In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Property owners-feds face off!

alledanalledan Member Posts: 19,541
edited December 2001 in General Discussion
RENO, Nev. (AP) - Federal cattle seizures. Gun-toting ranchers. Government surveillance cameras in the desert.Land management has always been a heated issue in the West, but the animosity is especially strong in Nevada, where ranchers are outraged over being punished for grazing on federal land without authorization."This is what the Revolutionary War was fought about, standing up against tyranny to defend life and liberty," said Janine Hansen, a conservative activist and an organizer of the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood.The long-running land management dispute pits Westerners who claim their property rights are being violated against federal officials who say they want to protect the environment. In Oregon, disputes rage over irrigation water. In Northern California, logging is controversial. Livestock grazing is contentious in several Western states, including Nevada.The state was the birthplace of the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and 1980s, when miners and ranchers rallied to pressure state lawmakers to take control of public lands. Some say a similar rebellion is now under way.At a recent rally in front of the federal courthouse in Reno, Hansen and dozens of others waved the Nevada state flag and protested livestock grazing policies enforced by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.They wore shirts that read "87 percent" - the proportion of Nevada owned by the federal government. Their slogan: "Nevada is a state, not a territory.""You're going to see a lot more of this," said Don Alt, a rancher from Silver Springs, Nev., who says he has witnessed growing discontent with the federal government in recent years. Bob Abbey, the BLM's director for Nevada, said the focus of the land debate should be on preserving the diverse resources of the state.He also warns the activists are "jeopardizing the future of grazing on public lands" given the growing pressure from environmental groups to halt federal grazing entirely.Those activists are rallying behind Cliff Gardner of Ruby Valley, Nev., who was jailed briefly by a federal judge in Reno this month after he and 40 state's rights backers disrupted his trial for grazing on Forest Service land. Gardner faces up to six months in prison at his March 11 sentencing.Protests also erupted after the BLM seized and auctioned off cattle from rancher Ben Colvin of Goldfield, Nev., who they said owed the government $73,000 in fines and fees for trespassing on federal land. At one point, a BLM law officer drew a gun on a protester, who also was armed.Activists are fighting to force the Forest Service to rebuild a washed out road near Jarbidge, Nev., that the agency says would harm the threatened bull trout. And the BLM has been criticized for using hidden cameras to determine who stole more than 100 signs marking the boundary of the Black Rock Desert National Conservation Area 100 miles north of Reno. Some local residents oppose the conservation area designation.At 70 million acres overall, Nevada is more than twice as large as Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont combined. But only 10 million acres are in private hands, giving Nevada the highest percentage of federal land of any state.For decades, the government tended to give locals free access and use of federal land. But a wave of national environmental laws in the 1970s tightened restrictions on land use.Ranchers like Gardner - many of them descendants of 19th century pioneers - say the federal government has no authority to keep them off public land."Our property, our livelihood, our ranch which has been in the family since 1862 is on the Forest Service chopping block," he said. "These federal agents are obviously taking my property rights."Gardner, who is appealing last year's conviction, doesn't deny grazing his livestock without a permit on federal land. He argues the Forest Service has no authority to require one."It's been my objective since 1994 to get this question before the U.S. Supreme Court but I realize to accomplish that is almost impossible," he said. "We're trying to make people understand that in dealing with the public lands, the Constitution has in effect been suspended."But Abbey, of the BLM, doesn't see ranchers like Gardner as victims fighting for their rights."I don't really even care to characterize these people as ranchers. They are trespassers," Abbey said this summer. "What they are trying to do quite frankly is get something for free from the American taxpayers."

Comments

  • 7mm_ultra_mag_is_king7mm_ultra_mag_is_king Member Posts: 676 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    But Abbey, of the BLM, doesn't see ranchers like Gardner as victims fighting for their rights."I don't really even care to characterize these people as ranchers. They are trespassers," Abbey said this summer. "What they are trying to do quite frankly is get something for free from the American taxpayers."My question is did the blm pay for that ground? nope. just like the rest of it it was taken and they staked a claim to it. now somebody else is staking a claim and they don't like it. ranches been around for how long and now some snot nosed panzie wants to put them out of bussiness for personal agenda.Wouldnt it be great if people from all over the country drove out there and protested against the BLM? Million rancher/farmer march in Reno!
    when all else fails........................
  • .250Savage.250Savage Member Posts: 812 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Strength in numbers. "If we don't all hang together, we shall surely hang seperately."ALRA - American Land Rights Association http://www.landrights.org/index.htm
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't live in Nevada, but Nevada is no different than any other state.Property owners have a right to use their land within the confines of zoning, land management laws, and state and federal laws. Since when does someone have the right to use the peoples land to make money, without having a lease or contract.As I see it, the people being prosecuted by the Government, have been running more cattle on public lands, than they are entitled to.I don't necessarily believe all that I read in the newspaper or hear on the news, however, I haven't heard anything to the contrary, or that the people being prosecuted or fined own the land, or have grazing rights for the number of disputed head mentioned as exceeding their leaseholder rights.Obviously the BLM is counting these peoples cattle, not to mention this has been an on going problem for a number of years with a particular number of individuals, that either pleaded guilty or,forfeited their property previously by failing to answer the filed complaints. Thees guys defence; "I wouldn't have done it if it was illegal!" isn't good enough. It was proven in court that he grazed more cattle than he had a right to.Nothing, in the past has brought up any claim to the lands in questions by anyone, or group, it has always been stated that the referenced lands are publicly owned. This article is the first one to make such a claim, if I'm reading it right.Ranchers and farmers get plenty of subsidies from the government, but it's never enough. On the other hand, there are to many government regulations, and importation of farm goods and food products, that affect farming and cattle raising. The government should get out of the way and let the farmers compete openly, without imported products.There is always two sides to every story.If, it is public lands, I say pay up if you want to use it.[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 12-29-2001).]
Sign In or Register to comment.