Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This will, perhaps, be interesting to follow. It appears that ranching is the major source of income for that area, and the ranchers claim to have worked the land for centuries.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/25/hispanic-ranchers-case-against-us-forest-service-over-grazing-rights-heats-up/

If you go by Spanish land grant days, this is easily true:


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_land_grants_in_New_Mexico

Where are the militia men for these guys?

This is just early stages. Bundy went through years of court before it came to a head on his ranch.
These guys have a far better claim, though.

So, what exactly is their legal claim here? The article you posted says a lot about how the ranchers really want to use that land, but nothing about why they have any right to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Where are the militia men for these guys?

They aren't white far-right extremists, so the "militia" (aka "violent thugs who should be spending the rest of their lives in prison") doesn't care about them.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, what exactly is their legal claim here? The article you posted says a lot about how the ranchers really want to use that land, but nothing about why they have any right to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Where are the militia men for these guys?

They aren't white far-right extremists, so the "militia" (aka "violent thugs who should be spending the rest of their lives in prison") doesn't care about them.

Might be surprised on that one, since a lot of ranchers are Hispanic to some degree or another. The families have been using the land since the 1600's, so there might be some rights attached there. We'll have to see what the courts say and what course it takes from there.
I agree with you on not being a fan of militias. There was one here that had ID cards made to resemble military versions and one gak sucker used his to get military discounts from people that didn't look closely at the card.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, what exactly is their legal claim here? The article you posted says a lot about how the ranchers really want to use that land, but nothing about why they have any right to it.

Well, there are people who believe they have rights to land by being decedent from native people. The issue is while north american native people were genocide and isolated, central american native people were basically assimilated by interbreeding. So you have people who have claims of family linage which pre-dates European powers so they don't see FEDs claim to the land.

What they don't realize is they are all ignorant puppets of rich people who basically use what seems like a sympathetic and just cause to get Federal land handed to corrupt state politicians who immediately sell it to these investors for a song and a kickback and then they develop it. The feds can't 'GIVE' the land to the people, simply let the locals handle it, and they always handle it poorly. And it has happened virtually 100% of the time federal land has ever been given to any state or local body. And the ranchers never get any of it, but we never hear from them again because the investors buy them off for their willing or unwilling participation in the fraud to get control of the land.

So I will continue to side with the FEDs every step of the way because the real people who are pulling the strings are just looking to steal the land and not looking out for the poor defenseless ranchers one bit. The biggest mistakes which we have on the east coast was selling off too much of our natural land before it was too late. It should be preserved, and if that means some ranchers need to change jobs, So be it.

The sad truth is *IF* they got their way, and the land was given to local authorities, they would lose their ranching job and access to the land in the same way and will be broke and working for Walmart anyways... so it is a lose-lose for them.

The keyword is 'Atzlan'. Basically, a reinvention of the Aztec lands before the imperialist Europe showed up. They believe they have a claim to have a nation and there are minor separtist factions who want their own official state. But the irony is the US will probably become what they see as Atzlan in 50 years as White Latino becomes the majority as more ethnic latinos (not a race on US census) are selecting white as their official race.



But this is all a distraction from Mr. Burns coming in to buy federal land for sale to China as solar farms under the guise of empathizing with native peoples.

 Peregrine wrote:

They aren't white far-right extremists, so the "militia" (aka "violent thugs who should be spending the rest of their lives in prison") doesn't care about them.

Just we're clear here: we're allowed to use "thug" in this instance because we're talking about white people, right?

Want to make sure I have all my ducks in a row.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

They aren't white far-right extremists, so the "militia" (aka "violent thugs who should be spending the rest of their lives in prison") doesn't care about them.

Just we're clear here: we're allowed to use "thug" in this instance because we're talking about white people, right?

Want to make sure I have all my ducks in a row.

Nope, Thug is a racist term. Except, other than SJW tumblr posts I cant find anything substantiating otherwise.
Odd aint it? I hate my age group.

I'm glad I don't really know what a tumblr is.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm glad I don't really know what a tumblr is.

Be happy.
Well actually, tumblr can be funny sometimes. But its mostly special snowflakes who identify themselves as planets and star systems.

Good luck to them.

I personally have a claim to all the land west of the Mississippi because I really need it.

 Easy E wrote:
Good luck to them.

I personally have a claim to all the land west of the Mississippi because I really need it.

Yeah, that's wholly in the spirit of Locke's labor theory of property and the overall homestead principle.

 cincydooley wrote:
Just we're clear here: we're allowed to use "thug" in this instance because we're talking about white people, right?

Want to make sure I have all my ducks in a row.

I'm point out the double standard here where black people violently protesting against the government are "thugs" but white militias violently protesting against the government aren't. You could in theory call both groups "thugs", but let's be honest here, the word as it is commonly used is a more polite way of saying a much more offensive racist label.

May I motion that we don't get hung up for a page and a half on a word?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Good luck to them.

I personally have a claim to all the land west of the Mississippi because I really need it.

Yeah, that's wholly in the spirit of Locke's labor theory of property and the overall homestead principle.

No but it is in the spirit of Hobbe's Leviathan.

Eminent Domain in reverse.

 Easy E wrote:


No but it is in the spirit of Hobbe's Leviathan.

Well played

But I'm fairly certain Leviathan would not fly with the left these days


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Just we're clear here: we're allowed to use "thug" in this instance because we're talking about white people, right?

Want to make sure I have all my ducks in a row.

I'm point out the double standard here where black people violently protesting against the government are "thugs" but white militias violently protesting against the government aren't. You could in theory call both groups "thugs", but let's be honest here, the word as it is commonly used is a more polite way of saying a much more offensive racist label.

gak, I must have missed where the ranchers with that gak Bundy were looting buildings.

 cincydooley wrote:
gak, I must have missed where the ranchers with that gak Bundy were looting buildings.

They weren't looting buildings, but they were using their guns to seize and defend property that they had no right to. And I don't think that indoor vs. outdoor looting is really an important difference.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


No but it is in the spirit of Hobbe's Leviathan.

Well played

But I'm fairly certain Leviathan would not fly with the left these days


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Just we're clear here: we're allowed to use "thug" in this instance because we're talking about white people, right?

Want to make sure I have all my ducks in a row.

I'm point out the double standard here where black people violently protesting against the government are "thugs" but white militias violently protesting against the government aren't. You could in theory call both groups "thugs", but let's be honest here, the word as it is commonly used is a more polite way of saying a much more offensive racist label.

gak, I must have missed where the ranchers with that gak Bundy were looting buildings.

It was actually kind of the reverse. The people down there were getting pushed around by the feds and in a few cases were even scared to hang out their laundry because of posted snipers working with the BLM. Sayin' it right now, Bundy was in the wrong, but the BLM handling of that situation was clumsy and irresponsible because the effects of it's chosen strategy could have negatively impacted farmers and ranchers in other states. Here in Utah, the BLM was shut down from shipping unpapered cattle to auction.

Forest Service should watch out. New Mexico is a rad filled post apocalyptic death World. Even the cartels stay out of there.The Hills Have Eyes There! Watch out Ranger Bob Watch out!


And for Peregrine, they are not thugs, they are rad filled mutants bent on death and destruction and...eating!

I thought a thug was either a cultist from India somewhere, or a general term for a lowlife, violent, uneducated usually not very smart criminal. Y'know, the henchmen of your average supervillain or boss mobster chosen for muscles over brains.

except for the Indian strangling cult thingy, no race is invloved, AFAIK.

Stay on topic

The word thug is derived from the Indian 'Thuggee' cult but oddly enough we aren't talking about India nor really using a context for talking about Indian criminal cults so there isn't a need to pretend that they are the same thing. As Relapse said, there really isn't a need to get caught up on the word at the moment anyway. If someone wants to debate that they can create a separate thread.

This does bring up an interesting idea. Who Owns land?
I mean, do they have a claim?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This does bring up an interesting idea. Who Owns land?
I mean, do they have a claim?

An interesting question. From the article:

"The lawsuit centers on a 2010 decision to cut grazing by 18 percent on the Jarita Mesa and Alamosa grazing allotments, which are part of an area recognized by the federal government for special treatment aimed at benefiting land grant heirs."


When you consider these land grants date at least from the 1600's, it makes for a good case on the rancher's part. In my mind, anyway.

 Frazzled wrote:
Forest Service should watch out. New Mexico is a rad filled post apocalyptic death World. Even the cartels stay out of there.The Hills Have Eyes There! Watch out Ranger Bob Watch out!


And for Peregrine, they are not thugs, they are rad filled mutants bent on death and destruction and...eating!

Nah, they'll be fine. They can just set the bears on them.

Relapse wrote:
This will, perhaps, be interesting to follow.

You're not one for the big sell, are you?

Relapse wrote:
When you consider these land grants date at least from the 1600's, it makes for a good case on the rancher's part. In my mind, anyway.

A good moral case or a good legal case?

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
When you consider these land grants date at least from the 1600's, it makes for a good case on the rancher's part. In my mind, anyway.

A good moral case or a good legal case?

Maybe both, if, as the article claims, the government has been recognizing these claims for special treatment to benefit land grant heirs. 400 plus years is a lot of precedent to just sweep aside on a whim.

Relapse wrote:
Maybe both, if, as the article claims, the government has been recognizing these claims for special treatment to benefit land grant heirs. 400 plus years is a lot of precedent to just sweep aside on a whim.

But that depends entirely on what the terms of the contract between the ranchers and the government are. If the contract specifically states that the ranchers have certain rights then they have a case. If the contract doesn't state anything explicitly and the government has just voluntarily done things a certain way then the precedent doesn't matter. It's just like if you're renting a building from me to use for your business: it doesn't matter how many years I've set your rent at a specific price without raising it, unless you have a contract with me explicitly stating otherwise when your current lease runs out I can demand whatever new rent I want or even refuse to renew your lease. I might be a bad person for doing it, but you wouldn't have any legal case against me.

And given the fact that the article in the OP doesn't mention any specific legal arguments I suspect it's in the second case, and the real goal the ranchers have is to get public opinion on their side and pressure the government to grant concessions that they aren't legally required to grant.