[Secret Master]

From the pages of Range Magazine (or from http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34095):

Luther Wallace "Wally" Klump recently marked his 70th birthday, but he could not celebrate his threescore and ten on the family ranch in Arizona with his wife, children and grandchildren. The old rancher turned 70 in a penitentiary cell with only convicts to commemorate the juncture.

Klump was not in prison for murder, rape, drugs or any of the common offenses against society. His offense was one that astounded the most hardened and cynical of the criminals in the penal complex where he is housed. Klump's "crime" boiled down to "trespassing" cows on Bureau of Land Management property in Arizona's Dos Cabezas Mountains. His fellow inmates understood why Wally was serving time. For his birthday, they made a card with a picture of a grazing cow and a bold caption: "BLM Sucks!"

The rawhide tough, tall rancher has become a father figure and prison parson to many of the young detainees. As an inmate said in a phone interview, "I thank God for saving me and having Wally here to guide me to a better life. ..."

Wally rates respect with the prisoners because of his steadfast refusal to bow to what he believes is "an unreasonable authority." In this case, federal Judge John M. Roll of the U.S. District Court in Tucson, who jailed Klump April 21, 2003, for contempt of court for "failing to follow the Court's order prohibiting the unauthorized grazing of cattle on government allotments." It is common knowledge with his fellow inmates that he can get out of jail at any time simply by having his family remove the "criminal cows" from BLM lands in the Dos Cabezas area.

Ok, there is NO reason for this fine old man to be in jail! :fire: As many of you who live in western states know the BLM is getting way out of hand, it's ranks shot through with various beaurocrat/socialist/envorionmentalist morons who seem to delight in making our nation's small ranchers miserable. Let them feel your anger folks (and read this article in its entirety). If you read the entire article you will also see the link to RKBA.

[El Tejon]

How about getting something the old-fashion way? By paying for it!!!:fire:

Everyone wants something for nothing. Get out of the wagon, now! Too bad they don't prosecute all free riders equally!:cool:

[Secret Master]

Ej Tejon: No offense but... huh? Are you agreeing with me on Mr. Klump's plight, disagreeing with me, or telling me to get the heck off of the board?

[444]

Here is another episode of the same thing here where I live.




Cattle Seizing Spurs Protests

SCOTT SONNER, Associated Press Writer August 2, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FALLON, Nev. (AP) - A battle over cattle grazing in Nevada's high desert is pitting lawman against lawman.

When federal officers seized the herds of two local ranchers from government land last week, only a stern warning from the U.S. attorney stopped a pair of county sheriffs from blocking the roundup.

Now, dozens of ranchers and states-rights activists are holding protests at the livestock yard where the captured cattle are being kept, a sheriff is pressing a legal offensive against future seizures and local authorities are complaining that heavy-handed federal rules are threatening a traditional way of life in the West.

``They intimidate and hope they can get away with it,'' said Lt. Tony Philips of the Nye County sheriff's office.

The dispute is the latest feud between local and federal law enforcement as New West range wars create alliances and enemies John Wayne never would have dreamed of. Recent examples:

- San Bernardino County, Calif., Sheriff Gary Penrod canceled an agreement that gave U.S. Bureau of Land Management (news - web sites) officers the ability to enforce state laws on federal land. County ranchers are chafing at grazing restrictions imposed to protect the threatened desert tortoise. Penrod said he didn't want to be associated with ``law enforcement personnel who may be precipitating violent range disputes.''

-The sheriff in Sevier County, Utah, has allowed ranchers to take back cattle that were seized by the BLM after ranchers refused to take them off drought-denuded range in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Sheriff Phil Barney said he wanted to avoid a ``Waco situation'' last November.

-In Klamath Falls, Ore., Sheriff Tim Evinger has mediated a tense dispute between farmers and the Bureau of Reclamation, which cut off irrigation water because of shortages brought on by drought and complicated by environmental rules.

-Last year, residents in northeast Nevada defied a different federal agency, the Forest Service, by taking shovels to rebuild a washed-out stretch of road in Elko County. The Forest Service had ruled that construction would threaten the bull trout. After months of confrontation, uneasy negotiations on a compromise are under way.

In Fallon, BLM officials are holding nearly 200 cattle owned by Ben Colvin and John Vogt, saying they owe a combined $370,000 in fees and fines for grazing without permits since 1995. The agency said the ranchers are overgrazing tens of thousands of acres in Nye and Esmeralda counties, 150 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Nevada, with its vast expanses of desert and wind-swept range, is 87 percent owned by the federal government.

It was the birthplace of the Sagebrush Rebellion against federal land policy in the 1980s, and the Elko road dispute has energized a new round of anti-Washington activism. Ranchers and their increasingly vocal supporters see themselves as victims of rules that put environmental concerns above people.

``I don't think they have the right to take my cattle,'' said Colvin, 63, whose family has been in the ranching business since 1860. ``They may have the power but they don't have the right.''

Bob Abbey, the BLM's state director, said the impoundment of cattle was a last resort after more than five years of failed negotiations with the ranchers.

``They are the ones creating the battles,'' Abbey said. ``They have drawn a line in the sand. They have made a point of refusing to comply with the rules and regulations governing public land use.''

Esmeralda County Sheriff Kenneth Elgan planned to issue citations to the federal officials, according to District Attorney Patricia Cafferata, who said she opposed the plan.

Nye County Sheriff Wade Lieseke planned to go farther, said Philips, the lieutenant. ``He had actually ordered me to get my people and go out and stop it,'' Philips said.

Federal prosecutors, however, got wind of the sheriffs' plans.

In a letter obtained by The Associated Press, Acting U.S. Attorney Howard Zlotnick in Las Vegas wrote to the Esmeralda County sheriff that ``potential violations of federal law would arise if anyone interfered with BLM employees lawfully engaged in their assigned duties.''

Letters went to other jurisdictions as well. Deputy Nevada Attorney General Wayne Howell also said he contacted prosecutors in Esmeralda and Nye counties to assure them the BLM had the legal authority to seize the cattle without first obtaining a court order.

The locals backed off, partly for fear of prosecution.

``I didn't want to end up at Club Fed,'' Philips said.

The sheriffs have plenty of support from protesters who turned out to back the ranchers. One sign at an auction-lot protest read, ``The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in the USA.''

``They don't have a right to tell our local sheriff what he can and can't do,'' said Janine Hansen of Sparks, a member of the anti-federal Nevada Committee for Full Statehood.

Philips said the Nye County sheriff's department is now seeking guidance from a federal court on the whether the BLM seizures are proper.

``If it turns out they are not meeting due process,'' he said, ``they'll never round up any cattle around here again without a court order.'' -

[El Tejon]

Secret, no, don't leave. You just got here! Welcome to THR.:)

Anywho, I despise the parasites that want something for nothing. A very good example here of hairy-chested, rugged individualist sticking his hand in my pocket and free riding.

Whether he deserves prison, I don't know. But BoP for trespass? Must not be a Cat 0-1 offender to get prison, or maybe he violated probation by free riding while on probation???

I usually see stories about these parasites around quarterlies. Extension was up yesterday. Gets me all worked up.:D

[telomerase]

>Anywho, I despise the parasites that want something for nothing.

Ok... but state and Federal government in the US own 42% of the land, all of the continental shelf, all the waterways, etc. I think this is where the major "parasite problem" lies. If he were grazing his cows on land owned by another rancher, the Audubon society, or a hunting preserve, then he wouldn't be getting any sympathy. The BLM has no more reason to exist than GOSPLAN.

[Keith]

Simple solution. Instead of arresting ranchers who graze public lands without paying, simply declare any such animals as "feral" and allow hunters to help themselves. It would take only a few hundred dollars for maps of grazing permit areas to be distributed and any cattle outside those zones could be considered free meat.

Why waste more tax money to imprison people like this? Clearly, these cattle are not native species so let's shoot them and make more room for wildlife - or use them to feed the homeless once your own freezer is full.

Keith

[Roper]

Kill a family's living? I don't think so!

[Keith]

Kill a family's living? I don't think so!

Then you won't mind if I start a commercial fishing operation in your favorite lake, or build a lumber business using trees in your local national forest, or build a nice little family mining business stripping coal down at the national park?

We're talking about public property here - my property, and your property - and if somebody wants to graze cattle on it they need to pay me for it. If the land won't support grazing - usually due to massive destruction from earlier grazing - then I don't want him to use it.

If he decides to run cattle on my property anyway, I consider them MY cattle.

Keith

[El Tejon]

Keith, oh, there you go again, making sense and all.

Don't you realize that everyone has the right to live off of you?:rolleyes:

[Keith]

I fail to see why an unwed mother in Detroit is a "welfare cheat", but a guy with a big hat sucking 100 times as much from the public teat is a "rancher".

Keith

[Roper]

Keith, if you can get it done, then go for it. Cattlemen are fighting bureaucracy, getting it done.

[AZTOY]

This is stupit.......................

I like the idea of cattle on government land. If you live in the desert you have watch out for fires.

The cattle are feeding on grass and brush that could "feed" a fire. If a few cows would have grazing this area, we would have this tread

Lighting Hell's Fires (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35533)

[telomerase]

>I like the idea of cattel on government land.

The Constitution doesn't; it says the government can own arsenals, not farms, factories, or amusement parks.

[Sergeant Bob]

444 Nevada, with its vast expanses of desert and wind-swept range, is 87 percent owned by the federal government.
This is the part that bothers me! Can't have anyone grazing their cattle on the King's Land now can we?

telomerase Ok... but state and Federal government in the US own 42% of the land, all of the continental shelf, all the waterways, etc. I think this is where the major "parasite problem" lies. If he were grazing his cows on land owned by another rancher, the Audubon society, or a hunting preserve, then he wouldn't be getting any sympathy. The BLM has no more reason to exist than GOSPLAN.
BINGO!! Seems to me this is a States Rights issue anyway.

[Keith]

I agree, in principle, that the federal gubmint should turn that land over to the states.

Yet, the issue would remain. Public lands (whether state or federal) are supposed to be held in trust for the people - ALL of the people rather than just ranchers. They are supposed to be "multiple use" lands where one use does not destroy its value for other users.
For example, allowing some logging in a state forest does not necessarily rule out recreational uses like hunting, fishing, camping etc. Judicious logging can be done in such a way that it doesn't destroy streams and it may actually increase game herds.
You have to find a balance.
Clearly, much of the arid country in the west is being destroyed for other uses by grazing. Arid lands that are grazed tend to come back in mesquite and sage. Stream banks get broken down and effect water tables and distribution for miles around. Game animal populations are reduced or disappear entirely.

There are consequences to how we use our public lands. In some cases, the BLM may be full of baloney. In other cases, the ranchers (or loggers, or hunters) may be full of baloney.
Yet, somebody has to look at the whole picture and make a decision on how these lands are utilized. If you disagree with the decision, then there are multiple public and political forums where you can air your displeasure.

If you choose just to break the law and run your cattle on public turf, I'm not out of line when I lobby to have them ruled as feral animals to be made use of by the public. Since I'm paying for the animals being raised, I should be able to eat them.

Keith

[eoR]

Does the fact that the land is owned by the Fed. Govt. mean that AZ state laws don't apply? If the BLM does have to follow state law, unless this is in a "No-Fence District" (no idea whether or not the land the cattle are on is) I believe that free range law applies and that the landowner is responsible for fencing cattle out of his land rather than the cattle's owner being responsible for fencing them in.

[Alan Smithiee]

I checked with my wife, the gentleman in the article hereby has my permission to graze our portion of those lands.

[444]

" Since I'm paying for the animals being raised, I should be able to eat them."

How exactly are you paying for the animals being raised ?

You are eating them, that is when you pay for them.

I think you are missing a few key points here. One of those ranchers family in question here has been running cattle on that land since 1860. This was four years before Nevada even became a state. If the land is being destroyed by grazing, it is certainly taking awhile; in this case 143 years and the land is still suitable for what is probably it's only use by white men in history. Do you have any idea where this land is ? It is very near the area that has been used for nuclear testing. What do you propose we do with this public land other than what we are doing with it now. Maybe we can build a shopping mall there, but wait, Esmeralda County Nevada is one of, if not the most sparsely populated counties in the lower 48. According to a quick search there are 928 people living in the county. The county occupies 3588 square miles. There are 15 non-farm businesses in the county. Out of that 928 people living there, 102 are employed by the government.
What you are suggesting is at best, ruining many honest hard working families means of making a living, which they have been doing for over 100 years. And at worst, making it much harder and more expensive for Americans to provide their own food supply. Of course we could always get beef from Europe, but there is that pesky mad cow disease to worry about.
Of course another issue is that the Federal Government controls our land and dictates what can be done with it, without our input; even if it means that nothing is done with it at all.

[AZTOY]

eoR
I believe that free range law applies and that the landowner is responsible for fencing cattle out of his land rather than the cattle's owner being responsible for fencing them in.

You are right at least in my area.(Arivaca AZ - Pima county) If you don't want cattle on your land you need to fence it and with good strong barb wire .
We had 3 cows break down one of are fences and thay eat the garden.:cuss:

[Coronach]

Is it his land? Does he own it? If not, why are his cows on it?

This is the flip side of my environmental argument: If the Enviros (by proxy, through the government) want to decide what happens on a plot of land, they should buy that land. Well, this is land that the government owns. If they don't want cows on it, keep your cows off of it.

JMO,
Mike

[eoR]

AZTOY,

Since you did have a fence, wasn't the owner of the cows responsible for the damages?

Sorry about the garden. I imagine when you found them there you were about ready to harvest 3 beeves to replace the vegetables you wouldn't be harvesting.

[444]

"Well, this is land that the government owns. If they don't want cows on it, keep your cows off of it."

Well, the government owns the land because they say they own it. They didn't buy it. They just said, this is ours and we will do with it what we want (note the distinction; the government isn't the people, the government is a body seperate from the people. The people don't decide what should be done with the land, the GOVERNMENT decides). For the last 143 years, no one cared that he ran cattle on it. But now, since he won't pay them off, he is in trouble.
Again, this isn't Yellowstone, this isn't the Grand Canyon. This is a piece of land way out in the middle of nowhere that has been used for this purpose for generations. BLM isn't maintaining it. They arn't improving it. The only expense involved is the "land police" patroling it. Talk about an answer in search of a problem. Talk about creating a job. We have some land that 99% of the American population will never see. A piece of land that is so far off the beaten track that probably only a few people in the world ever go there. Now, let's form a government agency and hire a bunch of people who's only purpose is to try to collect money from anyone using that "public" land.

[Coronach]

How did this land end up as BLM land in the first place? I'll admit that I don't know, but I strongly suspect that it has something to do with the term "manifest destiny" and the fact that it was not bought from the government by a private individual when our borders rolled westward. So, it remained government land.

As such, I'll repeat my earlier point. Is it his land? Does he own it? If not, why are his cows on it?

I'll assume the answers to be no and no for the first two. For the latter, I won't hazard a guess.

Query: if I allow you to let your dog run free in my back yard for a week, do I, at the end of that week, have a right to request that you remove it?

Mike

[444]

"Does he own it ?"
We have been though this before, but he is supposed to own it. As an American it is supposed to be his. This is supposed to be a government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people.

Why are his cows on it ?
Well, when his family started running cows on it, there was no one to tell them they couldn't. The concept that someone could tell him he couldn't didn't exist then. They have done it ever since and no one cared until we formed one too many police organizations that exist for no good purpose other than to enforce laws that exist only to give them something to do. Note that the real law enforcement professionals in that area were going to run thise BLM guys off.

The backyard example tells me you are not quite processing this information. Again, if I let my dog run in an area 100 miles from the nearest town, an area that no one in known history has used for any other purpose, an area that no one else in the world has any other use for, an area where what goes on there will never be known by more than a couple people in the world and you look at that and say, hey, lets try to make some money on this; lets form a law enforcement organization consisting of a few thousand people that have no other purpose, and we will try to shake 444 down for some cash. They may have the right to do it, but is it the right thing to do ? Is this the way we want our tax money being spent ? Is this the way we want "our" government to treat it's subjects ? These are the issues, not just some childish question of whether they CAN do it and get away with it.

How we want out tax money spent is a good one. Let's spend millions, if not billions on a governement agency. Let's further erode the American people's freedom, and justify it by fining a guy a couple thousand.

This is one of those issues that you can answer for yourself; Would you proudly tell your mother, or would you proudly stand in front of your church, or would you stand at the perally gates and say: I just ruined some guy's livelyhood that he has pursued for over 140 years for no reason other than to exercise the power of the government.

One other hint, if everyone that lives in that area including the law enforcement officers hate you, odds are, you are not doing the right thing.

[Andrew Wyatt]

Anywho, I despise the parasites that want something for nothing. A very good example here of hairy-chested, rugged individualist sticking his hand in my pocket and free riding.


uuh, last i checked, the man paid taxes. could someone explain to me why the man can't use public land to craze his cows on?

[AZTOY]

eoR
Since you did have a fence, wasn't the owner of the cows responsible for the damages?

Well the cows belong to are neighbor and there good people. I had to fix the fence and helped get the cows back in there yard.


The neighbor gave a 5 month old angus female for payment. So in a few month i will be eating a nice fat T-bone steak :D

The garden was pretty small and mostly to save a little money at the store. So it was realy wasn't a big deal.

[Correia]

I agree with 444. But then again, I'm a Westerner.

Much of this land belongs to the BLM because they said it does. Or they seized it from ranching families through tax issues, regulations, or evironmental BS.

For those of you in the populated parts of the country, I don't think you are really grasping the kind of land we are talking about here. For the most part it is way way way way way way off the beaten path. We are talking about areas that nobody other than the ranchers have set foot on in years.

Trust me, when you are out in the desert, rolling sage in every direction farther than the eye can see, most of the time you don't even know that your cows have wandered onto gov land. Gov land borders are often an imaginary line on a map.

Fence it all off? BWAHAHAHA!!! There are ranches in the West that are bigger than the nation of Israel. :D

Notice in the original story about the controversy in Sanpete Utah. The Escalante National monument is a bogus federal land grab. It was created to "save wilderness". WRONG. In actuality it was the Punish Utah act, created by Bill Clinton out of his love for this state that loves him so much.

Look, we get to hear lots of talking on this board from folks who are sick and tired of the government screwing with their rights. I am willing to wager money when/if there comes a point in time where people get tired of the ballot box and switch to the ammo box, it is going to happen in the West, and it is going to be some tired old rancher who has just had enough, and doesn't want something that he has worked on for 50 years stolen from him to protect an endangered desert snail.

[hillbilly]

I lived in Wyoming for two years myself, near Gillette.

Here's another set of facts I bet a lot of folks who haven't been out West don't realize, either.

Because BLM lands are often used for grazing, there are government agents who are paid salaries to poison prairie dogs, kill coyotes, and shoot wayward bison off of "public" BLM lands.

That's right. Lands allegedly kept for the "public" are managed like big old feedlots for the benefit of the ranchers, and the ranchers only.

I don't know about other western states, but in Wyoming the big ranchers and the government have always been in collusion to screw over the rest of the unwashed hoi-polloi.

Check out the history of the Johnson County War. I used to go fishing in the Muddy Guard Resevoirs very close to the main historical combat sites of the Johnson County War.

I don't know about the situation in Nevada, because I have never been to Nevada.

But, I can't say I had much love for either ranchers or the BLM when I lived in Wyoming.

hillbilly

[gunsmith]

If a cow is in a pristine Sierra meadow crapping in my water supply when I am camping-
I say it's time for steak!
But if the same cow is in the middle of a AZ desert and only annoying
the Sierra Club and some useless bureaucrat Then it is doing a good job!

[Stinger]

Your land...do as you wish.
Somebody else's land...get permission.

If you want to use land that is not your own, get permission or buy it. If not, respect the owner's wishes and stay OFF!

Regards,

Stinger

[444]

Since this is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people he asked himself and he said it was ok. Since this is supposed to be public land and he is a member of the public it was OK.

[Al Norris]

I always enjoy this particular argument.

Here we have a large group of people that are together because they say they believe in their right to keep and bear arms. Most even agree that all other rights are contingent upon that single right.

They harp and moan about those that would take away our rights. They harp and moan about the excesses of the FedGov. They claim states rights are superior to the encroachments of the FedGov. They use the Constitution as proof against these many and varied abuses.

Then they turn around and claim FedGov superiority on lands that the Constitution says they cannot own, let alone control. Oh you hypocrites!

Men of principle or of expediency?

Correia, you are exactly correct. The next civil war may well be the West against the East.

But it's quite all right to get rid of American ranchers and farmers. After all, you can now get all of your foodstuffs from other countries. And so much cheaper than home grown foods... unless... Unless you apply the same exact agricultural standards you require of the American ranchers and farmers, to be met by all of the imported foodstuffs you think are so cheap.

Give the land back to the States and let them set the rules and regulations. Then you hypocrites will have something to say. Until then, you folk are no better than the other types of socialists you all claim to oppose.

[Baba Louie]

Don't know much of the history of the Arizona Territory, but Uncle Sam has always controlled Nevada territory...

FACT: Nevada Territory was a federal territory, a part of the Union, and President Abraham Lincoln appointed Governor James Warren Nye, a former Police Commissioner in New York City, to ensure that it stayed that way. Governor Nye put down any demonstration in support of the Confederacy, and there were some. The federal government bought much of Nevada's silver and gold bullion to support its currency. What federal taxes there were at the time that could be effectively collected went into Union coffers. Therefore, Nevada's creation as a TERRITORY on March 2, 1861 by the United States Congress ensured that its riches would help the Union and not the Confederate cause.

FACT: By the time Congress approved an Enabling Acting for Nevada on March 21, 1864, the Civil War was winding down. The Union had won decisive victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, and the South was in shambles. President Lincoln sought reelection and faced a three-way race against General John C. Fremont, the Radical Republican candidate, and General George B. McClellan, a Democrat--he had earlier in the war relieved both generals of their commands. New states, and their popular and electoral vote, were needed to reelect Lincoln in support of his moderate, reconstruction policies for the South. Among the proposed policies was the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. If Nevada were a state, it could ratify the amendment and help in the passage of the landmark humanitarian legislation.

Politics... Even waaaaaaay back when. Ya gotta love it.

Nevada did not have a large enough population to become a state during the Civil War (1861-1865). Partly to impose order on the lawless, wide-open mining towns, Congress made Nevada into a territory in 1861 as migrant prospectors and settlers poured in. The territory was then enlarged by increasing its eastern boundary by one degree of longitude in 1862. It was rushed into statehood in 1864, with Carson City as its capital. President Lincoln (in order to get more votes to pass the Thirteenth Amendment) had signed the proclamation even though the territory did not actually meet the population requirement for statehood. On Oct. 31, 1864, Nevada became the 36th state of the Union with Carson City as its capital.

So its all about imposing law and order on the lawless. Who cares if you need to bend or break a few laws on the way to getting your political point of view across to known rebels?

See? That's not so hard to understand. And if ya don't like the old laws (or lack thereof), we'll make new ones and enforce them as we (thats govt speak for US as opposed to you) see fit.

The Nevada Test Site which has (or had) several areas considered sacred to the local indigenous tribes (Paiute burial grounds and a few villages here and there), now kinda glows in the dark. Sorry guys and gals who've lived there for hundreds (if not thousands of years), we need to test these new "devices" and your tribal areas (which have no white men anywhere around) are... ours. We'll let you sell cigarettes cheap. Adios

I lived here in NV when Uncle Sam decided he (they/we/us) needed the Groom Lake area and just... took it over from those few miners, hunters and trappers who had been using it for years. Sometime around 79-80 or so. And we all know whats (not) up there now, right?

Bend, break or make up the rules as you see fit. If you've got the gold and the guns to back it up, who cares what the "little people" say or do? Its for the... children (of tomorrow).

Its all good.

Absolute power does what? Just remember to vote (if ya think it does any good) and pay those taxes kids.

444, whereas I've always admired Linclon's words (gov't by the, for the, of the people) those were just words in a speech (albeit a famous one). We'd all do well to remember Washington's words about any government being a force (like fire) to be reckoned with. This Republic that allows us to live and work here, carries a big stick and doesn't feel the need to speak softly to its children. Toe the line or face the wrath of an angry parental figure.

Uncle Sam can afford to house, feed and clothe a few angry ranchers till the day they are buried.

Adios

[444]

"Uncle Sam can afford to house, feed and clothe a few angry ranchers till the day they are buried."

Sure, the government can afford to, but we both know they won't. Without getting into a discussion that would get me flamed for my political incorrectness, we both know that these people would not be eligible for any government assistance. And, I dare say they wouldn't want government assistance. These are hard working people with a strong work ethic. I am sure they take pride in providing for themselves and their famililes. They WERE productive citizens and I am sure they would like to continue to be productive citizens.

Actually the government would be more than willing to house, feed, and clothe them in prison rather than allow them to make an honest living.

[Stinger]

Since this is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people he asked himself and he said it was ok. Since this is supposed to be public land and he is a member of the public it was OK.

What a load of hogwash! I happen to be a member of that very same public, and I say it is NOT OK. So it's not OK. OK?



Then they turn around and claim FedGov superiority on lands that the Constitution says they cannot own, let alone control. Oh you hypocrites!

Could you help me out with that? I didnt' know there was anything in the Constitution about gov't not being allowed to own land.

Here's what I did find, though:

Article. I.
Section. 8.
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
:neener:

No hypocrites here. Just people who's Mommas taught us to keep our grimey hands off stuff that doesn't belong to us.

Regards,

Stinger

[444]

Situations like this bring up some interesting thoughts.
This is definitely one of the red vs. blue situations. Issues like this will not be decided upon by people who are effected by it. They will not be decided upon by the people that live there. It was be decided by people who's idea of nature is putting up a bird feeder in their suberban back yard. It will be decided by people that think Central Park is a big piece of real estate. It will be decided by people who view America from out of a car window.

It is interesting that on this board we discuss the effects of the "War on Drugs" and it's effect on police power, use of tax money, and it's effect to create an ever expanding out of control government monolith. We talk about the right and wrong of invading Iraq. We talk about the new "War on Terrorism" and our rapidly vanishing civil rights....................................
Then we have people that don't bat an eye at a cattle rancher being put in jail for grazing cattle in the same place he has for 140 years.
Makes you wonder about some people.

The thing I like the best is the childishness of the whole thing. You can't do that. Why ? I don't know, but you can't do that. Don't back talk me boy, we make the rules here. Ok, so what are you going to do with the land after I leave ? Nothing. So, you are going to do nothing with it, but that is better than me using it ? Don't try to reason with me, I am not capable.

[Baba Louie]

Actually the government would be more than willing to house, feed, and clothe them in prison rather than allow them to make an honest living.
My point exactly. Altho' if I have to buy a $200 stamp to own an honest to goodness militia weapon, and that's no infringment on a pre-ordained right of a free person, I guess paying a fee for cows munching on sage ain't no big deal.

I'm still searching for specific words written into the Constitution and the amendments regarding federal land-holdings other than Territories. I was under the (false?) assumption that once a State was admitted into the Union and had its own Constitution and Republican form of government in place, the State's newly found Powers took over (in regards to land ownership and use) unless a specific fort or military reservation was required for Federal use.

Kinda like the Corp of Engineers or Water Reclamation Bureau owning all of the waterways (can't find that in the Constitution either) or Federal Dept of Interior owning all the Parks, Forests, BLM owning/managing all other lands etc. None of these organizations being around back in 1791, but all falling into the "Executive" branch responsibilities (or would it be "Legislative" branch?).

What is, Is... like it or no.

Adios

[Al Norris]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

So answer me again, Stinger. What National Parks or Monuments or Forests or Wildlife Refuges or BLM Lands were actually purchased and where are all those Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards or other needful Buildings?

Over 99% of all the land "claimed" by the Fed.Gov is unlawful according to the above. It's never been ammended, so tell me, how does the US Government claim all of that State land? Is your only answer, "because Teddy Roosevelt wanted it?" :neener:

Baba Louie wrote:
What is, Is... like it or no.

Until such a time that the individual State stand on their own two feet and move away from the federal feeding trough... But I'm not holding my breath! :banghead:

[Stinger]

Unfortunately for your case:

Article I
Section 8
Clause 11

This trumps your clause. Yours dealt with lands purchased, this deals with lands captured/seized.

:cool:

I enjoy a friendly debate, and am happy no one has resorted to mudslinging.

Let's keep it up, this being The High Road and all. :)

Stinger

[Stinger]

Al Norris,

Are you saying that Uncle Same took this land from territory/state? Please fill me in, as I haven't a clue.

Stinger

[jimpeel]

Unfortunately for your case:

Article I
Section 8
Clause 11

This trumps your clause. Yours dealt with lands purchased, this deals with lands captured/seized.I'm sorry, Stinger, but your stinging retort is patently false. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 states exactly what the Federal government may own. There is nothing else there to indicate otherwise.

Your contention adds a little something to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 which isn't actually there; that being the word "seized".

For one, you have to show that the lands under question were actually "captured".

They were not.

Nor were they "seized".

They were taken by agreement that, in most cases, was in return for the admission of the state into the Union. You make it sound like they were captured in battle or seized under the piracy laws (which, by the way, is the only place in the Constitution, other than Treason, where seizure is legal).

Don't read into the Supreme Law of the Land more than that which is actually in there. We complain incessantly about others who do; but usually only when that misreading affects us.

[Baba Louie]

Ouch. Cession

From the Nevada State Constitution

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.

There it is in black and white, right up front in the State Constitution.

Maybe everybody needs to get to know their state Constitution a little better. I know I'm gonna spend some time tonight and tomorrow looking over Nevada's and maybe Arizona's as well.

sigh.

Adios

edited to add a link to all of the state constitutions
http://www.constitution.org/cons/usstcons.htm

[Smoke]

Does anyone realize that ranchers PAY for grazing alotments on BLM land and are required to perform certain upkeep and maintenance of said alotments. They are also heavily monitored to make sure they run only as many animal units as their alotment calls for and for only the time frame stated.

This is not a case of someone taking something for nothing. If he was in violation of the agreement I think jail is a little harsh. Fines are the norm.

[gunsmith]

I have to give the Rancher the benefit of the doubt.
The same gov't that is locking him up to protect BLM
land would lock me up for carrying a pistol into Yosemite.
I don't understand all the issues regarding the Rancher
but they are robbing me of my 2nd Amendment rights so
I am sure they are robbing him of his rights as well.

[Stinger]

I'm sorry, Stinger, but your stinging retort is patently false.

No pun intended, I'm sure. BTW :neener: No patent on being wrong either. :neener:

I don't think I am reading anything into it other than what it plainly states:

Article II
Section8
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

I added the word seized. A quick glance of the thesarus would reveal that the words are synonyms. Congress has the right to make rules concerning the captures on land.

You may disagree that the land was captured, but I would imagine that the Natives and Mexicans would beg to differ. As would I.

Or I could be totally wrong, it has happened once before (but it was a tipo/


:evil: Stinger

[Al Norris]

...and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

A litlle reading comprehension goes a long way, Stinger.

Are you suggesting that the FedGov is capturing land on Land? OR is it instead, capturing forts and other structures along with the people that inhabit those structures?

Whereas Clause 17 states rather forcefully, that the only land that the FedGov shall have are those lands necessary for its various administrative and military buildings. And then only after receiving permission from the State and purchasing said land, again, from the State.

Are you really saying that after a territory has become a state, that all its lands still belong to the Feds? Thats not what the Idaho Constitution says.

Article X SECTION 4. PROPERTY OF TERRITORY BECOMES PROPERTY OF STATE. All property and institutions of the territory, shall, upon the adoption of the constitution, become the property and institutions of the state of Idaho.

Unlike Nevada, we ceeded nothing to the FedGov, yet now the FedGov owns more than 60% of all Idaho. Hmmmm, what'd they do, come in and capture it all?

[Stinger]

A litlle reading comprehension goes a long way, Stinger.

Was that really necessary? :confused: Oh well, maybe you haven't had your coffee yet this morning. :D

My momma always taught me that if I don't have anything nice to say that I shouldn't say anything at all. But my momma aint here, so:

Are you really saying that after a territory has become a state, that all its lands still belong to the Feds? Thats not what the Idaho Constitution says.

Okay, tell me where I said anything of the such.

Idaho Constitution says

Not so fast, my friend. Constitution is LAW OF THE LAND. I'll find that for you if you'd like. Idaho law doesn't trump US law. Never has, never will.

Unlike Nevada, we ceeded nothing to the FedGov, yet now the FedGov owns more than 60% of all Idaho. Hmmmm, what'd they do, come in and capture it all?

I have absolutely no idea. Why not do a little research instead of criticizing others with whom you disagree. When you find the answers, post them for the rest of us to see.

Like I said, I have been wrong before, this just isn't one of those times.

Stinger ;)

[Baba Louie]

Al Norris,

I was wondering the same thing about Idaho... Check out the State Board of Land Commissioners which has the power to "exchange" land with other local and federal jurisdictions for management/ownership.

The Idaho Constitution committee was obviously smarter than the boys in NV waaaaay back when in that regards, but it would appear that sometime in the past, deals were made with Uncle Sam to assist in managing forests, water, etc. and legislation was passed; as the Land Commissioners would have to have both state and federal house legislative approval (if I read it right).

Adios

[Al Norris]

Stinger: You are right. I reacted without thinking. But simply listing clause 11 doesn't cut it. What was once a federal territory is now a state. The feds gave up control when the territory became a state.

My reference to the Idaho Constitution was in answer to Baba Louie's posting of Nevada's deal with the Feds. Wasn't meant as a sign that the state constitution overode the Constitution.

As for where you said any such thing, if it wasn't implied, then what exactly did you mean? How can the Feds come into a state that has never rebelled and conquer it? Just what exactly do you mean by throwing up clause 11?

Clause 17, on the other hand, shows exactly what portions of state lands that the Feds can own and for what purpose and how they acquire it.

Baba Louie: Don't even get me started on the State Land Board and their complicity with Frank Church! Talk about a giveaway!!!

The facts remain, that the US Government has no Constitutional power or authority to acquire and manage all of the land, within State boundaries, it now holds.

[Stinger]

I read you, Al.

I think what we really need to figure out here is how did the US gov't acquire the lands in question. We need some real evidence, not hearsay or speculation. If the lands were acquired legitimately, that's one thing, if acquired illegitally, well, then that's another.

No hard feelings, we're all on the same team.

Stinger

[Baba Louie]

http://www.id.blm.gov/whatwedo/blm_history.htm

It was all done legally. Keeping and Managing said lands in the "Public's best interest" keeps Robber Baron Corporations from exploiting and thus denying Joe Citizen access.

In reading Arizona's Constitution, I was amazed to find a clause that limits any one person, corporation or organization to owning a maximum of 640 acres (one square mile -or- a section) of land for grazing, 160 acres if its agricultural land.

Powerful Lobbying groups can and do control enough politicians to have laws rewritten to their best interest (witness the Gaming Casino and Mining Owners in Nevada with their low low tax rates). Uncle Sam is oft-times the only one who can keep them in check.

So I gather that sometimes you've gotta choose the lessor of two evils. I don't think the Feds have done this for nefarious reasons, but like John Ross' book title "Unintended Consequences", sometimes the unweildy behemoth comes down too hard on the wrong group of taxpaying citizens basing their decisions on Good Intention. And they can bend or change the laws and regulations to their benefit (thus Our benefit, right?) as need be. Witness the debate herein concerning the rancher in question... some are for him, others agin him since they too feel he was goring their ox as taxpaying citizens and thus "Owners" of said desert sagebrush.
Its that "Social Contract" thing.

I'm sure the Cattle Barons were more than a little upset when the gov't allowed "squatters" 160 acres if they managed to get their homestead up and running and had to bring in "The Law" to back up their newfound rules and regulations. Same for timber or mining regions.

The really interesting one to study is "Water" rights and management, especially in the desert.

Here in LV, with some 4,000+ people moving in monthly, the So. NV. Water Authority is clamping down by raising feesand enforcing new restrictions on water use, yet has shown zero interest in curbing growth. They were challenged by Boulder City, who has always held growing development in check and who decided to beard the lion by telling SNWA to stuff it along their new rates and restrictions.

But that's off topic and I digress.

Adios

[Baba Louie]

http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/2000/SJM107.html

Sometimes the state level does something positive (even if to no avail) to try and keep Uncle Sam from ruining five (5) families way of life.

Adios

[Cosmoline]

running like a thread through all these federal/local land disputes is the utter failure of the feds to understand or even care much about local concerns. The officials tend to be outsiders, and typically look down their noses at locals. Not always, but often. The NPS is the worst offender in Alaska, and they have again and again made it clear that locals have no right even to enter the NPS occupied territories without permission in triplicate along with fees. They won't even let people carry iron with them, lest they harm the bears the NPS has carefully tamed for the touristas. I detest them.

Time to get these properties out of federal control. Perhaps a revival of the homesteading system is in order.

[gunsmith]

it burns me up that in places like Yosemite and Yellowstone
you can't carry a gun.
stupid fed bureaucrats in urban DC think all bears are like the ones
the ones in the zoo.