Militia on the way to Nevada to support rancher

http://bearingarms.com/a-potential-for-violence-in-nevada/

And cops are bringing in military vehicles ...... Can anyone say Branch Davidians?

The rancher has his cattle on federal land, doesn't he? That's my understanding of the situation.

It's land he pays to use and his family has done so for nearly a century and a half. He's also made improvements.

He has a lease?

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=1070&sid=29387272&fm=most_popular


CLARK COUNTY, Nevada — A man has been released after being arrested Sunday during an ongoing dispute over grazing rights between the Bureau of Land Management and a family in southern Nevada, and the family is calling for action.

A federal judge in Las Vegas first ordered Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to remove his trespassing cattle in 1998, according to reports from the Associated Press. Similar orders were issued in July 2013, and again in October.

Saturday, the BLM began taking some of the 908 cattle from Bundy. The BLM says Bundy's cattle have been trespassing on U.S. land without required grazing permits for over 25 years. However, Bundy said he doesn't recognize federal authority on land that he says belongs to the state of Nevada.

The BLM released a statement on its website saying, "Cattle have been in trespass on public lands in Southern Nevada for more than two decades. This is unfair to the thousands of other ranchers who graze livestock in compliance with federal laws and regulations throughout the west. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service (NPS) have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially."

The situation escalated Saturday after Cliven Bundy's son, Dave Bundy, 37, was arrested. Members of the Bundy family had gathered to film and take pictures of the removal of their cattle in an effort to document the event, according to Cliven Bundy's daughter, Bailey Bundy Logue.

The family members had parked on the side of Nevada state Route 170, but the highway was included in the temporary closure of public lands, according to BLM representative Kirsten Cannon. Dave Bundy was arrested and cited with a criminal charge of refusing to disperse and resisting officers. Cannon said all public lands are closed within the designated closure area during the removal of the trespassing cattle.


Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29387272#FCYhwBH6fIL8TLoR.99

I don't know whether it's state or federal land, but the land doesn't belong to the rancher.  You can't use federal or state land to graze your cattle on without a permit of some kind.

Freerange... the monied interests with govt collusion has been seizing, controlling and limiting access for a very long time.

It should only take another generation or two to complete. Funny huh? They can't secure a border... but this they will.

PkrBum wrote:Freerange... the monied interests with govt collusion has been seizing, controlling and limiting access for a very long time.

It should only take another generation or two to complete. Funny huh? They can't secure a border... but this they will.

Good point. I still have little sympathy for the rancher, from what I have read.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-feds/story?id=23225314

It's all about a tortoise. Geez. But still, the land doesn't belong to him. Now, if the government told him that he could no longer graze his cattle on his OWN land because of a turtle, I would be the first to defend the rancher's rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_land

In the United States governmental entities including cities, counties, states, and the federal government all manage land which are referred to as either public lands or the public domain.

The majority of public lands in the United States are held in trust for the American people by the federal government and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the United States National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, or the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Department of the Interior, or the United States Forest Service under the Department of Agriculture. Other federal agencies that manage public lands include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Department of Defense, which includes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. [4]

In general, Congress must legislate the creation of new public lands, such as national parks; however, under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President may designate new national monuments without congressional authorization.

Each western state also received federal "public land" as trust lands designated for specific beneficiaries, which the States are to manage as a condition to acceptance into the union. Those trust lands cannot any longer be considered public lands as allowing any benefits to the "public" would be in breach of loyalty to the specific beneficiaries. The trust lands (two sections, or about 1,280 acres (5.2 km 2 ) per township) are usually managed extractively (grazing or mining), to provide revenue for public schools. All states have some lands under state management, such as state parks, state wildlife management areas, and state forests.

Wilderness is a special designation for public lands which have been completely undeveloped. The concept of wilderness areas was legislatively defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness areas can be managed by any of the above Federal agencies, and some parks and refuges are almost entirely designated wilderness. A wilderness study area is a tract of land that has wilderness characteristics, and is managed as wilderness, but has not received a wilderness designation from Congress.

Typically each parcel is governed by its own set of laws and rules that explain the purpose for which the land was acquired, and how the land may be used.

Recreation on U.S. public lands [edit]

Most state- and federally managed public lands are open for recreational use. Recreation opportunities depend on the managing agency, and run the gamut from the free-for-all, undeveloped wide open spaces of BLM lands to the highly developed and controlled national and state parks. Wildlife refuges and state wildlife management areas, managed primarily to improve habitat, are generally open to wildlife watching, hiking, and hunting, except for closures to protect mating and nesting, or to reduce stress on wintering animals. National forests generally have a mix of maintained trails and roads, wilderness and undeveloped portions, and developed picnic and camping areas.

In an attempt to present a balanced view of the history and uses of America's public lands, two teams trekked the US, from the Canadian and Mexican borders, in a project known as American Frontiers: A Public Lands Journey.

Grazing on U.S. public lands [edit]

Historically in the western United States, most public land is leased for grazing by cattle or sheep. This includes vast tracts of National Forest and BLM land, as well as land on Wildlife Refuges. National Parks are the exception. This use became controversial in the late 20th century as it was examined by environmentalists. [5]

Public lands or not....It's about the damn turtle. And the land still doesn't belong to him to do as he wishes, public or not.

This doesn't bother me like the eminent domain cases where property is taken from someone and given to a developer. I get riled about those cases.    

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management

Progressive creep... a google of the influence from the eco-terrorists fill in the gap on the ideological agenda.

It's our land... not the govt. Grazing and turtles have been there long before some officious leftist bureaucrat.

PkrBum wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management

Progressive creep... a google of the influence from the eco-terrorists fill in the gap on the ideological agenda.

It's our land... not the govt. Grazing and turtles have been there long before some officious leftist bureaucrat.

So any US citizen should have a right to do whatever he or she wants to do on public land?

My problem with this story is that we don't know the entire history of the dispute. Did the feds really try to work with the rancher on a new lease or did the rancher just decide that he can do as he pleases?

I always wanted a house on the river so I am headed over to Blackwater River to scout out a place on state property, my family has been going over there for generations so I should be able to do what i want.

polecat wrote:I always wanted a house on the river so I am headed over to Blackwater River to scout out a place on state property, my family has been going over there for generations so I should be able to do what i want.

You progressive creep . . . .

He had an adjusted agreement with the Feds since 1993

At last!!! Here's a war -- militia and some ranchers -- vs. the federal government -- that the U.S. can actually win, and quickly. No doubt the MIC won't approve of this kind of quick concluding warfare ...

As for me, I'm delighted to be looking forward to cable news showing the devastation of crooked cowboys and wrong-headed militia.

Where's my popcorn?

-------

It's wherever you and your draft dodging buddies left it...[/quote]
[/quote]

I handed mine to ted nugent and when I got back he was gone but there was a fowl odor in the air and a brown spot on the chair where he was sitting.

http://aattp.org/koch-brothers-back-right-wing-militia-terrorists-in-nevada-land-dispute/#comment-179247