Another example of the federal war against private land owners in the West

Road to Anniversary Mine. (Photo by Laura and Sasha)

It is becoming abundantly clear that the public “servants” assigned to manage federal public lands in the West don’t want any stinking private land ownership anywhere near their vast, wide-open nature communes.

Add to the cases involving the Hammond family ranchers in Oregon in which a father and son face five years in prison under an antiterrorism law for letting fires accidentally spread to 140 acres of public land causing less than $1,000 in damages  and the Hage family ranchers who have been denied grazing and water rights and even the Bundy ranch near Bunkerville where grazing rights were curtailed to protect tortoises though no damage to tortoises was ever shown and the ranchers of the Battle Mountain area who were denied grazing rights though the lack of grazing increased the likelihood of wildfire and the Texas rancher whose land is claimed by the BLM because they discovered it is next to the Red River, add to these the case of a mine owner criminally charged and facing 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for grading the dirt road leading to his privately held mine inside the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and causing $1,540 in damages to public dirt.

As reported today by the Las Vegas newspaper, the owner of the 215-acre Anniversary Mine and an employee were charged on Nov. 24 for “unauthorized” road work performed in March that “willfully” injured government property. The mine existed before the lake was built.

The key word is unauthorized. You see mine owner Robert Earl Ford tried to get permission to improve, even pave, the 2.5-mile road, two-thirds of which is on federal land, after his insurance company threatened to cancel his liability insurance because of the danger the road poses to tourists who use it to access the popular Anniversary Narrows. The feds denied his requests, because that’s what feds do.

If Ford can’t safely access his land to mine limestone, the federal government has effectively taken his land under the Fifth Amendment. That’s what feds do — overreact, overcharge and lord over.

Anniversary Narrows (R-J photo)

 

 

Advertisements

27 comments on “Another example of the federal war against private land owners in the West

  1. Winston Smith says:

    I don’t know if this has been posted before, sorry if it has…

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/oregon-mandatory-minimums/422433/

  2. conniefoust@reagan.com says:

    We must stand up for our states rights. The bureaucrats are running the country and we did not vote for the bureaucrats. Connie

  3. agent provocateur says:

    Reblogged this on Nevada State Personnel WATCH.

  4. hocuspocus13 says:

    BLM is also ridding the West of the Wild Horses and Burros

    Sending the horses to slaughter

    All against the law

  5. Actually, they are not. There was one case of them selling horses to a guy who slaughtered them.

  6. Patrick says:

    Propaganda.

    The owner of the land, is entitled by all rights, to do with the land as he wishes consistent with the law of property.

    Since the federal government; I.e. We the people, own the land, so long as we, through our elected representatives (a republic don’t you know) decided to do with it’s/our property what it decided to do, and there is no allegation by the embittered, terroristic, “private citizens” that the federal government did anything illegal, it’s too bad that they don’t like it.

    Just as it would be for “we the people” if we didn’t like what the Bundys and their gang of right wing militia types, decided to do on their property…so long as it was consistent with the law.

  7. It’s not just about minimum mandatory sentencing…the Hammonds should have NEVER been prosecuted under the Federal Terrorism Statute that was enacted after the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma city. The BLM and FWS are out of control agencies that need to be reigned in and they need a thorough housecleaning of the Officials and bureaucrats who ride rough shod over the citizens they are supposed to be serving. This charade has been going on for far too long now…the 104 page Hage Decision exposes these agencies for what they are and what their antics have been. And if a large portion of the now Federally owned land were sold to private entities to help pay off the national debt…the BLM and other out of control agencies could be whittled down to a manageable size…or done away with completely.

  8. That’s the objective.

  9. Patrick says:

    It ma be the objective of a very few, but it’s not the objective of many.

  10. Barbara says:

    I was at Senator Cruz’ campaign office today making phone calls. He has a different policy each week that we call voters to let them know his stance on the issue. This week’s script was on the “Federal Land Grab”. He believes the States should be the owners of land within their borders – not the Federal government. He would support returning ownership to the States. Hopefully, the other candidates feel the same way.

  11. Patrick says:

    Senator Cruz, being a Canadian and all, probably doesn’t understand the history of this country very well Barbara, so maybe you could enlighten him.

    The states, for the most part, and most particularly Nevada, NEVER “owned” the land and so it could not be, within the meaning of the word “returned” to them.

    Perhaps the script read to potential voters for Cruz, that the senator believes the land, owned by the USA, should be STOLEN from the states (and let’s be honest here for a while; Cruz believes the land currently owned by the citizens of this country, ought to be stolen by the states and then resold to private parties. Cruz, and others, seem to want our land, taken away and sold to an individual. This is what happened in Russia and boy were their oligarchs pleased.

  12. Steve says:

    All hail,

    revisionism!

  13. Patrick says:

    Steve, perhaps you’d share the “true” history of Nevada (as a state) actually owning the land currently “claimed” by citizens of the United States?

  14. Steve says:

    Land is in fixed supply, won’t increase or decrease.
    When demand is low, supply will be high.

    In the Nevada territory, land has always been hard to develop, hence demand remained low, making the area a public lands state.
    The federal government tried many times to put lands into the hands of the people but there were few takers. Ranchers were among those few.
    For instance, the railroad. With it’s forty mile wide swath of lands aimed at development as though the railroad would become a new “river”. In other states this corridor was developed very quickly. In Nevada, the climate simply precluded people from trying to settle those lands and the trains blew through whistle stops such as the one in southern Nevada now called Las Vegas.
    This is true for all desert communities. They all grow as urban areas bordered by sudden changes to rural land. This is why so many ranch and farm lands become surrounded by city development. See RC Farms and Gilcrease Orchards.

    Ownership was made readily available but was simply not desired. Today the agencies in control of the Nevada area have made it much more difficult to obtain land and are seeking to remove land from private use.

    But ownership of these lands has always been a matter of desire and agreement.

    You make shit up.

  15. Patrick says:

    Which shit did I make up Steve? First I said Nevada, as a state, NEVER owned the land the US government now claims. Ws that made up? Or was there something else?

    Because, even after you said something about revisionist history, and I asked you what you claim was revisionist about it, you didn’t ever say.

  16. Steve says:

    That’s made up shit. And you know it.

    You need to re read the Nevada constitution.

  17. Patrick says:

    Steve it ought to be simple enough, if you’re correct, to point out a time when Nevada, as a state, owned the land the US government currently claims it owns.

    Unless what you said was just wrong.

  18. Steve says:

    “as a state”

    Shithead argument.

  19. Nevada statehood documents include language saying the state would get: “five percentum of the proceeds of the sales of all public lands lying within said state, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said state into the Union …”

    That is an implicit promise to sell the federal land.

    Of course, Patrick says shall doesn’t mean shall until he says it does.

  20. Patrick says:

    Thomas, I thought you better than that; I was merely stating the law and the rules of statutory construction, understood, and as interpreted, by more than 100 years of case law. (along with rules of grammar)

  21. Patrick says:

    And Stevetard, your proctologist called: he found your head.

  22. Steve says:

    Ahh, there it is, the inevitable concession insult.

  23. Patrick says:

    “I won, I won”

    Says every female I know, after every argument ever had between the sexes.

  24. Steve says:

    sexy…..patsy.

  25. Patrick says:

    “I got the last word, which means I must have won the argument, cause I never stop talking”

    Every female I’ve ever known…and Steve.

  26. Steve says:

    Ahh, Patsy, such a self description.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s