About the author

Vicky Davis

Vicky Davis, was a Computer Systems Analyst/Programmer turned Internet Researcher and writer. She received her training in computer programming in Santa Clara, California in mid 1970s. She worked primarily – but not entirely on IBM mainframe systems for large corporations and government entities. As an Internet Researcher, she continues to apply her Systems Analyst skills focusing her research on the revolution in government from the systems perspective. She has two websites: ' ' http://www.thetechnocratictyranny.com (newer website) http://www.channelingreality.com (older website)

Related Articles

4 Comments

  1. 1

    harold

    The 1934 Taylor grazing act spells out clearly there is no such thing as grazing right…. They do not exist. Never did nor will

    Reply
    1. 1.1

      admin

      Well… I’m not sure where you are getting your information but this reference 43 US Code stat 315 indicates that there is such a thing as grazing rights:

      Whenever any grazing district is established pursuant to this subchapter, the Secretary shall grant to owners of land adjacent to such district, upon application of any such owner, such rights-of-way over the lands included in such district for stock-driving purposes as may be necessary for the convenient access by any such owner to marketing facilities or to lands not within such district owned by such person or upon which such person has stock-grazing rights.

      The existence of grazing rights in the west are common knowledge – the same as water rights.

      The area around the Bundy Ranch is called the Bundy Allotment. That would indicate that a grazing district had been established and the district was called the Bundy Allotment.

      Land issues are not issues that can be easily discerned from a simple reading of an act of Congress that occurred after and in the Bundy case long after Bundy’s property rights were established. The government cannot simply legislate away ownership of property – and property means all aspects of property including land, water, minerals, grazing rights.

      Reply
  2. 2

    johncorvin@cox.net

    The grazing permits that Bundy had were purchased by members of the Clark County Commission at the time. Several of these people went to prison on an unrelated charge. There are other interesting aspects of this case including the Bundy water rights which are extensive. A question that has not seen much press is that of ownership of the land. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo moved the border but failed to cede the land to US. The State of Nevada ceded all unappropriated land back to the US prior to the time that Southern Nevada was added to the state. Right now there is a genuine question of ownership and of BLM rights V, Bundy rights. The last Feral Judge responded to all such questions by stating that “it is well settled law” without giving supporting argument.

    Reply
    1. 2.1

      admin

      And so it is settled law. I can’t remember the legal term for it but it is basically Squatter’s Rights. Even today, if you owned a piece of property that had a cow path on it that people used as a short cut to another road, and you don’t put up a sign saying “this path is private property”, the cow path will become public access over time. The reason is that you allowed public access without complaint.

      On the border issue. The argument that the Treaty moved the border but didn’t cede the land is a loser. When the border was moved and the treaty was signed, it was de facto ceding the land. That is the whole purpose of a border. The argument that the land wasn’t ceded is equivalent to arguing that grass isn’t green (before genetic engineering).

      Reply

Leave a Reply

2014 Powered By Wordpress, Goodnews Theme By Momizat Team

%d bloggers like this: