundy has received $8.2 million in services from the Tax Payers.
1. Bundy Refuses to pay $1.35 per head, per month to graze his cattle on Federal Land saying the land belongs to the states.
2. If the land in question were state land, Nevada charges $15.50, so instead of owing $1.1 million to the Federal Government, Bundy would owe Nevada $12.6 million. Private land runs $14.50 and $20 per head, so private costs would be between $11.8 and $16.3 million.
3. Even if it was State Land, Bundy couldn't graze it, because the Nevada withdrew all grazing rights in the area in 1993.
4. The government spends millions maintaining the land and keeping it suitable for grazing. The Government routinely kills predators, removes trees to create more grazing land, drills wells, builds dams, controls weeds spread by cattle, fights fires and builds roads to access the land. The Government Accounting Office, it cost the government $8.10 per head to maintain the land. That means that, Bundy is receiving $8.2 million in services courtesy of the Tax Payers.



Section-I
https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/depts/dcp/Pages/Curre...
https://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/22/property-rec...
https://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ance...
https://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbrevia...
Section-II
https://www.agweb.com/article/cattle_feeding_profit...
https://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_cows_can_you_gr...
Section-III
https://beefmagazine.com/business/rising-lease-rate...
https://mesquitelocalnews.com/sections/opinion/edit...
https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Grazing_F...
https://npaper-wehaa.com/western-livestock-journal/...
https://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22704766/federal...
Click to expand...

I'd point out once again that only a genuine Grade-A partisan/employee of the BLM would go to this trouble.

The bolded part is a big laugh. I imagine buying a big fancy truck for every BLM field employee every few years, and having a gov credit card to buy the gas and maybe some meals could explain a lot of expense. . . .

I contacted my BLM handler about a fence that needed some work. . . . he told me to do it myself. I asked for a new study on the grazing allotment, and a change of use, and he swore at me and told me if I ever made him do all that work, he'd get even.

In nearly twenty years the BLM has not put a nickel into hardware on the place. They went in and took out a well that was there before 1900, promising to put in a better one, and drove off never to be seen again.

There is a lot of vested interest in the lands administered by the BLM, but it is the flat out plan to move people off the land.

The price Americans will pay for letting government do this will be trillions of dollars of lot economy, lost mineral rights, lost jobs, lost school revenue, lost opportunity to enjoy the western lands.

Who want this BLM vision of the West? Feedlot/packer cartelists, casino/resort owners, the lumber magnates of the southeast and northern private forests, Prince Philip and his World Wildlife Fund, Zero Population Growth theorists, and a whole train of corporate-sponsored "environmentalist" greens. . . . It's the "King's Forest" concept on steroids.

People can make use of the land and keep it's values in scenery, plant and animal life. There is a whole body of good science that we can use, and improve upon with experience over time.

The sheer hypocrisy of Harry Reid, who got his staffer appointed as BLM chief for the Obama administration is incredible. Reid's son Cory is/was? a Clark County Commissioner and former Enron officer with continuing ties to Nevada Power and the Souther Nevada Water Authority, which has made a major commitment to drawing water from the central Nevada and western Utah subsurface waters of the Great Basin, to fuel further casino/resort development in Las Vegas, further Vegas growth.

The BLM is supposed to be the "watchdog" monitoring the project and laying down the development rules and schedules and safeguards.

How can anybody not see a huge conflict of interest in that????

You have no credibility as a human being if you can't acknowledge that western grazing rights are a real property interest once owned by ordinary citizens. They were bought and sold in deals merely between two private parties, and courts ruled on disputes holding that they were property rights owned by people before there ever was a BLM or a Taylor Grazing Act, or even a Homestead Act.

To be legal, any act of Congress compromising those rights must provide compensation equal to the value of those rights.

The imposition of grazing fees in the first place were done with the promise to use the money to help manage the range, develop water for the cattle, and construct and maintain fences and roads. The BLM doesn't do that anymore.

So, ranchers like Bundy should be paid the going market rate for grazing, for any use they lose due to the claims made by the BLM that grazing is be ended or reduced for even valid reasons. For Bundy, that means the BLM should pay him 1000 times 12 months times twenty dollars for taking his grazing, times the standard real estate multiplier for "rents" which is about 8. Do the math. The BLM is taking a real property interest, in grazing alone, of at least $2 M, and probably more like 6M.

Well, I don't suppose we're going to pay the natives for the loss of the use of their lands. The 1800s was when we rounded up the natives and put them on reservations. Now it's everybody being rounded up and confined to urban corrals, I suppose. Don't expect me to help ride herd on mankind.
 
Sirkickyass said:
I'm trying to figure out how PKM is possibly going to get standing for a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

For the most part, the "battle" for grazing use of public lands is gonna be a political one. I doubt very many judges are so secure in their positions that they are gonna go against the political winds of our time. But Bundy is gonna have to make his case in a court of law, and cite a lot of precedents, and go over the acts of Congress and make arguments as to why Congress had no authority to legislate, or to change people's established property interests without compensation, and so forth. I think it's a hard case to win.

I also think we need to have the public discussion of how to best use our lands and resources, maybe change how we manage them. I think the case for grazing on public lands is a good one.

The public gets good food at a reasonable price, and we can do it in a good, scientific way for generations to come. But we have to have uncorrupt management of our lands.
 
Grazing Rights a Constitutionally-Protected Property Right

So here is an article of the class of a Law Review article with the author's conclusion. . . . something Kicky might be able to study. . . .

Given the above definitions and descriptions of property, the
question to be answered by this article is whether a "grazing
preference," as historically recognized by the United States Forest
Service or Bureau of Land Management (ELM), is a type of property
or property right which is protected by the United States
Constitution. In recent years, according to both Forest Service and
BLM policy, a grazing preference is a mere privilege and is revokable
at will. On the other hand, many ranchers consider their preference
to be an equitable estate, a type of property right. This article will
explore the development and legal interpretations surrounding the
federal land grazing preference to determine whether a preference is
a type of property right. Specifically Part I of this article defines the
term federal land preference; Part II explores the modern courts'
view of the preference versus the right to compensation for the taking
of a BLM or Forest Service grazing permit or lease; Par
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
.

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=b59570a90356ad3c3de8e035ae6d2275

The Right to Graze Livestock on the Federal Lands: The Historical Development of Western Grazing Rights, Idaho Law Review,

https://buddfalen.com/people/karen-budd-falen/
 
Last edited:
PKM said:
How can these replies persist in light of how many times I have explained that Bundy is not the 'cause' here?
Click to expand...

I'd say anyone who doesn't "get it" is not reading much, or maybe still a long way from getting the context generally, or possibly just the same kind of marginal intellect they suppose Cliven Bundy to be.

I have supposed from other comments over the past years that you are actually employed as an antropolist, as a scientiest studying Anasazi cultural sites on the Arizona Strip. You obviously care for the principle of integrity in government agencies, for having incorrupt adminstration in public affairs. Having experience in the Strip, you would certainly know some of the ranchers in the area who hold large grazing preferences in the area of Poverty Knoll, Mt. Trumbull, maybe in the Grand Wash. Mt. Trumbull was known as Bundyville, because of the attempt made by clan patriarch Abraham Bundy to settle there.

I have outed myself already, early in this thread, as a formerly conceited person who thought the Bundys were the archetypical backwoods/desert hinterlands yayhoos, though I confessed it came back to bite me when my chief and best-known example turned up with a college degree and became my boss. . . . though he was responsible for the decision to hire me, and gave me a good deal at that. . . I had to learn to let those mistaken prejudices become a thing of the past.

Here is an apparent liberal with the kind of decent intellect and basic principles of fairness and good sense, with a fairly good blog on the importance of focusing the discussion on intelligent concerns about how to do the best thing for the specific area.

My former boss was a grandson of Abraham Bundy whose father lived on a site on the rim of the Grand Canyon called "water pockets". According to the story my former boss told, his grandpa came from the Southern Nevada settlements and tried to farm at Mt. Trumbull during the wet decade or so in the early nineteen hundreds, as related in this blog. The Virgin River Mormon settlements in Southern Nevada do date to around 1870.

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/26/1294892/-Bundyville-and-the-Arizona-Strip#
 
Last edited:
babe said:
I'd say anyone who doesn't "get it" is not reading much, or maybe still a long way from getting the context generally, or possibly just the same kind of marginal intellect they suppose Cliven Bundy to be.

I have supposed from other comments over the past years that you are actually employed as an antropolist, as a scientiest studying Anasazi cultural sites on the Arizona Strip. You obviously care for the principle of integrity in government agencies, for having incorrupt adminstration in public affairs. Having experience in the Strip, you would certainly know some of the ranchers in the area who hold large grazing preferences in the area of Poverty Knoll, Mt. Trumbull, maybe in the Grand Wash. Mt. Trumbull was known as Bundyville, because of the attempt made by clan patriarch Abraham Bundy to settle there.

I have outed myself already, early in this thread, as a formerly conceited person who thought the Bundys were the archetypical backwoods/desert hinterlands yayhoos, though I confessed it came back to bite me when my chief and best-known example turned up with a college degree and became my boss. . . . though he was responsible for the decision to hire me, and gave me a good deal at that. . . I had to learn to let those mistaken prejudices become a thing of the past.

Here is an apparent liberal with the kind of decent intellect and basic principles of fairness and good sense, with a fairly good blog on the importance of focusing the discussion on intelligent concerns about how to do the best thing for the specific area.

My former boss was a grandson of Abraham Bundy whose father lived on a site on the rim of the Grand Canyon called "water pockets". According to the story my former boss told, his grandpa came from the Southern Nevada settlements and tried to farm at Mt. Trumbull during the wet decade or so in the early nineteen hundreds, as related in this blog. The Virgin River Mormon settlements in Southern Nevada do date to around 1870.

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/26/1294892/-Bundyville-and-the-Arizona-Strip#
Click to expand...

Not employed in any such way.. just a 3rd generation of what has been a family passionate about American Indians and their study.

As to the linked article. How would Bundy presume claiming lands due to Mormonism as a better argument than another avenue?
 
PKM said:
Not employed in any such way.. just a 3rd generation of what has been a family passionate about American Indians and their study.

As to the linked article. How would Bundy presume claiming lands due to Mormonism as a better argument than another avenue?
Click to expand...

Brigham Young sent Mormons to help fight the Mexicans on behalf of the Federal US Army, and helped win the land, so far as Mexican territorial claims may go. . ..He also was the "governor" of "Deseret", claiming for "Deseret" the specific lands where he sent his colonist Mormons to settle. The Mormon settlers were a communal order who first made grazing use of the land south of Bunkerville/Mesquite/Virgin and east of St. Thomas Mormon settlements. Brigham Young also organized corporate cattle operations under the direct ownership of the LDS Church.

When I was growing up in St. George, and went over to the Pipe Springs National Monument that commemorates the early Mormon grazing in that district, there was some talk about how overgrazing facilited erosion that may have cut through the geologic rock base that kept some water in the area and made the grass grow much more abundantly prior the over-grazing. I used to criticize this operation under Brigham Young as an example of lack of understanding and foresight that resulted in permanent destruction of the grazing value there. I dreamed of damning the deep gullies and restoring the aquifer base. . . .

The Great Basin Kingdom is a good book about the early Mormons in the area. . . .
 
babe said:
Brigham Young sent Mormons to help fight the Mexicans on behalf of the Federal US Army, and helped win the land, so far as Mexican territorial claims may go. . ..He also was the "governor" of "Deseret", claiming for "Deseret" the specific lands where he sent his colonist Mormons to settle. The Mormon settlers were a communal order who first made grazing use of the land south of Bunkerville/Mesquite/Virgin and east of St. Thomas Mormon settlements. Brigham Young also organized corporate cattle operations under the direct ownership of the LDS Church.

When I was growing up in St. George, and went over to the Pipe Springs National Monument that commemorates the early Mormon grazing in that district, there was some talk about how overgrazing facilited erosion that may have cut through the geologic rock base that kept some water in the area and made the grass grow much more abundantly prior the over-grazing. I used to criticize this operation under Brigham Young as an example of lack of understanding and foresight that resulted in permanent destruction of the grazing value there. I dreamed of damning the deep gullies and restoring the aquifer base. . . .

The Great Basin Kingdom is a good book about the early Mormons in the area. . . .
Click to expand...

Have there been any court cases arguing the Mormon claim to property rights stemming from the above described?
 
PKM said:
Have there been any court cases arguing the Mormon claim to property rights stemming from the above described?
Click to expand...

I doubt it, but I don't know. The Federal government sent "Johnson's Army" to Utah in 1857, and occupied the territory militarily while letting BY go on being "governor". Come to think of it, a whole lot of property in Utah probably goes back to BY days and his administration. I know my SLC home goes back to that. Nobody ever disputed his plat maps for SLC nor his distribution of lots. During the Civil War, while BY declared Utah for the Union, Abraham Lincoln still stationed Federal Troops in Utah, and so far as I know took no conscripts from here for the war. Californians marched back through Utah to help save the Union. Then the Feds started stationing appointed carpetbag "governors" in Utah hostile to the populace, and the Federal legislature passed unconstitutional acts seizing all Mormon property, even the Salt Lake Temple, and such. . . . Finally, after the Mormon Church struck up relations with the Chase/JPMorgan banker clique and took some big loans, a way open up for Utah to become a State. About that time, the Rockefellers somehow came out on top in the mining business and opened up the Kennecot Copper pit, and such. The Queen of England effectively owns Rio Tinto today. . . . and Mormons "play the game" with the Feds, setting up establishment political advocates like Mitt Romney, and hell yeah, even Harry Reid is a Mormon. So are some Vegas Casino operations are heavily-invested in by the LDS Church.

I'd think the best way to approach this case is by acting as an ordinary, regular American and claiming no other sort of rights.
 
VINYLONE said:
So you're a dick to yourself? I don't get it. Or are you saying that as soon as you wake up you're a dick to everyone around you?
Click to expand...

He is what he eats. It's just a state of being.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I think the correct prefix is "omni".
Click to expand...

Vinny, you read a lot of slease into everything. I doubt I can clear this up for you, but here it is:


Americans eat little slugs of sausage, maybe bacon, for breakfast. Some even eat hot dogs, morningnoonandnight. Especially growing boys.

ominvores eat anything there is, and all there is of it. Innuendo has nothing to do with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top