Nevada Rancher Ordered To Pay $500,000 For Cattle That Grazed On Federal Land A Decade Ago

A U.S. federal court ordered a rancher to pay $587,000 in grazing fees accrued more than ten years ago, and has banned the rancher from using the federal land.

Cattle grazing on a ranch (Photo: Shutterstock/P Sarajoti)Wayne Hage, who inherited the fight with the federal government from his father who died in 2006, said he will appeal the fine and the order that prevents him from grazing livestock on U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management property, the Associated Press reported Thursday.

The government contends that Hage’s grazing activities amounted to trespassing on federal land and grazing without a permit, but Hage says his family has priority stock watering rights on the land that should be honored.

Hage said that the order is “a bellweather that they don’t want private property rights” in Nevada. “The federal government is going after all kinds of property, not just our property rights,” Hage told the Las Vegas Review Journal. “They are extinguishing them as fast as they can.”

Federal agencies control around 85 percent of land in Nevada, and more than 60 percent of land in Utah and Idaho.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Las Vegas ordered Hage to comply with the order by mid-April. Hage said he currently doesn’t have any cattle on the disputed land. The $587,000 fine includes back-fees from grazing from November, 2004, to June, 2011, plus penalties for nonpayment.

“Many ranchers have a problem with the BLM and [U.S. Forest Service],” Hage said told federal lawmakers in 2013 hearing. “They have conducted themselves in a criminal manner and destroyed many ranchers. I personally have been at the receiving end of this criminal conduct.”

read more:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/03/nevada-rancher-ordered-to-pay-500...

Views: 775

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I am sure this mess is going to be dealt with

does statute of limitations ring a bell

Multiple Land Grabs in last decade is specifically designed to limit Ranchers' & Farmers' ability to operate. Also includes Water Rights. Eventually putting them out of business & Govnt steps in. Another method of NWO Herding.

frist tell them that they better go read the constititon it says the government cant own any land over 34 acres and if they want to put a military base in a state they have to get permission from that states governer

Just wondering how often the government does ask the governor of the state? I never knew they were suppose to do that. Now my curiosity is going to get me in trouble.

Is this coming down from the previous administration? I would hate to think President Trump would allow/advocate this injustice.

  IT should be the GOVERNMENT who should RE-EMBURSE The RANCHERS for KILLING THEIR CATTLE, Confiscating  many HERDS of Cattle, VIOLATING the LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ot the RANCHERS and MANY OTHER VIOLATIONS Of GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WHO HAVE ACTED AS  LAWLESS "MARAUDERS" who had roamed the WILD WEST over a Century ago.

It might be an interesting aside to note that Nevada Senator, Harry Reid's Uncle,, years ago,was "Hung" by State Officials for Rustling Cattle.   Senator Reid just might be GUILTY of "GRABBING LAND" he in not entitled to !!!  HMMMMM??????

I'm all in on the hanging him.!!!

Wonder how many Congressmen have personally benefitted from stealing that land from the people under the guise of Federal Land? If it's Fed land, the people should have access to it and so should the cattle-it's wide open pasture land. The government under Bush and OWEbama has gone stark raving mad! 

When citizens of The United States stand up for our rights we are called criminals when illegals stand up for our rights they are called hero's

I hope Trump gives these jokers a taste of true justice and Constitutional awareness. In the first place the government is not allowed to own land except as permitted by the founding documents. In the second place the federal land they are talking about belongs to "We the People".  I notice "We the People" aren't even asked about the way BLM and the others are treating our fellow citizens who have been feeding us for decades! 

The First RINO

If not the first, Theodore Roosevelt was the most noteworthy Republican In Name Only (RINO).  He managed to get the congress to trash the constitutional mandates and allow him to take property from states for such things as “Yellowstone National Park” among others.  The constitution limits governmental ownership of state property to ten square miles, max. and that must be purchased from the states with legislator approval.  Roosevelt claimed to be a Republican, but a Progressive one.  Congress passed “The Antiquities Act of 1906” at his urging, which was written simply to grant the President, power and authority he did not have, to do things he was not supposed to do.  Later, after falling out of grace with the Republican Party, he set up his own “Bull Moose” party.

Today, the federal government claims more than 40% of nine western states, and much more.  These properties should be returned to the states where they are located, along with the natural resources they contain.  The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) should not exist. The BLM budget was $88 Billion dollars in 2014 with 374,000 jobs provided.  That equates to spending $235,000 - per year - per employee.  The BLM controlled lands include about 260 million acres (406,250 sq. miles).  Other governmental agencies have their own land claims.

A number of presidents have followed his lead and taken land from states for the federal government benefit using this act as justification.  President Bill Clinton unconstitutionally set aside 1.7 million acres.  I understand Barack Obama took nearly that much in his last month in office alone.  A few presidents have refrained from using it.  These land grabs are far beyond what the constitution allows.  The U.S. Constitution is the controlling document that tells the government what it can and cannot do. We the people approved it.  All was well, until legislators wrote laws that grant themselves more power and authority to serve bigger government.

Another example of taking power they did not have to do things they were not supposed to do, is Obamacare.  If the government can force the public to purchase health insurance for their benefit, they could force us to buy life insurance with them as the beneficiary.  That way, when we die, they could recover our $150k (+) of individual national debt that they created.  Why not?  They seem to have gotten away with it in the Affordable Care Act.

This taking of public property for government use is not far different from the Oklahoma state government that wrote “Trust” statutes in the Oklahoma constitution that allows state, city, and county elected officials to claim ownership of all public property for government use.  Before, they were only tasked to operate and maintain the public property for the public’s use. These cases should not be allowed as legislators wrote bad laws that were conceived OF the government, implemented BY the government, and FOR the governments benefit.  The public lost everything they had, to Socialism, and most don’t even know it.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

Breaking — West Virginia Lawmakers Invite Persecuted Pro-Second Amendment Counties In Virginia To Join Their State

West Virginia lawmakers introduced legislation to invite persecuted pro Second Amendment Counties to join their state.

The West Virginia Senate adopted a resolution to remind Virginia residents from Frederick County that they have a standing invite — from 1862 — to become part of West Virginia.

West Virginia freedom fighters broke away from Virginia Democrat slave owners during the Civil War.

This week West Virginia has once again invited persecuted Virginia pro 2-A counties to come join their state.

Sounds like a winning plan!

Resolution 8 reads as follows:

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 8

(By Delegates Howell, Summers, Shott, Householder, C. Martin, Hott, Graves, Cadle, Barnhart, J. Jeffries, Maynard, Phillips, Foster, Hamrick, Steele, D. Jeffries, Wilson, Waxman, Bartlett, Paynter, Linville, Sypolt, Bibby, Hill, Ellington, Higginbotham, J. Kelly, Mandt, Pack, Dean and P. Martin)

[Introduced January 14, 2020]

Providing for an election to be had, pending approval of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a majority of qualified citizens voting upon the proposition prior to August 1, 2020, for the admission of certain counties and independent cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the State of West Virginia as constituent counties, under the provisions of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution of West Virginia

Whereas, The Legislature of West Virginia finds that in 1863, due to longstanding perceived attitudes of neglect for the interests of the citizens of Western Virginia, and a studied failure to address the differences which had grown between the counties of Western Virginia and the government at Richmond, the Commonwealth of Virginia was irretrievably divided, and the new State of West Virginia was formed; and

Whereas, Such division occurred as the Trans-Allegheny portions of Virginia perceived that they suffered under an inequitable measure of taxation by which they bore a disproportionate share of the tax burden; and

Whereas, That this perception was further compounded by the effects of a scheme of representation by which Trans-Allegheny Virginia was not allowed to have its proper and equitable share of representation in the government at Richmond; and

Whereas, That this arrangement arguably resulted in the tax dollars of Trans-Allegheny Virginia being used to enrich the Tidewater through internal improvements which did not benefit the people of Western Virginia, while the people of the Trans-Allegheny had little to no say in how their tax dollars were allocated; and

Whereas, Though this course led to an irreconcilable division, and the subsequent formation of West Virginia, yet, the longstanding peaceful cooperation between this State and the Commonwealth of Virginia is a sign that such separation, undertaken even under the most challenging and onerous of circumstances, can, with the passage of time, yield lasting results which are beneficial to both sides; and

Whereas, In the intervening years, the same neglect for the interests of many of the remaining counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia has allegedly been evidenced by the government at Richmond; and

Whereas, Particularly, many citizens of the Southside, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwestern Virginia, and the Piedmont contend that an inequitable measure of taxation exists by which they bear a disproportionate share of the present tax burden of the Commonwealth; and

Whereas, The people of the Southside, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwestern Virginia, and the Piedmont also believe that, currently, a scheme of representation exists by which the citizens of Southside, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwestern Virginia, and the Piedmont do not have a proper share of representation in the government at Richmond; and, consequently

Whereas, The people of the Southside, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwestern Virginia, and the Piedmont believe that their tax dollars are used to enrich the Tidewater and Northern Virginia through internal improvements which do not benefit the people of these other parts of Virginia, while the people of these other parts of Virginia have little to no say in how their tax dollars are allocated; and

Whereas, In recent days, these tensions have been compounded by a perception of contempt on the part of the government at Richmond for the differences in certain fundamental political and societal principles which prevail between the varied counties and cities of that Commonwealth; and

Whereas, In the latest, and most evident, in this string of grievances, the government at Richmond now seeks to place intolerable restraints upon the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the citizens of that Commonwealth; and

Whereas, The Legislative body of West Virginia believes that this latest action defies the wise counsel which has come down to us in the august words of our common Virginia Founders: as the government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of that tribune of liberty, Patrick Henry-who stated to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 that “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun”; and

Whereas, The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of a Signer of the Declaration and premier advocate of American independence, Richard Henry Lee-who stated in The Federal Farmer that “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms”; and

Whereas, The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of that zealous guardian of our inherent rights, George Mason-who stated that “To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them”; and

Whereas, The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of the declaimer of our independence and theoretician of our freedoms, Thomas Jefferson-who stated in his first draft of the Virginia Constitution, that “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms”; and

Whereas, The Boards of Supervisors of many Virginia counties and the Councils of many Virginia cities have recognized this dangerous departure from the doctrine of the Founders on the part of the government at Richmond; and

Whereas, These Boards of Supervisors and Councils have passed resolutions refusing to countenance what they affirm are unwarranted and unconstitutional measures by that government to infringe the firearm rights of Virginians; and

Whereas, The actions of the government at Richmond undertaken since the recent general election have, regrettably, resulted in unproductive contention and escalating a lamentable state of civic tension; and

Whereas, That, as has been proven in numerous instances, such as have been observed internationally in more recent times with the peaceful dissolutions of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, and the creation of South Sudan, or, earlier in Virginia’s own history, with the formation of Kentucky, the peaceful partition of neighboring peoples can occur, and, is often very beneficial to both sides in reducing tensions and improving the tenor of discourse over ongoing political and societal differences; and

Whereas, Article VI, Section 11 of The Constitution of the State of West Virginia explicitly permits additional territory to be admitted into, and become part of this state, with the consent of the Legislature and of a majority of the qualified voters of the state; and

Whereas, In a spirit of conciliation, the Legislature of West Virginia hereby extends an invitation to our fellow Virginians who wish to do so, to join us in our noble experiment of 156 years of separation from the government at Richmond; and, we extend an invitation to any constituent county or city of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the body politic of the State of West Virginia, under the conditions set forth in our state Constitution, specifically, with the consent of a majority of the voters of such county or city voting upon such proposition; and we hereby covenant that their many grievances shall be addressed, and, we further covenant with them that their firearms rights shall be protected to the fullest extent possible under our Federal and State Constitutions; and

Whereas, Providing that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall give its assent to any county or independent city presently part of the Commonwealth of Virginia having the opportunity and ability to do so, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Legislature of West Virginia.

Trump Holds Rally in Milwaukee, WI 1-14-20

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service