Wildlife vs. Welfare Ranchers

[Curmudgeon]

Anyone who has paid attention to land politics in the west knows that what is charged for grazing rights is in effect welfare for ranchers. Consider, cattle grazing is often destructive of wildlife habitat, the current occupation of a wildlife refuge that is essential habitat for migratory waterfowl. The conflict in Nevada with Cliven Bundy was in part due to attempts to protect the desert tortoise.

 

The Armed Oregon Ranchers Who Want Free Land Are Already Getting A 93 Percent Discount

By Leah Libresco

 

The takeover of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon appears to be more than just a protest of the impending imprisonment of two ranchers who set fires that spread into public lands. The armed demonstrators are led by Ammon Bundy, whose father, Cliven, has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the federal Bureau of Land Management to own some public lands or to regulate their use for grazing. But the government is giving the Bundy family a pretty good deal on the grazing rights it refuses to pay for.

 

In 1993, the bureau declined to renew Cliven Bundy’s grazing permits in parts of Nevada that were reserved for a threatened desert tortoise. But Bundy continued grazing his cattle there anyway and refused to pay any fines or fees. He claimed that the land really belonged to him, so why should he have to pay over $1 million in fines?

 

Now his son has furthered the fight by seizing the Oregon refuge. In a news conference Sunday, Ammon Bundy explained that he was there in protest of the “unconstitutional transactions of land rights and water rights.”

 

Those transactions, though, can be a pretty good deal, regardless of their constitutionality. According to a 2015 report by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bureau of Land Management’s fees for grazing cattle on public land are much lower than the fees charged by private landowners, and they’ve only become cheaper in recent years.

 

In 2012, the bureau’s fees for grazing were 93 percent cheaper than the average market rate in 16 Western states ($1.35 versus $20.10 per AUM, which is a fancy acronym for the amount of land needed to support a cow and her calf for a month¹).

 

The bureau’s fees are so much lower than the market price in part because its fees are set at a flat, national rate and can’t be adjusted to match demand in local markets. Plus, the bureau sets that national grazing price using a formula, rather than any kind of bidding system or market appraisals, as some other federal agencies with higher prices² do. As a result, in 2014, grazing fees covered only 15 percent of the bureau’s costs to maintain grazing lands. The rest of the cost is made up in federal appropriations and covered by taxpayers.

 

So getting to buy grazing rights from the Bureau of Land Management is a steal, unless, like the Bundys, you think the government is trying to charge you for what’s rightfully yours. Or, at the very least, not rightfully theirs. The Bundys claim the land because their ancestors worked on it before the bureau even existed.

 

The federal government owns over 80 percent of all land in the Bundys’ home state of Nevada and over half of all the land in Oregon. If that land were privately owned, the market price for grazing rights might be lower than it is today, as more private land owners competed with each other. But, for now, the government is using its clout to lower costs for ranchers, if they’re willing to accept the aid.

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by Curmudgeon

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Interesting read with the backstory

 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

 

[Curmudgeon]

Interesting read with the backstory

 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

 

Since the backstory claims to be "soup to nuts", why did they gloss over the native American issue?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/06/oregon-militia-malheur-wildlife-refuge-paiute-indian-tribe-sacred-land

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/01/03/bundy-militia-musters-again-over-paiute-land-162939

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Since the backstory claims to be "soup to nuts", why did they gloss over the native American issue?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/06/oregon-militia-malheur-wildlife-refuge-paiute-indian-tribe-sacred-land

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/01/03/bundy-militia-musters-again-over-paiute-land-162939

I don't know, maybe write the author and ask. They would be the only ones to know. 

[Mr VJP]

How does a person go from defending government ownership of huge amounts of land, to questioning why an article doesn't go into the Native American issue?

 

And the article does say this:

In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Mr VJP

[The_Field_Ager]

No farms = no food.

[The_Field_Ager]

How does a person go from defending government ownership of huge amounts of land, to questioning why an article doesn't go into the Native American issue?

 

 

 

That would the mental illness of liberalism. The narrative changes from one post to the next, quite shamelessly, and with no sense of historical context or consistency.

[The_Field_Ager]

 

 The conflict in Nevada with Cliven Bundy was in part due to attempts to protect the desert tortoise.

 

 

 

This was a proven lie. Bundy's land was pegged for a solar panel farm.

 

Company Tied to Harry Reid's Son Wants Land in Bundy Standoff

 

 

 

The Nevada rancher who forced the federal Bureau of Land Management to back down last week may have been targeted because a Chinese solar company with ties to Sen. Harry Reid's son wants the land for an energy plant, several websites report.

A report on Godfatherpolitics.com,  says Chinese energy giant ENN Energy Group wants to use federal land as part of its effort to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel-building plant in the southern Nevada desert. Rory Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is representing ENN in their efforts to locate in Nevada.

Part of the land ENN wants to use was purchased from Clark County at well below appraised value. Rory Reid is the former Clark County Commission chairman, and he persuaded the commission to sell 9,000 acres of county land to ENN on the promise it would provide jobs for the area, Reuters reported in 2012. 

 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bundy-ranch-rory-reid-harry-reid/2014/04/13/id/565328/

 

Edited January 8, 2016 by Papist

[philoshop]

 

Anyone who has paid attention to land politics in the west knows that what is charged for grazing rights is in effect welfare for ranchers. Consider, cattle grazing is often destructive of wildlife habitat, the current occupation of a wildlife refuge that is essential habitat for migratory waterfowl. The conflict in Nevada with Cliven Bundy was in part due to attempts to protect the desert tortoise.

 

The Armed Oregon Ranchers Who Want Free Land Are Already Getting A 93 Percent Discount

By Leah Libresco

 

The takeover of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon appears to be more than just a protest of the impending imprisonment of two ranchers who set fires that spread into public lands. The armed demonstrators are led by Ammon Bundy, whose father, Cliven, has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the federal Bureau of Land Management to own some public lands or to regulate their use for grazing. But the government is giving the Bundy family a pretty good deal on the grazing rights it refuses to pay for.

 

In 1993, the bureau declined to renew Cliven Bundy’s grazing permits in parts of Nevada that were reserved for a threatened desert tortoise. But Bundy continued grazing his cattle there anyway and refused to pay any fines or fees. He claimed that the land really belonged to him, so why should he have to pay over $1 million in fines?

 

Now his son has furthered the fight by seizing the Oregon refuge. In a news conference Sunday, Ammon Bundy explained that he was there in protest of the “unconstitutional transactions of land rights and water rights.”

 

Those transactions, though, can be a pretty good deal, regardless of their constitutionality. According to a 2015 report by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bureau of Land Management’s fees for grazing cattle on public land are much lower than the fees charged by private landowners, and they’ve only become cheaper in recent years.

 

In 2012, the bureau’s fees for grazing were 93 percent cheaper than the average market rate in 16 Western states ($1.35 versus $20.10 per AUM, which is a fancy acronym for the amount of land needed to support a cow and her calf for a month¹).

 

The bureau’s fees are so much lower than the market price in part because its fees are set at a flat, national rate and can’t be adjusted to match demand in local markets. Plus, the bureau sets that national grazing price using a formula, rather than any kind of bidding system or market appraisals, as some other federal agencies with higher prices² do. As a result, in 2014, grazing fees covered only 15 percent of the bureau’s costs to maintain grazing lands. The rest of the cost is made up in federal appropriations and covered by taxpayers.

 

So getting to buy grazing rights from the Bureau of Land Management is a steal, unless, like the Bundys, you think the government is trying to charge you for what’s rightfully yours. Or, at the very least, not rightfully theirs. The Bundys claim the land because their ancestors worked on it before the bureau even existed.

 

The federal government owns over 80 percent of all land in the Bundys’ home state of Nevada and over half of all the land in Oregon. If that land were privately owned, the market price for grazing rights might be lower than it is today, as more private land owners competed with each other. But, for now, the government is using its clout to lower costs for ranchers, if they’re willing to accept the aid.

 

 

The federal government can not own land. That's part of the Constitution. They have power to control certain parcels of land deemed necessary to the protection of the Republic. Military installations.

[Mr VJP]

Legally, the fed can't own land.  But they sure do own a lot of it.  Delaware Water Gap comes to mind in our area.

 

[wildcat junkie]

So, the federal government doesn't "own" any of the land that heir military bases occupy? They don't "own" the land occupied by the Whitehorse or the Capitol?

[philoshop]

10 square miles known as Washington DC, and military installations necessary to the protection of the nation.

That's all the land the federal government is allowed to "own" per the Constitution.

 

They are allowed by the various states to manage certain parcels of state-owned land. They manage them as national parks, preserves, monuments, etc for the benefit of the citizens. The federal government does not own those places, and they sure as hell don't own grassland or water rights in the western part of our Republic. 

[wildcat junkie]

10 square miles known as Washington DC, and military installations necessary to the protection of the nation.

That's all the land the federal government is allowed to "own" per the Constitution.

 

They are allowed by the various states to manage certain parcels of state-owned land. They manage them as national parks, preserves, monuments, etc for the benefit of the citizens. The federal government does not own those places, and they sure as hell don't own grassland or water rights in the western part of our Republic. 

 

Would you kindly cite the language in the constitution that states this?

[turks]

This was squashed in the late 1800's, no language in constituation clearly states that and numerous supreme court findings since have strengthened Fed ownership of land. You boys will have to find something else to argue about

[DirtTime]

Well, this may not be about hunting, but federal land it sure is about. The Alta Ski Area in Utah is privately run, but it's federal land. It's also one of the few ski areas left in the US that still ban snowboarders.

 

 

How do they ( the GOV ) explain other federal forest preserves if they can't own land? Worm in the minnow bucket?

[Mr VJP]

This is basically the heart of the matter as far as the Constitution is concerned:

 

It defines the "Property Clause" regarding federal land ownership.  It's a long and convoluted history, that is the reason today's controversy exits.

 

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

[Uptown Redneck]

Many morons on this site love to point to the constitution, however they only see in it what they want to see. They overlook all court rulings that show just how wrong their interpretation of the constitution is.  

[woodchuck]

Because the courts are never wrong?

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[greg54]

Many morons on this site love to point to the constitution, however they only see in it what they want to see. They overlook all court rulings that show just how wrong their interpretation of the constitution is.  

Liberals consider display of the Confederate flag as being racist

[Curmudgeon]

Many morons on this site love to point to the constitution, however they only see in it what they want to see. They overlook all court rulings that show just how wrong their interpretation of the constitution is.  

 

I was wondering when someone would get to this. Thanks Redneck. It seems on this site, the court is VJP and Papist.

 

[wildcat junkie]

10 square miles known as Washington DC, and military installations necessary to the protection of the nation.

That's all the land the federal government is allowed to "own" per the Constitution.

 

They are allowed by the various states to manage certain parcels of state-owned land. They manage them as national parks, preserves, monuments, etc for the benefit of the citizens. The federal government does not own those places, and they sure as hell don't own grassland or water rights in the western part of our Republic. 

 

 

Would you kindly cite the language in the constitution that states this?

 

 

This is basically the heart of the matter as far as the Constitution is concerned:

 

It defines the "Property Clause" regarding federal land ownership.  It's a long and convoluted history, that is the reason today's controversy exits.

 

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

Well, according to the narrowest  interpretation (read conservative) the federal government has at least the same "property rights of ownership" as a citizen. That would entitle the government to protection of those property rights by rule of law.

Edited January 9, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[wildcat junkie]

Many morons on this site love to point to the constitution, however they only see in it what they want to see. They overlook all court rulings that show just how wrong their interpretation of the constitution is.  

 

 

I was wondering when someone would get to this. Thanks Redneck. It seems on this site, the court is VJP and Papist.

 

I thought it was Bubba.

[wildcat junkie]

I wonder how hunters, outfitters & guides in western states that depend on access to BLM land view this land grab attempt by local ranchers?

Edited January 9, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[Mr VJP]

Many morons on this site love to point to the constitution, however they only see in it what they want to see. They overlook all court rulings that show just how wrong their interpretation of the constitution is.  

 

Then there are the morons on this site who don't believe the Constitution applies to anything today, because it's an old, outdated, living, piece of paper than needs to be scrapped to install the Rule of Men. They overlook all the court rulings that prove them wrong and enumerate inalienable rights.

 

They also overlook all the court rulings that don't support their desire to eliminate the Constitution.

 

Funny how these are also the guys who claim others don't correctly interpret it.

[Uptown Redneck]

I was wondering when someone would get to this. Thanks Redneck. It seems on this site, the court is VJP and Papist.

 

You're welcome Curmudgeon, I enjoy pointing out their ignorance

Edited January 10, 2016 by Uptown Redneck