California Surveyors Forums

Interesting land use rights showdown.

Anybody care to share some insight on this?

My recollection is that some time in the past there was some agreement made between several states and the federal government that the federal government would maintain the non-disposed federal lands, because the states could not afford to do so themselves.

Anybody out there following this?

Oh yea. This reply of mine was deleted from beerleg so read fast.

There are a number of issues here.
Cattle ranchers have used "open" land since the early 1800's. Range wars erupted when the sheep ranchers moved into Wyoming and Montana. The sheep ate the grass down to the ground reducing regrowth.
The BLM became a federal agency in 1976. It, like the EPA and most other agencies, do whatever they want. The heads of these agencies are appointed by the sitting President and if they don't do what the President wants they are replaced.
In 1993 the BLM upped it's grazing fees to $1.35/mo/cow. Doesn't sound like much but there is very little money in raising cattle, the slaughter houses make all the money. This increased fee, and other things, forced the other 52 ranches out of the cattle business, Mr. Bundy, whose family had been using that land since the 1880s chose to fight the BLM.
I'm guessing 140 years of use doesn't fall under prescriptive rights in this case.
The BLM states it was worried about the tortoise habitat so in addition to the increased fee they limited Mr. Bundy to 150 cows on 150,000 acres.
Meanwhile due to the housing boom, also in Clark county, a tortoise habitat was established to place tortoise displaced by housing paid for by developer fees. When the housing boom busted the developer fees went away. The habitat budget was ~$1million a year. They had ~1800 tortoise in the habitat and it was determined that ~half of them could be released into the wild the rested would be killed. The BLM spent over $3million rounding up Mr. Bundys cattle.
If the govt was so worried about the tortoise why allow the habitat, which was a quasi govt entity to destroy ~900 tortoise. Especially since they spent 3 years habitat budget chasing cows.
Now if they don't care about the tortoise why do they want Mr. Bundy off the land? Seems Senator Harry Reid is a stockholder in a chinese company that wants to mass grade that land into a giant solar farm thereby killing every living thing there.

There are numerous videos and articles on this subject - look them up I did.

Oh, the cattle were released because of all the publicity and people coming from all over the USA to the Bundy ranch to protest the high handed tactics of the BLM. Believe me when I say that some day in the near future the BLM, with probably hundreds of agents, will arrive about a hour before dawn and steal all of Mr. Bundy's cattle. They will be in and out so fast the TV cameras won't be able to get there on time even if they could get thru the road blocks.

Maybe you need to look at some more credible sources.......like when the BLM was created?

Anybody care to share some insight on this?

This is interesting:
http://thesouthwestjournal.wordpress.co ... overnment/

I'm guessing 140 years of use doesn't fall under prescriptive rights in this case.

No need to guess.

Brown in Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location, 2nd edition pg. 82, writes: "In general, although there are exceptions, unwritten conveyances (the gaining of rights in land without writings) cannot operate against the federal, state, or local governments. In most states, irrespective of how long a person occupies a road, occupancy gives no rights against the public."

The BLM was formed from the merger of the Grazing Service and GLO in 1946.

Right on Gary!

I retired from BLM after 31 years and they have the thankless job of leasing the Federal Land and kicking off those who don't pay.

Pay attention when the rancher says the land is State Land......It is Public Domain.

Keith

States rights supersede federal rights, the States just don't exercise them due to the feds holding the purse strings. Schools actually give nearly 100% of their control to the feds for approx 10% of their operating budget.

The name may have been created in 1946 but major changes to increase their authority was in 1976 due to the myriad of conflicting rules from various govt agencies.

Fees could have something to do with 98% (52) of the ranchers in that area having to shut down their cattle operations. It's very easy for a federal agency that doesn't have to seek congressional approval to just jack fees up to force land users out of business. Both Overton Marina and Echo Bay Marina are shut down meaning there are no services on the Overton Arm. I'm sure federal fees had nothing to do with that.

I know prescriptive rights don't apply to the govt but come on 140 years of use.

I'm sure harry reid and the chinese solar company have nothing to do with BLMs decisions.

When the govt brings attack dogs and automatic weapons against Americans exercising their 1st amendment rights there is a problem citizens need to address.

I figure this thread is history.

land butcher wrote: I figure this thread is history.

I hope you are correct.

States Rights trump Federal Rights?

Since when is the Public Domain ever to be State Land in it's entirety?

quite a few places actually, all that were a jurisdiction before federal ownership, i.e. Texas, independent before it was a state, Calif. Ranchos that were established prior to state hood, there are examples in a lot of the western states, betting may also be some area in Alaska, Florida, the Midwest, places where rights were established before the US bought those territories. Some federal lands that were patented private lands that were then bought back by the Feds, ie. part of Yosemite National Park, Death Valley etc., then there is Hawaii. I am sure there many more. It is not always black and white. I do agree the 200 swat was over doing it.

I probably wouldn't care so much except the BLM is using the tortoise to chase the public off the land. In the 80's it was to eliminate ORVs exc in designated areas, now it's cattle. But as in the local so cal deserts and other areas massive solar farms are being built on these same lands requiring mass grading that kills everything in the area.
I have read a couple of the EIRs and they are a joke. They state "No concentration of storm water onto other land", but the grading plan clearly shows regrading that will force sheet flow water around the sides of the farm.

harry reid; his son works for one of the big chinese solar companies
read all about it. http://http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/reid-smelling-anything-but-rosy-in-ranch-fight/

There are articles calling the reid connection false but do not deny his son is a front man for a chinese govt solar company. There were items, now the links take you to blank pages, on the BLM site discussing the non compatibility of ranching and private interests on BLM land. I haven't seen the pages but will find them, as once something is on the net it there forever and people have screen shot the BLM statements.
How big is solar and windmill farms, try and get a motel room in small towns in southern AZ or NM. 2 years ago I was planning a ghost town trip in that area and was contacting motels - have to reserve a month or more in advance for a room during the week. Cancelled the trip.

"States rights supercede Feberal rights" ? ......don't think so. From the Atlantic website:

[INDENT]"Ironically, this position (Bundy's) directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

The paramount-allegiance clause, a product of the era in which Nevada gained statehood, originated in Nevada's first (and unofficial) constitutional convention of 1863.
[/INDENT]

A common thief and separatist is touted by a national "news" outlet as a patriot? Tell me it is not true :).

On another note, if you keep going to sites that censor you for giving opinions then perhaps you are visiting the wrong sites.

Glad we have these complicated and controversial topics now covered.....

of Federal nonsense and abuse of powers. Do not oysters "filter" waters?

Editorial: As long as we keep voting "those two" parties . . . we only have ourselves to blame. If your beliefs align with a certain philosophy - then vote such and not the Big Two.

I think we're stuck in this "jock-strap" mode of voting. Yes, jock strap. "My team is better thank yours!" They're both crooks or as Herb Caen would say "idjuts". For a prime example of Narcissistic Personality Disorder one needs to look no further than the front page of today's S.F. Chronicle. "Acting" (in the Hollywood-style) as though one is emulating Frankie?!

Remember the Sixties - the "talk" of "revolution"? We are much older and closer to not giving' a damn (i.e. grave!) - you'd think we play the "revolution-card" and vote The TWO out!

Phil - Steamed with garlic 'n butter in Sonoma

PS Although Butcher might have some minutia incorrect - the BIG PICTURE is the actions of the Feds - just like Drake's Bay Oyster! First our oysters. Then our cows. What's next? Our guns? (As Larry the Cable Guy might say, "Now that was funny".)

I recall learning that one cannot adverse possess against the government, one cannot claim prescriptive rights against the government. The native Americans I am sure have challenged that to the edges of the Universe.

This rancher is going to have a tough dance.

Wasn't it the original intent of Jefferson and the likes to dispose of the federal lands, turn them over to the states and the citizens, in order to dispense with government tyranny?

Exactly how and why did the disposing of federal lands end? Was it primarily due to abuse and corruption in the private sector? And now what is the result?

I suspect Mr. Rancher doesn't have an ace up his sleeve, some sort of document or lease granted by the government allowing him to graze his cattle on "public lands" (what is the public allowed to do on these lands anymore?).

Maybe Mr. Rancher has no legs to stand on, except the principles established by the founding fathers that this land belongs to its citizens. I wonder which side Woody Guthrie would be on. I wonder why this rancher is willing to risk his life and that of his family to fight a battle he cannot win. Perhaps an interesting topic to ponder on a Good Friday.

Some folks are smoking something or drinking cool-aid.... This is simple really and there is only one side of the story. There is an agreement that has been breached. What the founders wanted and what side Woody would on is wholly immaterial here. This is not a the case that the federal government is a bunch of jack booted thugs oppressing the innocent as Snowwhite Rancher. The rancher breached the agreement by failing to meet the agreed upon terms. No one put a gun the the man's head and forced him to be a ranched. He did nt enter the grazing agreement under duress.....sooooo where is the beef. Oh the wack job rancjer decides not to recoginze the federal government anymore. Ask you self this, if you all of a sudden got a wild hair and decided that you would no longer recognize Bank of America and stopped paying your mortgage,how long would it be before you are sleeping on the street? Bank of America will have the state send armed representation to make sure you vacate the premises. Aside form all of that as part owner of those federal lands, I want my 1.2 mil.....

Wasn't it the original intent of Jefferson and the likes to dispose of the federal lands, turn them over to the states and the citizens, in order to dispense with government tyranny?

Where in any law or intention, does it say this?

................"Wasn't it the original intent of Jefferson and the likes to dispose of the federal lands, turn them over to the states and the citizens, in order to dispense with government tyranny?"

As I remember the story it was to help repay the debt to the folks who fought for our liberty and freedom from England.

The way I see it is that Land ownership is one of the big deals in a free land. The king nor the prince ownes the land and lets his subjects live there, at his pleasure.

The free man owns the land and it is to his benefit, and the rest of society, that this is allowed, permitted, granted or whatever word you want to use.

"To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men".
Thomas Jefferson

There is plenty of land all over the fifty states. No one is prohibited from buying land and being a rancher. There is no prohibition from leasing grazing land from the BLM who manages the federal interest lands for the PEOPLE. There is no prohibition that stops a rancher from leasing grazing rights from a private property owner.

There is however a problem when one party fails to honor the terms of the agreements that they make.

The federal government is in no way analogous to a KING. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is subject to the whims of our democratic republic.

. . .dispose of the federal lands, turn them over to the states and the citizens, . . .

Please cite something for this statement!

Mr. Ince, your first paragraph of your second post is classic lunacy. Worthy of publishing on a tea party posterboard. Your next door neighbor is a lawyer, and his dog has been taking dumps in your yard for seven years. Your next door neighbor bamboozled you and claimed prescriptive rights to sniff around your yard and take dumps. He t

Mr. Keithwill, there is meaning between the black and the white.

Mr. Ince,
Your first paragraph of your second post is beautiful. classic. to be engraved on the bumpers of the Toyota Preus for generations to come, to be engraved upon the dashboard of every F-350 to be delivered to every middle western car dealership in the United States for generations to come. There is San Francisco, and well then........

There is the world. Open to anybody's interpretation. Please don't make me cite a reference for "there is the world".

So, accordong to Texas this rancher is a "common thief and separatist". And according to San Francisco he is a "whack job". Espousing rule of law in times like these might feel embarassing, it is the man of courage who can represent the Many, it tales courage and conviction to represent

This Rancher is clearly my brother.

This Rancher is clearly my brother.

I think your bro is tilting at windmills.

Maybe this is what some of you want?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5 ... l.html.csp