Hey, Resistant Ridiculous Redneck Goober--Get off the public land!

On the other end of the spectrum (this p i sses me off more):

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...d/?intcmp=latestnews

 

BRECKENRIDGE, Colo. –  "They're spending us to death," said landowner Andy Barrie.

He is not talking about property taxes, inflation or even the cost of skiing in glitzy ski country. Rather, he's talking about the legal fight he and his wife have been waging to save their pristine piece of mountain property -- with breathtaking views of Colorado's high country -- from being taken over by the county through eminent domain.

Their battle is a unique test of private property rights. Unlike in countless other cases, where local governments have used those powers to seize land to make way for a road or some economic development project, Colorado's Summit County is using eminent domain to go after the Barries' land simply because officials want the open space.

It's a peaceful plot of land the Barries don't want to part with.

"Everyone has their special place where they really like to go, and when we came up here the first time we said this is our heaven, this is a special place," Andy Barrie explained.

Two years ago, Andy and Ceil Barrie bought two pieces of land: a house in an established subdivision, and another piece of property at a higher elevation, accessible by an old mining road.

The isolated parcel is surrounded by 2.2 million acres of White River National Forest, and is essentially an island of private property. It includes an old mining cabin, an outhouse and a shuttered gold mine. The area is popular with hikers.

The couple's trouble started when the U.S. Forest Service took them to task for using a utility vehicle to drive from their main residence to their cabin. They say they never went off-road, and petitioned for the path to be declared a county road.

The county, though, responded by trying to buy the Barries' higher-elevation property in order to protect and preserve it as open space. The Barries, who never had any plans to develop it, did not want to sell.

That's when the county pulled their trump card.

Unbeknownst to the Barries, the previous owner had remodeled the cabin without permits. So Summit County commissioners voted to condemn the property for wiring and plumbing (even though the cabin has none) and filed for eminent domain.

"I understand that we are all trying to save these beautiful mountains and make them accessible to everyone, but you know that property has been sitting there since President Garfield signed our land patent, and we're not doing anything bad there," Ceil Barrie said.

Last week, the two sides participated in required, formal mediation with a judge. Summit County, which refused interview requests, released a statement saying: "Both parties engaged in productive negotiations in pursuit of a voluntary settlement regarding the purchase. ... We are optimistic that a resolution will be reached within a matter of weeks, if not days."

The Barries' hopes are dimming. Asked if recent mediation pointed to a way for the Barries to keep the land in the family name and avoid eminent domain, Andy Barrie responded flatly, "No, they're taking it."

Further, they're concerned that should Summit County seize control of their 10-acre tract, the county will simply trade the property with the U.S. Forest Service for valuable land closer to town.

"They collude together to basically screw up their citizens. ... Sooner or later, we're going to run out of money, but we wanted to fight the good fight and let people know our story and what their government is up to," Andy Barrie said.

Fox News checked with the White River National Forest division of the U.S. Forest Service about the Barries' case. Spokesman Bill Kight said via email: "In the case of  this or any on-going legal matter (including eminent domain petitions) with any federal, state, county or local government the Forest Service will not be issuing any statement during such legal proceedings."

The Barries have spent more than $75,000 to date. The mediation judge recently advised them the financial figure could double in the coming months.

"I even promised my daughter she could get married up here, and now all that's gone," Andy Barrie said.

Ah, his mormon ancestors! That's what has stirred up contendah.  A tortoise before a human.

------------------------------

“That number, the $300,00, that was a number estimated through Sept. 11, 2011,” Bureau of Land Management spokeswoman Kirsten Cannon said in a phone call with reporters Monday. “Since then, the estimated amount owed by him – so including the $300,000 – totals $1.1 million.”

In addition, the cost of removing the rancher’s cattle from the public land will cost taxpayers roughly $3 million, according to initial estimates.

The land was finally declared off-limits for cattle in 1998 and became a designated habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise. That same year, a judge ordered Bundy to remove his cattle. He refused to comply.

At Ft Irwin, the National Training Center for Army large scale maneuvers, is severely hampered to protect the same tortoise, again a critter over human life.  Perhaps, a simple breeding and release program would be much cheaper. 

Maybe in the future, when there is very little to eat, the few people who have survived will enjoy a few tortoise burgers. 

Those commenting thus far have NOT addressed the actual issue described in the link.  The cattleman involved in that issue does not own the land he has his cattle operation on.  It is PUBLIC land and the U.S. Government is the landlord.  Use of such land is under lease agreements that are usually tied to the number of cows and calves grazing the land.  Grazing fees required by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have long been well below similar fees charged by private landowners who rent their private land for grazing. The leases are not permanent and it is the decision of the agency leasing the land to renew or not renew a given lease.  There are various reasons for non-renewal, including practices by the lessee that violate terms of past and existing leases. There is no eminent domain issue here and endangered species are not involved in the government's action in the case I have identified.  Thus, those of you who have declined to respond to that case and who instead prefer to cite other situations that are not relevant to it may continue to  generate your rants against the gummint, but you will have proven NOTHING with regard to the case I have cited.  All of that deflection seems to suggest that you have found no rational way to criticize the government for its action against the ridiculous and resistant rancher described in my link.  How about simply stating whether you think he is in the right with his guardhouse lawyer amateurish assertion of his alleged "rights, ", which do not exist in the laws governing the government's actions?  The tortoises and the eminent domain issues are irrelevant to his case.

No one has asked the big question -- why does the federal government own 86.1 percent of the entire state of Nevada!

 

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/139563

I understand the need for national forests -- to ensure timber and other resources for future generations.  I understand the need for the feds to own the land where military installations, federal buildings and such are located.  I understand the need for national parks -- areas so unique that they should be preserved for many future generations.

 

Why do we have a Bureau of Land Management!  The federal government should only be allowed to own for such necessities as I've listed.  And, certainly not almost entire states.  Time to turn the land over to the states and allow them to determine the best use. 

What rant against the government? Do you pronounce it gummint? How odd. Nothing to prove. Your case? My goodness, someone is sure full of himself. Easy to see what's going on here. You have a tingle running up your leg because cattle belonging to a descendant of a mormon are being taken off of land his family has used since the 1800s. If, as you state, the public owns the land, the public should be able to use it, as long as they aren't abusing it, destroying it, living on it, or using it for nefarious purposes. Now then, the tortoises figure into it because they, instead of a human being, are the ones being protected. May your descendants enjoy their tortoise burgers if they are among the survivors of the death spin our country is in.

If, the Hindus or Buddhists were correct, Condie would come back as a gay Mormon.

Love turtle soup. if the critters weren't so endangered, I'd be fixing a pot.

___

Your case is irrelevant. The tortoise case is an entirely different one from the ridiculous rancher case. The public owns the Grand Canyon and the Gulf Islands National Seas****, but the public does not have untrammeled rights to do just anything or everything on those lands and privatre interests do do not have right to demand use if Forest Service or BLM property simply because they have been the past beneficiaries of use of such property under lease from the gummint or otherwise, especially when their former use was a trespass use, as in this case. This character formerly paid lease fees, but stopped, based on his bungling amateurish legal analysis:

 

"The fight began when Bundy stopped paying the Bureau of Land Management’s grazing fees in 1993, arguing in court filings that he had no obligation to pay the agency because his Mormon ancestors had worked the land decades before the agency was formed."

 

Thus he has been TRESPASSING on public lands and getting free grazing for his herd. It is time for this illegal activity to stop.

 

I don't care if or his forebears are/were Mormon, atheist, Druid or whatever; that is also irrelevant. Since Glenn Beck is a Mormon, this story just might have gotten his special attention.  He is clever at covertlyadvancing Mormon interests.

MY case? Your case? Tortoise case? You're silly. What exactly is gummint? Mint flavored chewing gum? 

I don't think the company that makes M&M's are putting as many blue ones in the packages as they used too. Just my opinion. 

'Cause the blue ones taste like a smurf smells.

Ew. You sniff smurfs??

 

(There's a tongue-twister in there somewhere..)

 

How many smurfs could a smurf-sniffer sniff if a snurf-smiffer could smuff snirfs.

 

I see that even the governor is complaining of the Feds bully tactics and the patently illegal first amendment areas.  How are they able to seize a state road without a court order.

___

If you are truly that obtuse, I pity you.  If you are just being a smartass, then that comes as no surprise.

_______

If the state road traverses federal land, then there is all kind of reason and precedent for federal seizure.The state might not even own the right of way in fee title; it could lie within a revocable easement.  You need to get the facts before becoming so dogmatic about the matter.

__________________________________________
If, the federal government wishes to deny travelers use of the road and the ability to record their actions, more than "because I say so!: is required.

But skittles, they are evenly packaged. 

But they're not good with coffee.

600,000 acres and 900 cattle. Sheesh! Want something to worry about? How about this?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ested_n_5035961.html

____

Numbers and the law are not the same thing.  The great majority of western citizens and corporations who use the public lands for grazing, timber harvest, resort operation (e.g. ski resorts like Crested Butte), mining,  or other legitimate purposes are law-abiding and respect the conditions of their leases or contracts with the government.  Those few who trespass, deny even the legal requirements for permission to use such lands and concoct amateurish and just plain wrong "legal" arguments to justify their infringements need to be disciplined either administratively or in courts of appropriate jurisdiction.

___

If "Because I say so" is backed up by authority to close the road and the spokesman saying "Because I say so" has legal empowerment to close the road, then "Because I say so" has adequate substance.

__________________________________________________________________

Again, their I say so appears to have no substance in law or court order. Government by gun barrel.

 

 

 

 

Well, I don't happen to think he's a ridiculous redneck goober. Why do you feel you have to call him those things? I think he's someone that is seeing his way of life being turned upside down for NO reason I can see. What damage can 900 head of cattle do to a small miserable part of 600,000 acres? Then, to add insult to his injury, they protect a freaking tortoise. 

 

Dude, did you kill that werewolf??  I hope you had a license!!!

 

Just a trophy from a hunt in the Land Across the Woods province in Romania.  Tradition is a night hunt and the ammo is expensive.

Reportedly, the rancher is the last in the county -- the rest run off by BLM.  I read that there was a tortoise breeding program being shut down due to lack of funds.  Too bad, the millions spend on this goat rope couldn't have kept the tortoises breeding. 

I think we are seeing the early signs of the coming revolution that is destined to come to this country.  The people caught in the middle of America between the two Liberal east and west coasts are tired of it and the rousing of these militias is the start to something that is not going to be good.  Obama has been such a polarizing figure, and the fact that they selectively prosecute those who are aligned against them is another nail in the coffin.  the best thing the government can do now is to walk away.  This land is essentially useless to anyone except the farmers, and something could be worked out.

I wish no violence against my fellow countrymen. Hopefully, the progressive over reach will cause a tipping point at the polls.

 

Always thought cows were herbivores, didn't know tortoises were part of their diet. Running off all the ranchers in the area, while controlling over 86 percent of the state of Nevada is over reach.  Many western states are in the same class. Ridiculous for the federal government to own so much land. 

They can spend millions fighting the rancher, why not spend those millions and just buy him out, if he's willing to sell? If he doesn't want to sell, do as you suggested, work something out or leave him the heck alone.

I'm thinking about turning some horses out to graze at Deibert Park. Years ago my family had some horses stabled there, so I should still have the right to graze there right? 

 

This is what the rancher is doing. I can't believe that any of you would defend him. What happened to personal responsibility? 

____________________________________________________

Use of range land in the west and collection of grazing fees were a tradition for over a century.  To advance an environmentalist goal, the BLM forced all but one rancher off the land. That one remaining rancher objects and the government goes full military gonzo.  The government shouldn't be holding the land in the first place. 

Wish they used as much force to control the border

What was it you said contendah? 

 

"endangered species are not involved in the government's action in the case I have identified.  Thus, those of you who have declined to respond to that case and who instead prefer to cite other situations that are not relevant to it"

 

======================================

 

http://www.reuters.com/article...dUSBREA390QI20140410

 

(Reuters) - Armed U.S. rangers are rounding up cattle on federal land in Nevada in a rare showdown with a rancher who has illegally grazed his herd on public lands for decades, as conflict over land use simmers in western states.

The dispute in Nevada came to a boiling point after environmentalists told federal land managers they planned to sue to protect a threatened tortoise whose habitat was being destroyed by grazing cattle.

 

------------------------------

the Center for Biological Diversity, which notified the government in 2012 that it was suing to protect the Mojave Desert tortoise, welcomed the Nevada move.

"The federal government has been caving in to Cliven Bundy for years at the sacrifice of lands that are not only being destroyed for the tortoise but also for all the people of the United States who own it," said Rob Mrowka, a senior scientist with the center.

 

 

 BTW-Calling bull hockey on this claim.

 

 

 

 

 

Neither he or the cows are hurting a thing. His family has done this since the 1800s along with other ranchers and the tortoise is still there. Sickening that a freaking tortoise is more important than humans trying to make a living. Even if it was endangered, what would they be saving it for anyway? 

=======================

 

"No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists," Governor Brian Sandoval said in a statement on Tuesday.

The Nevada Cattlemen's Association also said it was concerned how the Bundy cattle confiscation evolved.

The standoff with the BLM, better known for partnering with ranchers than fighting them, stems in part from the Bundy's belief that their right to graze the land predates the federal government's management of it, and that the county and state should ultimately have authority over lands in their boundaries.

 

 

Major ownership of the western states land by the federal government should come to an end.