Utah vs Feds vs Native Americans vs Ranchers in Bears Ears Land Grab

[presence]

http://static01.********/images/2016/03/11/us/12utahweb1/12utahweb1-master675.jpg

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2016/mar/10/utah-earmarks-45-million-federal-land-grab-attempt/


On Wednesday, Utah approved setting aside $4.5 million as the first payment toward the $14 million estimated to fund a lawsuit aimed at asserting state ownership of tens of millions of acres of federal land within Utah's borders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/remote-utah-enclave-new-battleground-over-reach-of-us-control.html


Today, the land known as Bears Ears — named for twin buttes that jut out over the horizon — has become something else altogether: a battleground in the fight over how much power Washington exerts over federally controlled Western landscapes.


At a moment when much of President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s environmental agenda has been blocked by Congress and stalled in the courts, the president still has the power under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to create national monuments on federal lands with the stroke of a pen. A coalition of tribes, with support from conservation groups, is pushing for a new monument here in the red-rock deserts, arguing it would protect 1.9 million acres of culturally significant land from new mining and drilling and become a final major act of conservation for the administration.




To create a new monument out of Bears Ears “would be almost un-American,” Mr. Adams said. Val Dalton, a rancher who grazes cattle almost exclusively on federal land, said new federal protections “would put us out of business.”

[farreri]

Val Dalton, a rancher who grazes cattle almost exclusively on federal land, said new federal protections “would put us out of business.”
What's he doing grazing on government land in the first place. Can't he graze on his own land?

[presence]

What's he doing grazing on government land in the first place. Can't he graze on his own land?

What's the government doing holding land in the first place?

[farreri]

What's the government doing holding land in the first place?
Well that would cause him to really not be able to graze on government land which goes back to my original question, why isn't he grazing on his own land?

[phill4paul]

What's he doing grazing on government land in the first place. Can't he graze on his own land?

This isn't the east. It isn't grass land. It's scrub land. Meh, Kale is probably the central part of your diet anyway.

[dannno]

Well that would cause him to really not be able to graze on government land which goes back to my original question, why isn't he grazing on his own land?

Technically, it is his land because his family has likely been grazing on it for generations - maybe even before the Feds owned it - maybe even before the state owned it.

People in the west "put up" with the whole notion of public grazing lands because they didn't think they would be taken from them.. But over time they instituted grazing fees (taxes) and then eventually just tell them they can't graze their anymore.

That entire scenario doesn't jive with the concept of real property rights. Under real property rights, they would have owned the land all along, not the feds. Think of it as a 'slow theft'. A really slow one.

[presence]

Well that would cause him to really not be able to graze on government land which goes back to my original question, why isn't he grazing on his own land?

this is wide open land, millions of acres, that has been grazed without fencing by local ranchers from 1550 to 1934.

Then came the government.... here to fix everything:

licenses, permits, fees, regulations, inspections, cullings, and all the other wonderful things .gov does

[phill4paul]

Well that would cause him to really not be able to graze on government land which goes back to my original question, why isn't he grazing on his own land?

Because over generations the Fed opened territories, encouraged expansion, changed their mind, incorporated up to 80% of individual states then pulled the rug.

[Ender]

Technically, it is his land because his family has likely been grazing on it for generations - maybe even before the Feds owned it - maybe even before the state owned it.

People in the west "put up" with the whole notion of public grazing lands because they didn't think they would be taken from them.. But over time they instituted grazing fees (taxes) and then eventually just tell them they can't graze their anymore.

That entire scenario doesn't jive with the concept of real property rights. Under real property rights, they would have owned the land all along, not the feds. Think of it as a 'slow theft'. A really slow one.

THIS.

[farreri]

This isn't the east. It isn't grass land. It's scrub land.
So?


Meh, Kale is probably the central part of your diet anyway.
It's not, but even if it was, I would say why is that kale farmer farming on government land and not his own?

[phill4paul]

So?


It's not, but even if it was, I would say why is that kale farmer farming on government land and not his own?

What state are you from? Then lets discuss it.

[dannno]

farreri is vegetarian so they think that we need to destroy ecosystems and the environment by creating more farms to obtain food.

[Danke]

What's he doing grazing on government land in the first place. Can't he graze on his own land?

Can you show in the Constitution what kind of land the federal government can own?

[farreri]

What state are you from? Then lets discuss it.
Pick a state.

[farreri]

Can you show in the Constitution what kind of land the federal government can own?
Regardless of if the Feds, State, or any government entity can own land, the question still remains, why isn't he grazing on his own land?

[phill4paul]

Pick a state.

Excellent non-answer. You're good.

Give me a reason to give a shit where people herd cattle.

[farreri]

farreri is vegetarian so they think that we need to destroy ecosystems and the environment by creating more farms to obtain food.
I'm not, but ironically you were! Now please stop trolling.

[Danke]

Regardless of if the Feds, State, or any government entity can own land, the question still remains, why isn't he grazing on his own land?

Because the federal government claims to own most of the land out west? See Dannno's posts here.

[farreri]

Give me a reason to give a $#@! where people herd cattle.
If you don't give a shit, why are you responding in this thread?

[phill4paul]

If you don't give a shit, why are you responding in this thread?

Another post that does not answer my questions. pfft.

[farreri]

Because the federal government claims to own most of the land out west? See Dannno's posts here.
Regardless of the constitutionality of the gov owning the land, still doesn't answer why he can't graze on his own land.

[farreri]

Another post that does not answer my questions. pfft.
What can I say, I thought your questions were kind of stupid.

[phill4paul]

What can I say, I thought your questions were kind of stupid.

Ok. So sorry you lost a rep. bar because of this chosen obfuscation. See ya in the red?

[presence]

Regardless of the constitutionality of the gov owning the land, still doesn't answer why he can't graze on his own land.


cattle ranchers and sheep herders needed large tracts of land to feed their livestock,
not the smaller parcels they could claim through homestead policies

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/upshot/why-the-government-owns-so-much-land-in-the-west.html

[pcosmar]

What's he doing grazing on government land in the first place. Can't he graze on his own land?

It is not the government's land.

It is the peoples land..as "we the people'. it is used by many people. Ranchers included.
It is not and can not be "Federal Land". It is open range.. and it is in the States jurisdiction.

[pcosmar]

why isn't he grazing on his own land?

He is.

It is his land as one of "We the People".
He has a right to fair use of open range.

[Chester Copperpot]

I see the vegetarian, gay, pothead, pinko commie strikes again!

[RonPaulIsGreat]

We are the government, so that means you own the land!!! Why are people complaining about owning land. You should rejoice that you own a piece of land somewhere you didn't know about and don't have to maintain .

[farreri]

He is.

It is his land as one of "We the People".
He has a right to fair use of open range.
Sounds socialist.

[Dianne]

Can you show in the Constitution what kind of land the federal government can own?

Yeah, that's what I'm asking. They already own all our homes via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[pcosmar]

Sounds socialist.

Does it?
The concept of Free Range preexisted socialism.

[farreri]

Does it?
The concept of Free Range preexisted socialism.
He can buy his own land and make it a grazing free range, or factory farm, or whatever he wishes on his own land.

[presence]

Sec. 26. God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And tho' all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man. The fruit, or venison, which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his, i.e. a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it, before it can do him any good for the support of his life.

Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.


Sec. 28. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners.

Thus the grass my horse has bit;
the turfs my servant has cut;
and the ore I have digged in any place,
where I have a right to them in common with others,
become my property,
without the assignation or consent of any body.




The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.



John Locke 1689

[pcosmar]

He can buy his own land and make it a grazing free range, or factory farm, or whatever he wishes on his own land.

Why,? It is free Range Land. It supports many uses including Cattle Ranching.

It is land that is deliberately NOT owned by anyone.

[farreri]

Why,? It is free Range Land. It supports many uses including Cattle Ranching.

It is land that is deliberately NOT owned by anyone.
So I can go 4-wheeling on it, destroying all the natural grasses and creating dangerous ruts in the soil that would make it inhospitable to grazing cattle?

[presence]

if you destroyed the natural grasses that a cattle grazer was making regular use of you would be destroying his property right in that grass

if you destroyed the natural grasses in the middle of nowhere that no one was using you would be creating your own right in that property to use it for 4-wheeling

[farreri]

if you destroyed the natural grasses that a cattle grazer was making regular use of you would be destroying his property right in that grass
Sounds like he's getting special rights.

[presence]

when one takes something out of the state of nature, add his labour to it, he does gain special rights:

it becomes his property



If Columbus lands on a new continent, is it legitimate for him to proclaim all the new continent his own, or even that sector 'as far as his eye can see'? Clearly, this would not be the case in the free society that we are postulating. Columbus or Crusoe would have to use the land, to 'cultivate' it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it.... If there is more land than can be used by a limited labor supply, then the unused land must simply remain unowned until a first user arrives on the scene. Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be.

Murray Rothbard

[farreri]

when one takes something out of the state of nature, add his labour to it, he does gain special rights:

it becomes his property
If I start a garden on this section of unused land on my neighbors property, does that all of a sudden become my property?

[presence]

If I start a garden on this section of unused land on my neighbors property, does that all of a sudden become my property?

over a period of time, and it varies by jurisdiction, yes... he who is in physical possession of something for long enough will have more rights in a court of law than he who is in legal possession of the same

the previous owners "disinterest" is considered grounds for having lost ownership claim

keyword "adverse possession"

[farreri]

over a period of time, and it varies by jurisdiction, yes... he who is in physical possession of something for long enough will have more rights in a court of law than he who is in legal possession of the same

the previous owners "disinterest" is considered grounds for having lost ownership claim

keyword "adverse possession"
Scary.

[devil21]

If I start a garden on this section of unused land on my neighbors property, does that all of a sudden become my property?

Many of those rancher families were using that land under common law possession long before the federal government declared bankruptcy and turned the "lands" over to bankers as collateral against the new "debt money" without any input from the humans that were using the land under common law. Learn the history.

[farreri]

Many of those rancher families were using that land under common law possession long before the federal government declared bankruptcy and turned the "lands" over to bankers as collateral against the new "debt money" without any input from the humans that were using the land under common law. Learn the history.
Then they should all band together and make a lawsuit against the Feds.

[Danke]

If I start a garden on this section of unused land on my neighbors property, does that all of a sudden become my property?

Yep, and if you walk a certain path through property after a period of time the owner can't kick you off using that path.

[dannno]

Then they should all band together and make a lawsuit against the Feds.

In a federal court??

You are insane.

[farreri]

In a federal court??

You are insane.
How do you suggest they change things?

[dannno]

How do you suggest they change things?

Who cares? The question is why do you support the tyrants?

[devil21]

Then they should all band together and make a lawsuit against the Feds.

Apparently, you are unaware of what that gold fringed flag standing behind the judge's bench (and most every politician) means. I truly don't mean to sound rude but your posts are clear examples of why our education system is garbage, particularly regarding the true history of this country, not the massaged, rewritten and dumbed down version for the masses.

[farreri]

Who cares?
You accuse me of being insane because of my suggestion of what they should do. Well let's see what your suggestion is to determine if you're insane or not.

[farreri]

Apparently, you are unaware of what that gold fringed flag standing behind the judge's bench (and most every politician) means. I truly don't mean to sound rude but your posts are clear examples of why our education system is garbage, particularly regarding the true history of this country, not the massaged, rewritten and dumbed down version for the masses.
How do you suggest they change things?

[devil21]

How do you suggest they change things?

Educating yourself is a great first step, otherwise you're playing a game of which you are unaware of the rules and spouting off out of ignorance. This applies to anyone that has any interest in changing anything.

[farreri]

Educating yourself is a great first step, otherwise you're playing a game of which you are unaware of the rules and spouting off out of ignorance. This applies to anyone that has any interest in changing anything.
How does me getting an education help those ranchers?

[devil21]

How does me getting an education help those ranchers?

Not sure if serious. Sleeping people can't help anyone. Mass awakenings can force change by changing perceptions. Much more is accomplished by intellectual revolution than by physical revolution. After all, most of the theft of this country (which is what I vaguely described in my above posts) was accomplished through intellectual means, not so much physical means. Would it help the ranchers this very moment? No, but the land itself isn't going anywhere so this same battle will rage on for a long time, as it has throughout history.

[farreri]

Not sure if serious. Sleeping people can't help anyone. Mass awakenings can force change by changing perceptions. Much more is accomplished by intellectual revolution than by physical revolution. After all, most of the theft of this country (which is what I vaguely described in my above posts) was accomplished through intellectual means, not so much physical means.
I vote Libertarian. Doesn't that help?


Would it help the ranchers this very moment? No
Then what suggestion do you have that might be more plausible than what I suggested that might help them sooner than later?

[pcosmar]

So I can go 4-wheeling on it, destroying all the natural grasses and creating dangerous ruts in the soil that would make it inhospitable to grazing cattle?

I have to ask why you would deliberately destroy?

and I would also point out that dozens or even hundreds of 4 wheelers would not destroy all the grasses..

and the cattle of today are still less than the herds of Buffalo that used to run this land.

Your ignorance of both nature and the scope of land in question is almost astounding. if it is not entirely fake.

[Chester Copperpot]

I vote Libertarian. Doesn't that help?


Then what suggestion do you have that might be more plausible than what I suggested that might help them sooner than later?

no you dont... theres not a libertarian bone in your body.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Today, the land known as Bears Ears — named for twin buttes that jut out over the horizon — has become something else altogether: a battleground in the fight over how much power Washington exerts over federally controlled Western landscapes.

That statement is so wrong. Washington should not exert "power" over any territory except its own tiny s***hole.