Debunked: Bundy Ranch Dispute as BLM exploiting Fracking Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, he gets to keep his land. His dispute with the BLM is about his grazing on public land that he does not own. He lost the rights about 15 years ago after he stopped paying his fee. He's grazing illegally.
Years ago before Bill Clinton The fees collected locally and were used to help out other local ranchers who had financial trouble . Then the feds took over the collection of fees and the money fell into the black hole of bureaucracy and big government , That is when he stopped paying . He is the Lone rancher in that area because all the others were bought out by the BLM with the some of the fees collected .
 
He is the Lone rancher in that area...

So, it is safe to presume that this man feels his is a "just cause"? In other words, that he is "alone" against what he might consider "forces of evil"?

Could it simply be a psychological aspect that is this basic?
 
The TFR was over an area where his cattle are being illegally grazed and rounded up using helicopters. It's just below 3,000 feet (Above ground) .They probably just did it for a month by default, intending to lift it when the operation is complete.

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_1687.html

FDC 4/1687 ZLA NV..AIRSPACE MESQUITE, NV..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS WITHIN AREA DEFINED AS 3NM RADIUS OF 364624N/1141113W (MMM71 RADIAL AT 4.3NM) SFC-3000FT AGL LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137(A)(1) TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT. ONLY RELIEF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS UNDER DIRECTION OF BLM ARE AUTHORIZED IN THE AIRSPACE. BLM TELEPHONE 702-335-3191 IS IN CHARGE OF ON SCENE EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITY. LOS ANGELES /ZLA/ ARTCC TELEPHONE 661-265-8205 IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY. 1404112140-1405111434
Content from External Source
 
Years ago before Bill Clinton The fees collected locally and were used to help out other local ranchers who had financial trouble . Then the feds took over the collection of fees and the money fell into the black hole of bureaucracy and big government , That is when he stopped paying . He is the Lone rancher in that area because all the others were bought out by the BLM with the some of the fees collected .

Source?
 
If no other purpose, then it shows some Government interest. A TFR isn't issued haphazardly.

I don't know if this hurts, or helps the "de-bunk". I think, though, it should be pointed out, as an attempt at 'neutrality' (?)

ETA....looking at the OP headline again, it referenced "Fracking Rights"...but, in the last few pages, I see comments related to "Solar Power" generation.

Is it possible that those involved are deliberately confusing the issue? (Not those involved in the thread, those who are the TOPIC of the thread!).

(I am late to this discussion....so, forgive my ignorance).
 
Last edited:
Fun fact. The Desert Tortoise Conservation Center is still open. No tortoises were euthanized nor were there ever plans to. The center is run by San Diego Zoo Global and receives some federal funding. http://www.examiner.com/article/san...sia-of-threatened-tortoises-despite-ap-report

They are still at it today doing there best to help in tortoise recovery. http://blognew.sandiegozoo.org/category/conservation/desert-tortoises/

There are no plans to euthanize the desert tortoises.

This bears repeating because it's a popular talking point among the pro Bundy camp who claim that the 1998 order stop all grazing within the Gold Butte area to protect tortoises is a sham because the animals are being euthanized by the government anyway.

The private agency that manages a Nevada facility dedicated to conservation of the threatened desert tortoise has denied an Associated Press report that hundreds of the animals that are housed there may be euthanized in coming months as a result of reduced financial support from the federal government.

Simmons explained that some tortoises - for example, those who are suffering from such severe medical problems that they cannot be rehabilitated or released back into the wild - may need to be euthanized.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
The Desert Tortoise too??

We have, here....maybe a real-life "Gish-Gallop" underway? Being run by this rancher, Clive Anderson...no, I mean, Cliven Bundy?

Fracking (the extraction of certain fossil fuel resources), cattle "rights", and endangered species (aka, the desert tortoise)? WoW!! A Trifecta!!!

Oh, and Solar Power Plants....a QuadFecta!! (not a word...until now...).
 
2012
“While the federal agencies and county superficially attempted to meet the requirements, the reality is that because of their willful neglect, critical habitat has been steadily degraded by the trespass grazing,” said Mrowka. Recent surveys by the BLM have found 700 to 1,000 or more cattle in the Gold Butte area — an amount 10 times above what was legally permitted even before the tortoise’s protection. Grazing reduces vegetation the tortoises need to live and spreads noxious weeds by disturbing the soil with hooves and fur that carry invasive seed.
Last month, the local office of the Bureau of Land Management had planned a roundup of the trespass cattle, but the operation was canceled at the last minute by higher-ranking agency officials.
“We’ve tried to work with the BLM and county constructively to achieve a good resolution to this problem, but with the recent cancellation of a roundup of the trespass cattle, our only option for helping these tortoises is to take them to court,” said Mrowka http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2012/desert-tortoise-04-30-2012.html
Content from External Source
2014
Despite having no legal right to do so, cattle from Bundy’s ranch have continued to graze throughout the Gold Butte area, competing with tortoises for food, hindering the ability of plants to recover from extensive wildfires, trampling rare plants, damaging ancient American Indian cultural sites and threatening the safety of recreationists. Surveys by the BLM have found well over 1,000 cattle — many in easily damaged freshwater springs and riparian areas on public lands managed by the National Park Service and state of Nevada as well as the BLM http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/desert-tortoise-03-25-2014.html
Content from External Source


endangered species AND ancient American Indian cultural sites? I don't see how any can think the government had any choice in this at all.
 

The Taylor Grazing act (1934) created the legal basis for collecting grazing fees for cattle grazing on US government owned lands

Bundy paid those fees until 1993 when he stopped paying

Bundy has continued to allow his cattle to graze on those lands without paying the grazing fees.

Let's cast a little bit more light on the Taylor Grazing Act and Mr. Bundy, shall we?:

Since most of the state is desert, ranchers have always had to use tremendous acreage to feed cattle here. Our state was brought into the union around 1865. Prior to that, and after that, up till 1934 ranchers had legal free reign to graze cattle with no restrictions. This was called forage rights.

In the 1930's the ranchers had arguments between themselves regarding territories. So a few of the larger ones got together and asked the fed if they could hire them, by paying minimal fees to "manage" the land and break it out into sections. This was made into the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.

The fees are minimal. $1.74 per cow & calf per month. Ranchers had no problem paying that just to have disagreements settled.

Ranchers were also required to secure water rights and maintain and make improvements on the land. Mr. Bundy and his predecessors have always done that. No one is arguing that fact.

Bundy's ranch was established in 1877. His family purchased it later, in the 1880's. But when they did, they had to PAY for the water and forage rights.

After the 1934 act they continued to pay grazing fees and make improvements up until the 1990's.

Somewhere along the way the Bureau of Land Management was created. I don't know what year.

Around 1990 or so they told him that he could no longer graze more than 150 of his 600 or so head of cattle there.

He told them to pound sand and kept paying his fees and grazing his cattle.

Around 1994 they told him he could only graze them in the summer, fall and winter and said it was so that the cattle didn't disturb the Desert Tortoise. (more on that later)

He told them that they were HIRED by the Taylor Grazing act to MANAGE the land for the ranchers. So he FIRED them and started paying his fees to to the state of Nevada. Soon they didn't know where to put it so they quit taking payments.

Meanwhile they came at him from another angle. When they saw they weren't going to be able to force him off the land the BLM SOLD the rights to the land to the state of Nevada under the condition that the state RETIRE the grazing rights permanently. Nevada legislators, being idiots, did their bidding. That was around 1996 or so.

But the state left him alone and let him forage all those years.
Content from External Source
 

Grazing on Public Lands: Here to Stay or Gone Forever? Broken Promises, Empty Words, Hiding in the Cracks of Laws
Second In A Series, By Toni Thayer

Author’s Note: The following may seem like a legal quagmire of jumbled jargon, but it is highly significant to understanding the integral part it all plays in the current scenario of eliminating grazing on public lands:

The ranchers say they’ve experienced nothing but broken promises, empty words, and a government that hides in the cracks of laws. Have promises been made and broken?

Have messages contained empty words with little meaning? What do the laws say about the new BLM procedures and processes for stopping grazing on the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument (GSENM)?

When President Bill Clinton designated the GSENM on Sep. 18, 1996, his Presidential Proclamation 6920 promised that it did not change existing grazing or levels of grazing. “Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to affect existing permits or leases for, or levels of livestock grazing on Federal lands within the monument.”

The Flagstaff, Ariz., environmental group that spearheaded the GSENM’s designation, the Grand Canyon Trust affirms this same promise in their September 1996 publication, the Colorado Plateau Advocate, “Other existing uses of these public lands are not affected by the proclamation, including hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, and livestock grazing.”

Technically, these promises have not been broken, because Clinton’s proclamation, in and of itself, has not caused grazing to cease. However, this promise is not contained in the next part of the proclamation, “existing grazing uses shall continue to be governed by applicable laws and regulations other than this proclamation.” It’s these applicable regulations that have been changed to incorporate provisions for stopping grazing and retirement of permits.

Originally, Congress established grazing on public lands through the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (Taylor Act), to “promote the highest use” of the lands. Their goals were to stop injury to the land from overgrazing and soil deterioration; to provide for the land’s use, improvement and development; and to stabilize the livestock industry dependent on the public range.

Through the Taylor Act, Congress specified that preference for grazing permits be given to those in or near a grazing district and to landowners engaged in the livestock business, occupants or settlers, or owners of water or water rights.

Historically, Federal rules have given “preference” to livestock owners who have “base property” or water rights sufficient to support their herds. The Taylor Act also specified that existing permit holders’ grazing privileges must be “safeguarded”.

In 1976, Congress enacted another law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) that instructed the Department of Interior to develop “land use plans” based on “multiple use” and “sustained yield”. In other words, the plans had to provide for various uses (multiple use--range, timber, recreation, minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife, natural, scenic, scientific, and historical) and at the same time maintain the output of renewable resources to last forever (sustained yield).

FLPMA strengthened the Secretary of Interior’s authority to add or remove rangelands and to change the designated use through land use planning. It also stipulated that existing grazing permittees would keep “first priority” for renewal as long as the land use plan allocated domestic livestock grazing lands. If there were fluctuations in quantity or quality of forage and land planning revealed a need for changes, the Secretary could cancel, suspend or modify grazing permits and/or the amount of acreage available for grazing.

In 1995, then Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt changed the wording of FLPMA regulations to allow grazing permits for conservation use and permits to those “not in a livestock business”. The revisions replaced “preference” with “a priority position” tied to base property or water rights owned or controlled by the permittee. Regulations were also amended to give full title and ownership of all permanent rangeland improvements to the United States government.

On May 15, 2000, in Public Lands Council v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. Supreme Court (the Court) upheld several of Secretary Babbitt’s regulation amendments because, in the Court’s determination, the revisions only clarified terminology and would not jeopardize the security of a permit as required by Congressional mandate in the Taylor Act. The Court also upheld a previous Appeals Court ruling that Babbitt’s new conservation permits were unlawful.

The Court dismissed arguments that Babbitt’s regulations would allow “a scheme to end livestock grazing on the public lands” or would allow individuals to “obtain a permit for what amounts to a conservation purpose and then effectively mothball the permit”. They stated the “regulations specify that regular grazing permits will be issued for livestock grazing, or suspended use”.

The Court’s interpretation was that grazing is “based upon the amount of forage available for livestock grazing as established in the land use plan.” If there are changing range conditions, the Secretary could place the lands in a “suspended use”. A permittee could apply for temporary “nonuse” which must be renewed annually and could be utilized for no more than three consecutive years. The nonuse does not remove the land from grazing, because it may be allocated to others for forage.

Meanwhile, three years later, it appears that Secretary Babbitt’s amendments have established procedures whereby grazing permits are shelved for conservation purposes.

As reported in the first article of this series, the current land use changes did not arise from the need to rest or rehabilitate specific allotments, but rather, arbitrarily, as permittees came forward to sell a grazing permit based on their individual financial needs or their desire to end grazing on public lands.

The recently signed Decision Records by Utah State BLM Director Sally Wisely have erroneously placed the retired grazing permits into a “nonuse” category. In fact, BLM has placed the entire GSENM on a nonuse status due to drought conditions. It seems there is confusion about suspended use and nonuse.

There is also an interesting connection in three areas with Bruce Babbitt. As the Secretary of Interior, he changed Federal regulations to stop grazing on public lands, and was at one time a founder of the Grand Canyon Trust, the group that secures private donors to buyout the grazing permittees, and was a family member of the Babbitt Ranch that also holds grazing permits for public lands in Arizona.

As a charitable nonprofit, the Grand Canyon Trust does not have to disclose their private donors’ identities. Bill Hedden, the Trust’s Utah Conservation Director, declined to comment when asked for their names in a recent telephone interview.

It’s really anyone’s guess who these private donors might be, but they are rapidly changing Federal grazing procedures covertly, behind the skirts of the Grand Canyon Trust and the veil of environmentalism.

Our coverage continues next week as we look deeper into the varying factors of this grazing permit process.

Content from External Source
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/feb_2003/grazing_on.htm
 
Cattle are not the enemy of desert tortoise. The ravens are. Ravens used to be in the 2 digit numbers, now they are in the millions in the desert, and they prey on baby tortoises with their soft shells. They decimate the population, but they cannot be fined and so cannot contribute to coiffers the way ranchers and solar developers can. i get tired of people using the endangered species act when the act itself has really fallen short on protection. So i think they should lay off this struggling rancher on grounds of dt harm, when the raven population is allowed to go unchecked. Its quite silly. Sometimes the law works sometimes not as in the case of desert tortoise, but i wish the feds and others would stop using it as a valid argument against the rancher. Ask any desert tortoise biologist about the biggest threat to dt....
 
In 1992, when Clinton ran for president, environmental groups made clear their objective once he entered the Oval Office. Cattle Free in '93, they cried, demanding that Clinton vacate the 18,000 grazing permits and leases held by western ranchers on nearly 160 million acres across the American West, notwithstanding that livestock grazing on those lands has been a part of the West since the late 1830s when Texas cowboys drove their herds north.
Content from External Source
http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/...r-on-western-grazing-returns-to-federal-court It is a War on Cattle .
 

The Taylor Grazing act (1934) created the legal basis for collecting grazing fees for cattle grazing on US government owned lands

Bundy paid those fees until 1993 when he stopped paying

Bundy has continued to allow his cattle to graze on those lands without paying the grazing fees.

Let's cast a little bit more light on the Taylor Grazing Act and Mr. Bundy, shall we?:

Since most of the state is desert, ranchers have always had to use tremendous acreage to feed cattle here. Our state was brought into the union around 1865. Prior to that, and after that, up till 1934 ranchers had legal free reign to graze cattle with no restrictions. This was called forage rights.

In the 1930's the ranchers had arguments between themselves regarding territories. So a few of the larger ones got together and asked the fed if they could hire them, by paying minimal fees to "manage" the land and break it out into sections. This was made into the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.

The fees are minimal. $1.74 per cow & calf per month. Ranchers had no problem paying that just to have disagreements settled.

Ranchers were also required to secure water rights and maintain and make improvements on the land. Mr. Bundy and his predecessors have always done that. No one is arguing that fact.

Bundy's ranch was established in 1877. His family purchased it later, in the 1880's. But when they did, they had to PAY for the water and forage rights.

After the 1934 act they continued to pay grazing fees and make improvements up until the 1990's.

Somewhere along the way the Bureau of Land Management was created. I don't know what year.

Around 1990 or so they told him that he could no longer graze more than 150 of his 600 or so head of cattle there.

He told them to pound sand and kept paying his fees and grazing his cattle.

Around 1994 they told him he could only graze them in the summer, fall and winter and said it was so that the cattle didn't disturb the Desert Tortoise. (more on that later)

He told them that they were HIRED by the Taylor Grazing act to MANAGE the land for the ranchers. So he FIRED them and started paying his fees to to the state of Nevada. Soon they didn't know where to put it so they quit taking payments.

Meanwhile they came at him from another angle. When they saw they weren't going to be able to force him off the land the BLM SOLD the rights to the land to the state of Nevada under the condition that the state RETIRE the grazing rights permanently. Nevada legislators, being idiots, did their bidding. That was around 1996 or so.

But the state left him alone and let him forage all those years.
Content from External Source

Source?
 
endangered species AND ancient American Indian cultural sites? I don't see how any can think the government had any choice in this at all.
It's unfortunately pretty easy for those who see any protectionist measures as liberal politcial correctness that's totally unnecessary. They really don't see how an obscure species or culture that benefits them in no immediate way takes priority over their activities.
Somehow pure self-interest is seen as a core American value.
 
It's unfortunately pretty easy for those who see any protectionist measures as liberal politcial correctness that's totally unnecessary. They really don't see how an obscure species or culture that benefits them in no immediate way takes priority over their activities.
Somehow pure self-interest is seen as a core American value.
they'd probably reconsider if we started going around destroying all the antique guns and muscle cars they think are so cool.
 
It's unfortunately pretty easy for those who see any protectionist measures as liberal politcial correctness that's totally unnecessary. They really don't see how an obscure species or culture that benefits them in no immediate way takes priority over their activities.
Somehow pure self-interest is seen as a core American value.

Unfortunately Pete, that mentality isnt just restricted to the US. How many times do you hear people bitch about there 'never being a cop around when you need one" and then turn RIGHT around and whine because they got a ticket? Westerners, in general, really only care about things when it affects them personally on some level.
 
Unfortunately, those of you defending the BLM are gov't shills. The BLM is NOT a law making entity. It is a bureaucracy with no elected officials and very little oversight. Rules are created by whim with no voice of the people. Look into Harry Reid's activities with regard to the property around the Bundy Ranch. Don't kid yourselves that Harry Reid and his son will make out like bandits once all the cattle are gone. Yes, the BLM employees most likely don't get a raise with any oil/solar businesses taking hold but Harry Reid gets more clout and huge campaign donations.

Having grown up in the area, I have witnessed first hand the heavy handed restrictions and penalties of the BLM. There were 53 ranchers in the area 20 years ago. Cliven Bundy is the only one left. Grazing limits and fees have been arbitrary, unfair, and unsustainable for ranching profit. When there's a grievance, it goes to federal court to a federal judge who almost always sides with the federal bureaucracy. Conflict of interest? YES! And there's no recourse other than citizens to STAND UP AND BE LOUD!

I stand with Cliven Bundy.
 
....so....this "Bundy Ranch Dispute" involves someone who wants to use the modern laws, while at the same time attempting to invoke "territorial-era" 19th century rural west type of "This Land Is My Land" criteria??

That's just frakking....(OK, somebody had to say it!!):


JUST NOTED....in the video above, there is an ACTUAL Boeing airplane sound added into the foley in one of the clips!! Bonus points for those who notice (PM me).....
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, those of you defending the BLM are gov't shills. The BLM is NOT a law making entity. It is a bureaucracy with no elected officials and very little oversight. Rules are created by whim with no voice of the people. Look into Harry Reid's activities with regard to the property around the Bundy Ranch. Don't kid yourselves that Harry Reid and his son will make out like bandits once all the cattle are gone. Yes, the BLM employees most likely don't get a raise with any oil/solar businesses taking hold but Harry Reid gets more clout and huge campaign donations.

Having grown up in the area, I have witnessed first hand the heavy handed restrictions and penalties of the BLM. There were 53 ranchers in the area 20 years ago. Cliven Bundy is the only one left. Grazing limits and fees have been arbitrary, unfair, and unsustainable for ranching profit. When there's a grievance, it goes to federal court to a federal judge who almost always sides with the federal bureaucracy. Conflict of interest? YES! And there's no recourse other than citizens to STAND UP AND BE LOUD!

I stand with Cliven Bundy.
actually BLM and the county ignored federal law and judgements for over 12 years and only acted under threat of being sued for "willful negligence". in my links here. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...iting-fracking-rights.3439/page-4#post-100940
 
they'd probably reconsider if we started going around destroying all the antique guns and muscle cars they think are so cool.
Lets leave the muscle cars out of this. Those are important to people on both sides of the political spectrum. Mustangs and Desert Tortoises can coexist.
 
Unfortunately, those of you defending the BLM are gov't shills.

Hmmm.....I have no dog in this discussion. I don't defend the BLM. In fact, though....I tend to the side of the rule of law.

IF that means in defense of the BLM, then so be it. I just don't think that anyone's assumed "personal freedom" must rule over the Democratic majority, in a civilized society.

Such a person (who thinks himself, or herself "above" others) is usually called a "King"...or a "Queen". In some other methods of 'governance'.
 
Hmmm.....I have no dog in this discussion. I don't defend the BLM. In fact, though....I tend to the side of the rule of law.

IF that means in defense of the BLM, then so be it. I just don't think that anyone's assumed "personal freedom" must rule over the Democratic majority, in a civilized society.

Such a person (who thinks himself, or herself "above" others) is usually called a "King"...or a "Queen". In some other methods of 'governance'.
In the U.S. we usually use much more colorful language to describe those people.
 
Unfortunately, those of you defending the BLM are gov't shills. The BLM is NOT a law making entity. It is a bureaucracy with no elected officials and very little oversight. Rules are created by whim with no voice of the people. Look into Harry Reid's activities with regard to the property around the Bundy Ranch. Don't kid yourselves that Harry Reid and his son will make out like bandits once all the cattle are gone. Yes, the BLM employees most likely don't get a raise with any oil/solar businesses taking hold but Harry Reid gets more clout and huge campaign donations.

Having grown up in the area, I have witnessed first hand the heavy handed restrictions and penalties of the BLM. There were 53 ranchers in the area 20 years ago. Cliven Bundy is the only one left. Grazing limits and fees have been arbitrary, unfair, and unsustainable for ranching profit. When there's a grievance, it goes to federal court to a federal judge who almost always sides with the federal bureaucracy. Conflict of interest? YES! And there's no recourse other than citizens to STAND UP AND BE LOUD!

I stand with Cliven Bundy.


Based on your logic, I think you must be the government shill @JazzyLM , because only a shill would try so hard to blame shilling on other people so as to distract everyone from the real issues.
 
The US is a country of the rule of law. The law means, the constitution, international treaties, case law, federal, state, local statutes, regulations of administrative bodies, etc. What the law definitely is NOT is something that pops in mr. Bundy's head and he decides that that's the way things oughta be.

We have the government for (among others) precisely the reason that people like mr. Bundy exist and the only way, it seems, to protect our legal rights from people like mr. Bundy is to go to war with them because they have zero respect for the laws that originate in any other place than their heads.
 
Cattle are not the enemy of desert tortoise. The ravens are. Ravens used to be in the 2 digit numbers, now they are in the millions in the desert, and they prey on baby tortoises with their soft shells. They decimate the population, but they cannot be fined and so cannot contribute to coiffers the way ranchers and solar developers can. i get tired of people using the endangered species act when the act itself has really fallen short on protection. So i think they should lay off this struggling rancher on grounds of dt harm, when the raven population is allowed to go unchecked. Its quite silly. Sometimes the law works sometimes not as in the case of desert tortoise, but i wish the feds and others would stop using it as a valid argument against the rancher. Ask any desert tortoise biologist about the biggest threat to dt....
Do you have any sources to back up this claim that the ravens are the cause of the decline in the desert tortoise?

The way I understand it, the tortoise and raven have co-existed together for tens of thousands of years while cattle have only been introduced in the past 500+ years.
 
Not Found
The requested URL was not found on this server. Thats the page now ? Hmm why would they remove it and then backdown ? http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bundy-ranch-rory-reid-harry-reid/2014/04/13/id/565328/ seems like they are trying to hide something

Again, that newsmax article erroneously links the Reuters report on ENN's project in Laughlin, NV from 2012 to Dry Lake SEZ. I haven't found anything that establishes a connection. People see "solar" and "Nevada" and assume they are related.

I'm not sure why that particular page was changed or moved on BLM's website, but they still have all the same information regarding Dry Lake SEZ up and available, including technical note 444:

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/dry_lake_solar_energy.html

If they were trying to hide something why would they let this information remain available? Just like the page that was removed it discusses Gold Butte as a location for offsite mitigation and how grazing may affect that.
 
Last edited:
Overgrazing.

Still overgrazing since he increased his heard size once the others were out of the picture.

Trying to raise cattle in the desert must be one of the most inefficient methods of beef production currently in use.

His "way of life" is being forced out by economics- consumer tastes and productions methods- not by the Federal government.
 
Here's something interesting. Maybe Harry Reid should be kicked off his land that he thinks he owns.
- Harry Reid 'owns' 200 acres in Searchlight, all old BLM mining deeds inherited from his miner dad, all filled with desert Tortoise. His claim to that land is likely dependent on BLM favouritism. Maybe he should be evicted. In 2007 Vegas land was $700k/acre. People thought Searchlight would be bedroom community. During RE boom, Reid thought his land worth $20 million. That's why the new four lane highway into Searchlight directly benefited Reid, for land he has no more right to than the Bundys.
- Someone should ask how many Tortoises were killed building four lane superhighway to Harry Reid's land in Searchlight. Reid has positioned himself to be a beneficiary of owning the land entering Searchlight as a future bedroom community
http://www.dailypaul.com/316556/harry-reids-connection-to-bundy-ranch-siege

And that is a response to my question "As for the exorbitant fees, how much were they before the tortoise problem, and how much were they afterwards?"? Seriously? Major deflection, and way off topic.
 
An interesting observation, no BLM legal action against Bundy from 2000 till April 2008. Why such a long period of time??? Mary Jo Rugwell, BLM Associate State Director signed statement 17 Dec 2012 tries to make Bundy out to be a violent person by using his statement Constructive Notice and Demand for Protection Nov. 1998, 15 years ago now. But that is not how the notice reads. Yes he has not been friendly in the past to say the least with the BLM and threw their cancelation notice out for his trucks window that was placed on the dash by BLM. Oh one of his sons also ripped up the notice too… The Nevada Desert is by far safer in the small rancher’s hands because you do not destroy your lively hood as opposed to Big Business that has no tie to the land and has pure profit motivation. Plans are in work for this land to be used for some type of revenue generation the Federal Government has a vested interest in rest assured. If this was about getting him to pay the fees to the Government the last Federal Court Order would be enough to place a lien on his bank accounts and property. Also this would have been done long ago so ask yourself why a show of force now??

I smell a steaming pile of something and it didn’t come from one of Bundy’s Bovines.
 
What plans are in the works? Can you be more specific and list sources so we can see what you are talking about?


Well a lot of acreage is open to Variance in the area of the Bundy Ranch according to official BLM map and it has to do with Solar Power production. So something smells rotten…

In Zoning law a Variance is, an official permit to use property in a manner that departs from the way in which other property in the same locality can be used.

http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/rod/maps/allocations/Solar_PEIS_ROD_NV_map_poster.pdf

Oh and Sen Reid seems irritated too…

http://www.mynews4.com/news/local/s...ttle-Its-not-over/nT5weKnqFkezV14I5GhESg.cspx
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top