RyanChandler
Well-known member
knabe said:
Tyranny
- Thread starter RankeCattleCo
- Start date
Help Support Steer Planet:
Chambero -- In parts of Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona and to some extent in the desert areas of California, BLM grazing permits in many of these areas are attached to "water base property," while in most of the rest of the West, the grazing permits are attached to land "base property." When the states were admitted to the Union under their individual enabling acts, each state received anywhere from 2 to 4 sections of land per township, but the federal government kept title to areas that had not been homesteaded, claimed under the General Mining Law, deeded to the railroads, or claimed under some other law allowing private claims. The several homestead acts, including the Desert Land Act of 1877 provided that the water was severed from the public domain and subject to appropriation under state or territorial law. The homesteaders only received a patent to land from the federal government and had to appropriate their water rights under state law if they wanted to irrigate their homesteads. States and their predecessor Territories recognized the prior appropriation doctrine from early on and people were able to secure their rights through claims and filing systems set up by the States and Territories.
The desert states, unlike the other Western states, allowed for the appropriation of water for various purposes solely in the appropriator's name, including livestock grazing, even if the appropriator did not have title to the land. Thus, there are many water rights on federal and state land that are held by private individuals and entities. The BLM then recognized water base properties for issuance of grazing preferences (based on a system of recognizing prior grazing use of the area, ownership of water rights, proximity of the headquarters to the area, etc.) in these desert areas. This is how Bundy owns water rights on federal lands. Fortunately for Texas, it has a way different history and doesn't have to put up with having the federal government own 40-90% of its land area.
The desert states, unlike the other Western states, allowed for the appropriation of water for various purposes solely in the appropriator's name, including livestock grazing, even if the appropriator did not have title to the land. Thus, there are many water rights on federal and state land that are held by private individuals and entities. The BLM then recognized water base properties for issuance of grazing preferences (based on a system of recognizing prior grazing use of the area, ownership of water rights, proximity of the headquarters to the area, etc.) in these desert areas. This is how Bundy owns water rights on federal lands. Fortunately for Texas, it has a way different history and doesn't have to put up with having the federal government own 40-90% of its land area.
knabe
Well-known member
-XBAR- said:
http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm
I used to be a die hard liberal like you. Then I found out government wastes more human resources than anything and that competition drives down costs better than central planning which excels at driving up costs. It took a bit of challenging my beliefs and seeking out information that didn't support my thesis, the very center of the scientific method. Your hatred for those that are different will melt away as well.
knabe
Well-known member
If the government sold the land, they wouldn't need as many blm employees, snipers and bullet purchases, which have nothing to do with managing the land and generating tax revenue and the cost to "manage" could be utilized elsewhere for some social programs that xbar thinks we need.
GoWyo-
Thank you. That's the first time I've ever heard that and I suppose that explains a lot of the seeming hereditary grazing rights on public land.
Do you know if the fed agencies ever try to buy those water rights or claim imminent domain on them like they do surface?
Thank you. That's the first time I've ever heard that and I suppose that explains a lot of the seeming hereditary grazing rights on public land.
Do you know if the fed agencies ever try to buy those water rights or claim imminent domain on them like they do surface?
chambero said:
They usually do not. The federal government modus operandi is to basically constrict and regulate in order to create a willing seller (this is where groups like Nature Conservancy or some other "land trust" come in to buy the property after the federal government softens the owners up by making it impossible to afford to own the property). The land trusts then transfer the land to a governmental entity when the budgets and deals come together. They usually make a nice fat profit to fund other acquisitions.
There can be condemnations through eminent domain, but that seems to be a less preferred practice unless there is a project that has to move fast, in which case eminent domain is the quicker route. The federal government is very large, well-funded and patient, so it can afford to put the squeeze on over a long period of time until people run out of money, resources and hope and just give up. Many times things like wolf reintroduction and endangered species listings are very convenient to help put on the squeeze and increase the misery level. It is full of corruption and collusion. Read some issues of RANGE magazine if you ever run across them. It is highly enlightening and often depressing.
knabe
Well-known member
Perhaps the federal government should just own all the land. It would solve so many problems.
That way, we could remove someone from the land for donating to a cause that a new majority disagreed with and make it impossible for those who disagree with the majority, no matter how slim to earn a living.
If one were a lawyer and caught in the same maelstrom, surely they would be now called xbar
That way, we could remove someone from the land for donating to a cause that a new majority disagreed with and make it impossible for those who disagree with the majority, no matter how slim to earn a living.
If one were a lawyer and caught in the same maelstrom, surely they would be now called xbar
knabe
Well-known member
GM said:
tongue in cheek.
RyanChandler
Well-known member
knabe said:
That is the very essence of the liberal outlook. Instead of opinions being held dogmatically, as is the case with conservatives, they are held tentatively and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.
RankeCattleCo
Well-known member
The bottom line is that Bundy has the unalienable rights to this land and now the Federal government is taking away that right (illegally) by spending our tax dollars.
knabe
Well-known member
-XBAR- said:
knabe
Well-known member
Sheep said:
this is just another incremental elimination of property rights as all grounds to defend them, even if victorious, are eliminated.
RyanChandler
Well-known member
It's not, nor has it ever been, his property. What are you talking about - unalienable rights?
knabe
Well-known member
the water rights and their appurtenances. the federal government has been on a tear to eliminate private water rights by any means necessary. a culvert in one's driveway is not a waterway, but it really is. trying to widen the culvert on our property was not allowed by the government to accommodate wider equipment, so now we just drive over it.
if the cattle are there illegally, what about illegal aliens?
if the cattle are there illegally, what about illegal aliens?
RankeCattleCo
Well-known member
His ancestors staked claim to this land before the federal government ever did.
Thank you knabe, why don't we spend this tax money sending the illegal immigrants from the West back to their home country?
Thank you knabe, why don't we spend this tax money sending the illegal immigrants from the West back to their home country?
RyanChandler
Well-known member
Sheep said:
before the federal govt did? (lol) W/ that logic, American Indians own all the nation's land and you, sheep, are the illegal in need of deportation.
knabe
Well-known member
-XBAR- said:
war trumps that. as far as i'm concerned, there shouldn't have been reservations.
war always trumps contract law.
