this, there's a very vocal astro-turf effort being made but not many are falling for it judging by the poll

Screw Bundy, the cows, the fees, and the turtles, It's not about any of that. My Google fu is weak, is that ^ bullshit true.

It is conceivable that the government could sell the mineral rights, but it's unlikely this would survive court challenges by environmental interests.  For the past 20 years, maybe more, the Gold Butte / Bunkerville  land has received various levels of protection from local and federal entities.  If I recall, there are several pocket Wilderness areas in the vicinity, and in the 2000s there was a lot of discussion and local votes to endorse expanding these Wilderness areas.  In 2010, Clark County voted to endorse Wilderness, and in 2012 Clark County voted against the Wilderness endorsement, siting something like "newly discovered concerns over handicap access" and stuff.  Bobbleheads.  But, the ACEC designation still stands, as does their 1998 conservation plan.  The 2010 vote would have strengthened conservation efforts under that plan, and it's arguable that it would have strengthened conservation measures too much.

As far as the geology, I don't know about this specific area.  I'm familiar with the geology up river, and it's a Navajo Sandstone bed that's 2000-3000 feet thick, if not more.  Based on the petroglyphs photos from the Gold Butte area, it looks like the geology is more of the same.  I can pull up some maps to get a better idea.  However, owing to the very dang name of the region, there may very well be some localized igneous protrusions in the area that lead to the naming of the butte?  I don't know?

But, the feds preserved oil/gas rights, and could lease those in the future, I suppose.

Looks like the sight slider is set to the 300M position.

Maybe since all you do is troll citing tyranny under the rule of law. Nobody is taking your bologna serious.

That's almost laughable

If I ever get to live my dream of being the National Science Foundation SWAT lead,
I vow that I will never grow facial hair, nor will I don cargo pants in the performance of official duties.

I've already selected my tactical attire ...



"How about some more significant figures, there, asshole!"

The Wing Tipped Thuggery [WTT] would be ... epic.

He's a reckless fool. I'm half-hoping he does it.

I used to hunt deer in the Owyhees off Mud Flat Rd by Little Jack's Creek when my father was still able to go with me.  Sage Grouse are *NOT* rare, lol.  

An important caveat to the story in the link:

"The ranchers believe the BLM is not to blame because of frivolous lawsuits against the land management system by environmentalists. But there may be a deeper agenda here, just as there was in Nevada. Idaho’s utility companies and corporations are subject to Presidential executive orders too.

This is where the left (and I do group environmentalist with the radical left) are winning; using the courts to leverage government agencies against the public interests, whether that's energy exploration, ranching, or recreation.  It was brought up earlier in the thread by ODA that the BLM is caught in the middle of legal action initiated by these groups and the rest of us that benefit from public lands-especially ranchers that are able to grow their herds on land they may not have the money to own, but can lease in order to support and expand their cattle herds.

Environmentalist and the left have turned the BLM into a liability.  I'm quite ok with the original intent of the BLM-it's the environmentalists that need to be targeted with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit until they go the fuck away.

Regrettably, it's largely true.  However the claims of the "supreme" authority of the Crown Corporation is laughable, at least by those in the know.  I tried to give document some of the history behind the whole sorted mess in this previous post.  The whole Crown Corporation part makes me smile.  If you want a hint as to who's really running the show, all I can ask is if you'd like fries with your Bilderberger ?

SPLAIN IT TO ME LUCY.

Records show his family there at least that early.....  How exactly does this disprove his claim???

clearly it was self defense, what a bunch of losers...... blm=pos

Your statement of; "This is how the world works" is very telling.

Armed Federal Government employees killing a ranchers cows and destroying his property is just "how the world works?" If that's where we are in United States today, then we're all fucked.

Instead of a flippant dismissal of the issue, perhaps you should consider an alternative "solution” to address the actions of some these armed federal employees.
Perhaps whomever was "in charge" should be fired, and lose their pension.
Perhaps whoever shot the cows should be fired. No pensions for them either.
Additionally, they should be required to reimburse the Bundy's out of their own pocket, not the taxpayer's - for the dead cattle and destroyed property. (Their court order didn't say anything about destroying his property, regardless of where it was located.)

As to your other question, interpret however you like.

The left is using our money to beat us. Read this link it explains what is being done to us. 3 pages pdf
Link

Here is another document that explains how the left is using the Freedom of Information Act against us. 3 pages pdf
FOIA

Those records show that his family owned the 160 acres as of  1948.  He's been claiming that his family has been there since 1877.  Puts the onus back on him to prove that he's actually been there owning land that long.

I don't disagree with claims the BLM makes regarding their annual revenue raised. My problem is they are part of DOI. Interior's budget is $19 Billion, including $1.2 Billion for BLM - all monies come from the taxpayer.

If BLM actually generates more money than it spends - why? It is simply another form of income and property redistribution, and its two levels deep, BLM operating under the larger DOI.

Not to mention, they may generate revenue, but like all government - they suck at it. (See Rep. Chaffetz's bill and the CBO's report that accompanies it.)

What's the difference between 137 years or 66 years?  If 137, would you support Bundy?

Did it hit the fan yet?  Should I pop my pmag?

A video of a Bundy Ranch vicious bull.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152074677872058&set=vb.506722057&type=2&theater
More videos & pics.

https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch



 

It throws the legitimacy of all his claims into doubt.  That's a problem.

Close. I just put my face paint on.

Those records show that his parents bought the ranch then, but who did they buy it from?  Where they related?

Clearly his family was in the area long before then:



Course, there is no way they could have been ranching.  And who knows when they first got there.  She was born there in 1901.  Someone was there before her to give birth to her.

Records clearly show his family as being there before 1900.  Just cause they bought a ranch in 1948 does not mean they where not already there ranching.

Anyone can go to the County Clerk's office and see the land records.

Okay, fair enough.

How many proof sources that challenge the legitimacy of the Fed's claims are in this thread?

It also says they only bought the 160 acres, and not the other land Bundy is claiming he has right sto.  No one's disputing their ownership of that 160 acres.

You are correct that it does not completely disprove his claims.  It does place an onus on Bundy to provide the proof that his family did as you say they could have.

Which claims?

Old copper mine.



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152074633182058&set=vb.506722057&type=2&theater

Infuriating, but not surprising.  

Our legal system is in serious need of reform (not that this is some deeply thought out,  earth-shattering revelation).

Bundy never claimed he bought the land in question.  Show me one source where he said he owned the land.  He said his family has been using the open range for their cattle since before the BLM was even created.  But I dont know why I am arguing with you.  You have proven yourself to either be a troll or incapable of reading an argument.  I think you may be the first to the ignore list.

He's claimed water rights, and that documentation is apparently contradicting the claim that water rights were granted.

They also show that his grandmother was there in 1901 and helped found the town of Bunkerville.  You're grasping at straws.  
Look, the western states back in the late 1800's were largely unsettled and pretty much wide open to hardy pioneers willing to go out to the middle of nowhere and live off the land.  
Unlike the coasts, there wasn't a whole helluva lot of infrastructure like hospitals or government offices that would have actually kept track of who was where, where were they born, when they arrived, etc.  A lot of babies would have been born in a one-room cabin or ranch-house...maybe with a doctor present but just as likely a midwife or something.  These people lived sparsely and likely the only "record" would be something written in the front of a bible.  Accurate record-keeping and surviving documentation are neither likely nor expected.  A much better search would be for cattle sales during that time period, and even those records might likely not exist anymore.  

In today's society with Internet records and DNA databases we (you) seem to forget that.  Besides that, the Bundy ranch may have been bought in 1948 (whether from a relative or not, we don't know) but that has nothing to do with the BLM land.  Apparently, his family was there and running cattle on that land way earlier than 1946.  His grandmother having been there in 1901 would lead me to believe that is correct.  They may have actually owned another ranch somewhere else before purchasing the one they are currently at; we just don't know and this article doesn't say.  

Look at it this way, someone could claim "My family has lived in this town for the past 100 years"; someone else say's "Oh yeah, well according to property records, you bought your house in 1978".  That takes absolutely nothing into account that your family may have moved into different houses over the years, that some of those houses may not even be standing now, or that fact that depending on patrimonial or matrimonial lineage someone with the same last name as you is on any property records.  Let me ask you this, do YOU have any records of the property your great or great-great grandparents owned or sold?  

Which is why I said that Bundy needs to come up with something to show his family having the kinds of rights he claims to have.  Something he's failed to do in court twice so far.

Yes, we actually do have records.  My family's pretty big into genealogy.  

How far back in the troll family genealogy can you trace your roots?

Every person with my last name in this country can be traced back to one man, who came here in the mid 1700s.  He got married, went to England, had a few of kids.  One of them came to Virginia in the later 1700s.  He settled down and the family grew up there until ~1798, if I recall correctly, when a bunch of them moved down to Georgia.  We've been mostly here and in Virginia ever since.

My mother's side can be traced back to pre-revolutionary Georgia and South Carolina.  We can trace lines on my father's side back further than the mid-1700s guy as well.

Arkadiko Bridge

 

Like I said, the western states are a whole different story.  I, too, can trace a lot of my lineage back when my ancestors lived in the East.  Except for a long line of grandparents, it gets a little murkier as they migrated West.  As for aunts, uncles, cousins, and their respective families; who knows?  
But...that still doesn't cover the property (lands, deeds, mineral/water rights, etc.) they owned, bought, and sold; most of that is lost to time.  That's my point, once your family owns something different than what they had before, you tend not to keep a record of the old stuff.  

And presumably if Bundy still owns the rights he claims he does, then he would the records to show that, right?  Since it's something he's still using.

 

I agree 100%.
 

 

Well...presumptive water rights, no.  You are "presumed" to own those rights because you are the one that is there (or you were the one that was there first..or the only one remaining with claim to them).  But you raise an interesting point.  
As far as the water rights on the property that Bundy owns; yes, I believe that it has been established that they do indeed own those outright.  
That's what I meant earlier in that if they squeeze Bundy, or more specifically Bundy's cattle off the BLM land they can come back and claim that he has NO presumptive water rights on that land.  
Taking into consideration that the water level in Lake Mead (which the Virgin River feeds into) is at or near an historically low level.  Those water rights might make whoever owns them a pile of money.  

What might muddy the waters even more is the fact that in looking at the map posted earlier, his actual property along the Virgin River (where he does indeed own the water on paper) might have been the source he was using to water his catte on the BLM land.  The report stated that he had piped water nearly 9 miles from the river to his cattle.  Did that water come from the BLM part of the river or the Bundy Ranch part of the river?  Does that matter in court?  

The BLM seemed awfully interested in destroying the watering infrastructure (a' la JBT Handbook 101) on the BLM property.  That still seems strange to me that they would do that, regardless of their motives for removing the cattle.
Whatever their ultimate intention, one would think that having resources like that intact in the middle of the desert would be better than not having them.  I can't put my finger on it, but my gut tells me that somehow this piece of the puzzle is important.  

OK, there's my tinfoil hat moment.    

So, What I'm getting is:

BLM CLAIMS a $1 mill + outstanding debt for grass on land no one uses or wants, with the slight possible exception of an "offset" for OTHER land Reid wants to sell to Chinese Solar investors.....
To cover managing an ENDANGERED turtle species the organization is euthanizing by the hundreds.
That likely started out maybe 100K, before penalties, fees, etc.
So they hire contractors for > 966K to round up the cattle.
Not counting the costs of deploying everyone else and all the equipment they brought to an armed confrontation.
Instead of simply putting a lien on property, income, taxes, etc, like every other federal agency who wants your money.
They encounter "resistance", and decide to kill penned cattle, and destroy infrastructure improvements, claiming the penned cattle was a "danger", and that they are returning the area to it's natural state.
Despite leaving the ruined water tanks, lines, piping, and other equipment in place.

ANNNNNND, after all that, frontman Harry is stating they are only getting started?

Seems perfectly reasonable, and not at all the actions of petty, spiteful individuals.

Lowlife scumbag FSA ranchers, I tell ya.

Who do they think they are, letting their cattle eat free range grass and fertilize undeveloped public land, for free?

Can't stand these dirty druggie hippies. we need to find something endangered where burning man is held.





http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/22/bundyfest-burning-man-organizer-plans-30-days-anar/

Degenerates gonna degenerate. Maybe someone should host a machine gun shoot there during those days.



 

Dirty Hippy.https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10203682526845379&set=o.688187351242203&type=2&theater

Liberal Douche's facebook

Yes, but can you loan me a Machinegun?

Sounds like they're going to find out quick that part of Nevada is not conducive to...





anything.
Enjoy shitty terrain, and sleeping on rocks, hippies.

I hate liberals, but this is fucking funny. Part of that slippery slope I've been arguing against.

They will probably step on a tortoise or it's burro vs. the cows avoiding them.


I can only hope some of the bulls will gore some hippies.


Since dirty hippies won't be armed hopefully the BLM will pepper spray and gas the fuck out of them. Stay in California you commie dirtbags.

It would be funnier still if the BLM attempted to stop/evict them.  Let's see if they can muster the same level of support.

This actually points to the Left's mentality - things just magically "happen".  All harvest, no plowing.  It's not that armed citizens made the government leave, it's that "Bundy said 'no' and he didn't have to obey so now no rules apply."  They miss out on the "armed people showed up and were willing to face and dispense violence" part entirely.