Appeals court says pets are ‘property’

•April 18, 2014 • 4 Comments

And what about warrantless searches that went on for THREE Days before obtaining a warrant with nothing wrong?!? Animals that can not be seen from the road, no starving and sick animals,  receiving treatment if there was something wrong, plenty of supplies and no law broken!!!

People accused of owning a ‘puppy mill’ or hoarding’ animals-Texas creating ‘puppy mill’ laws to stop all breeding…Ohio ban on owning property…All exceeding the limitations for seizing a single animal!!!

What happens in Oregon or any other state for that matter, affects ALL states…

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/04/appeals_court_says_pets_are_pr.html

Appeals court says pets are ‘property’ as it throws out dog-starving conviction

The Oregon Court of Appeals Wednesday threw out the conviction of a 28-year-old woman found guilty of starving her dog based on evidence from a veterinarian who tested and treated the animal without a warrant.

The ruling could set a precedent by making it more difficult for animal-cruelty investigators to seek instantaneous care for beaten, starved or otherwise injured pets. And the ruling could make it tougher for prosecutors to go after people suspected of abusing or neglecting their animals.

In reversing the 2011 misdemeanor conviction of Amanda L. Newcomb, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals ruled that animals are living beings but they are also property under the eyes of the law. And that doesn’t trump their owners’ constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case at issue began when an informant told the Oregon Humane Society that Portland-area resident Newcomb was beating her dog, failing to properly feed it and keeping it in a kennel for many hours a day. An animal-cruelty investigator went to Newcomb’s apartment in December 2010 and, once invited in, saw the dog in the yard “in a near emaciated condition.” The dog, the investigator reported, “was kind of eating at random things in the yard, and trying to vomit.”

The investigator asked why, and Newcomb said she was out of dog food but that she was going to get more that night, according to the Court of Appeals’ summary of the case.

The investigator determined a “strong possibility” existed that the dog needed medical care and brought the dog to a Humane Society vet. The vet gave the dog food, charted his weight and measured his rapid weight gain over several days. The vet also tested the dog’s feces and blood, ruling out disease. The investigator concluded nothing was wrong with the dog other than it was very hungry.

Newcombe was charged in Multnomah County Circuit Court with second-degree animal neglect.

She tried to suppress the vet’s findings by saying her state and federal constitutional rights to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure were violated when the investigator seized her dog without a warrant and the veterinarian tested her dog without a warrant.

Newcomb argued that dogs are personal property and she has the same privacy rights to her dog as she would to objects such as pocket knives or boots — which is a reference to previous case law.

The prosecutor countered that unlike other possessions, animals have a right to medical care and to be free from neglect.

Judge Eric Bergstrom denied Newcomb’s attempt to suppress the evidence, and she was found guilty. She was sentence to one year of probation and ordered not to possess animals for five years.

The Court of Appeals on Wednesday found that the investigator had probable cause to seize the dog and didn’t need a warrant. But the appeals court found the vet’s “search” of the dog violated Newcomb’s privacy rights because the authorities hadn’t obtained a warrant.

Although many judges would likely issue a warrant under such circumstances, critics argue the ruling will slow down the process of getting medical care to animals.

The appeals court sent the case back to Multnomah County Circuit Court for further proceedings, but it is unlikely Newcomb will be retried since the main evidence against her isn’t admissible.

Judges Timothy Sercombe, Darleen Ortega and Erika Hadlock took part in the decision

_________________________

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned  -B

Is History Repeating Itself?!?

•April 18, 2014 • Leave a Comment

The Bundy story is nothing new to Nevada ranchers…Now it’s Bundy but what about other ranchers before him?!?…There was Hage…Are other US agencies operating in the same manner against US citizens?!? What about the USDA/APHIS -created for animal welfare yet we KNOW this agency has become infiltrated by HSUS.

In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15602-federal-judge-rules-for-property-rights-smacks-down-abusive-feds

 Federal Judge Rules for Property Rights, Smacks Down Abusive Feds

In an historic 104-page ruling, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada has struck a major blow for property rights and, at the same time, has smacked down federal agencies that have been riding roughshod over Western ranchers and property owners. The long-awaited ruling, which had been expected before the end of last year, was finally issued at the end of May. The court case, U.S. v. Hage, has been keenly watched by legal analysts and constitutional scholars — but has been completely ignored by the major media.

As we reported last November (“Judge Blasts Federal Conspiracy; Ranch Family Vindicated — Again!”), in June 2012, Judge Jones had issued a scorching preliminary bench ruling that charged federal officials of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with an ongoing series of illegal actions against Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage (shown on left) that the judge described as “abhorrent” and a literal, criminal conspiracy.

Judge Jones said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

The Hage family has waged a heroic decades-long legal battle against these abusive agencies, in a David vs. Goliath contest against the combined might of the U.S. Department of Justice and the BLM/USFS legal teams. Precious few individual citizens are willing to undertake such a seemingly hopeless and costly effort as to challenge the formidable power and bottomless resources of the federal government. Wayne Hage and his wife Jean did so repeatedly, winning judgements only to have them endlessly appealed by the taxpayer-funded agencies. Jean Hage died in 1996. Wayne Hage and his second wife, former U.S. Congresswoman of Idaho Helen Chenoweth Hage, both died in 2006.

The Hages’ son, Wayne N. Hage (shown next to father), and other family members have continued ranching and have continued the legal fight. Hage hailed Judge Jones’ May 24 decision as a landmark ruling for property rights, which the American Founding Fathers recognized as the bedrock of liberty and an essential security against tyrannical government.

“This decision is landmark for Western ranchers,” Hage commented from the family’s Pine Creek Ranch in Nevada. “I am pleased to announce for the ranchers of the Western states that it has been proven that a permit is not simply a revocable privilege, but rather there is a property interest in the permit for the purpose of the Due Process Clause, both procedural and substantive. This is important because it will safeguard rancher’s rights and historical grazing practices.”

Hage added, “More importantly we proved a ‘forage right.’ Ranchers in the state of Nevada are protected from trespass within a half-mile from a water source.”

Notably, the court said, “The Government may not abuse its discretion in refusing to renew, or in revoking, a [grazing] privilege.” Significantly, the family will be under permanent injunctive relief and the government shall not reduce the Hages’ permits by more than 25 percent for any period of time without the courts’ consent, and never permanently.

Specifically, the court found, “The Government has abused its discretion in the present case through a series of actions designed to strip the [Hage] Estate of its grazing permits, and ultimately to strip Defendants of their ability to use their water rights.” He explained, “Substantive due process protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of their liberty by government.”

The court further explained, “The Government cannot withdraw them (grazing permits) or refuse to renew them vindictively or for reasons totally unrelated to the merits of the application as governed by published laws and regulations, lest the Government abuse its executive power in a way that shocks the conscience.”

Because of the government’s refusal to consider any grazing applications from the Hages, the court found the subsequent “chain of events is the result of the Government’s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal permit for 1993-2003, and the effects of this due process violation is continuing.”

“Government’s actions … shock the conscience of the Court”
The court found, “In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shock the conscience of the Court.” This finding, coupled with the court’s finding that agents of the BLM and the USFS engaged in a conspiracy to deprive the Hage family of their vested property rights, opens the door to potential lawsuits against the individual agents personally for their unconstitutional actions.

The ruling chronicles the drama of the 21-day trial in Reno, Nevada, last spring between rancher Wayne N. Hage who, unable to afford an attorney, represented himself, and Mark Pollot, the estate’s attorney, who were defending their case against two federal agencies represented by a cadre of attorneys and staff from the Justice Department.

The court noted the government’s motive for their pursuit of the present trespass case. “In 2007, … the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate” because the USFS and BLM were “unsatisfied with the outcome” in the ongoing related 1991 Constitutional Fifth Amendment takings case of Hage v. U.S. before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC).

However, during the pendency of the trespass case, the agencies pursued remedies outside the jurisdiction of the court, leading to a referral to the U.S. attorney for obstruction of justice and findings of contempt of court. Specifically, the BLM invited others, including Gary Snow of Fallon, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits; the BLM testified they knew Snow’s cattle would use Hage waters; the BLM and USFS both applied to the State of Nevada for stock watering rights over Hage waters, even though neither agency owns cattle, for the “purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights”; and they attempted to intimidate witnesses in the trespass case by issuing trespass notices and demands for payments against persons who had cattle pastured at Pine Creek Ranch, despite having been notified that Hage was responsible for these cattle.

Judge Jones reasoned the trespass notices and demands for payment were meant “to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.” The court noted such demands for payment were even issued to “witnesses soon after they testified in this case.”

Tonopah BLM manager, Tom Seley, and Forest Ranger Steve Williams were both found to be in contempt of court, and were referred to the U.S. attorney for possible prosecution for criminal obstruction of justice. Noting that Seley and Williams knew of ongoing litigation between the parties in this court and the CFC, they “took actions to interfere with the defense of the present trespass action by intimidating witnesses.” A written order is pending from the separate August 2012 contempt hearing.

A permanent injunction was granted to prevent the government from denying the Hages’ continuation of their grazing permits and from imposing trespass charges against them every time the Hages’ cattle incidentally stray onto BLM/USFS land in the vast open range area. The court noted, “There is great probability that the Government will continue to cite Defendants and potentially impound Defendant’s cattle in the future in derogation of their water rights and those statutory privileges of which the Government has arbitrarily and vindictively stripped them.”

The court will require Hage to apply for a permit, but will also require the government to grant it. The government is enjoined from issuing trespass or impound notices to Hage or anyone leasing cattle to him; the government must request permission from the court to issue such notices.

The court added, “The government’s normal discretion is restricted under the present injunction, an injunction required in this extreme case because of the conspiracy noted and the history of violations of the Hages’ due process rights in their permits and vested property rights in the use of water, and the obvious continuing animus against Hage by the government officials charged with administering his permits.”

Although Hage noted defending this case created a tremendous personal hardship, “I hold the successful defense of my family’s rights, particularly for the beneficiaries of the Estates, the most important part of this decision and worth all the time and work that went into this case.  No longer are we subject to the arbitrary and vindictive rule of man—we now have the protection of the rule of law.”

The related Hage v. U.S. takings case has been appealed by the Hages to the U.S. Supreme Court on the narrow issue of whether or not a permit is required for normal maintenance of a historic 1866 Mining Act ditch right-of-way. That case is slated for a June 18 conference in the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if the court will grant the Hages’ appeal. A similar right-of-way case from the City of Tombstone, Arizona, is also on appeal to the USSC.

__________________________

Disclaimer connected to this bog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned  -B

Thanks to Penny for directing me to this article-

ZOO WARS-ACTION ALERT~Louisiana-Help Save Tony the Tiger

•April 17, 2014 • Leave a Comment

CALL TO ACTION-Out of Committee and time to help save Tony from Radical Animal Rights Extremists!!! You do NOT have to be from Louisiana to be heard…

A bill before the Louisiana Senate that would exempt Tony and the Tiger Truck Stop from the State’s Exotic Animal Ban. We need your voice to help save Tony!!! Please take a minute to email, call or write the following Senators and tell them you support their stand to keep Tony safely home.

CALL TO ACTION</p>
<p>We have a bill before the Louisiana Senate that would exempt Tony and the Tiger Truck Stop from the State’s Exotic Animal Ban.  We need your voice to help save Tony!!! Please take a minute to email, call or write  the following Senators and tell them you support their stand to keep Tony safely home. </p>
<p>As long as we have breath and God gives us the means to continue fighting for Tony, We will.</p>
<p>EXAMPLE: (letter or email)</p>
<p>Dear Senator,</p>
<p>Thank You For Standing Up For Tony The Tiger and Responsible USDA Licensed Exotic Animal Exhibition. We support keeping Tony safely home and stopping the attack on an exhibit that has brought great joy to thousands of people from all over the country for over 25 years. We Support Senate Bill 250. </p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Your Name</p>
<p>Senator Rick Ward, III (Vice-Chairman)<br />
3741 Highway 1<br />
Port Allen, LA 70767<br />
(225) 246-8838<br />
wardr@legis.la.gov</p>
<p>Senator Gerald Long (Chairman)<br />
P.O. Box 151<br />
Winnfield, LA 71483<br />
(318) 628-5799<br />
longg@legis.la.gov</p>
<p>Senator R.L. "Bret" Allain, II<br />
600 Main Street<br />
Suite 1<br />
Franklin, LA 70538<br />
(337) 828-9107<br />
allainb@legis.la.gov</p>
<p>Senator "Jody" Amedee<br />
2109 S. Burnside Ave.<br />
Suite A<br />
Gonzales, LA 70737<br />
(225) 644-1526<br />
amedeej@legis.la.gov</p>
<p>Senator Dan "Blade" Morrish<br />
119 W. Nezpique Street<br />
Jennings, LA 70546<br />
(337) 824-3979<br />
morrishd@legis.la.gov” width=”358″ height=”395″ /></p>
<div class=

We must keep fighting for Tony!!!

EXAMPLE: (letter or email)

Dear Senator,

Thank You For Standing Up For Tony The Tiger and Responsible USDA Licensed Exotic Animal Exhibition. We support keeping Tony safely home and stopping the attack on an exhibit that has brought great joy to thousands of people from all over the country for over 25 years. We Support Senate Bill 250.

Sincerely,

(Your Name)

Senator Rick Ward, III (Vice-Chairman)
3741 Highway 1
Port Allen, LA 70767
(225) 246-8838
wardr@legis.la.gov

Senator Gerald Long (Chairman)
P.O. Box 151
Winnfield, LA 71483
(318) 628-5799
longg@legis.la.gov

Senator R.L. “Bret” Allain, II
600 Main Street
Suite 1
Franklin, LA 70538
(337) 828-9107
allainb@legis.la.gov

Senator “Jody” Amedee
2109 S. Burnside Ave.
Suite A
Gonzales, LA 70737
(225) 644-1526
amedeej@legis.la.gov

Senator Dan “Blade” Morrish
119 W. Nezpique Street
Jennings, LA 70546
(337) 824-3979
morrishd@legis.la.gov

______________________________

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinion of others…Stay tuned  -B

PETA KILLS and paid to do it~Make no mistake about it!!!

•April 17, 2014 • Leave a Comment

 

“In December 2012, more than 18,000 rats – bred for use as reptile food – and hundreds of reptiles were seized from Global Captive Breeders. Any rats and reptiles that weren’t already dead were euthanized during the cleanup of the 3rd Street facility, which had been open since 2009.”

Well that’s new, and I imagine we will be reading about more revolting conditions now instead of deplorable…SO the animals are raised for animal food for other animals-PETA hires people to go in undercover-likely caused much of the issuesKILLS ALL the animals that weren’t already dead and gets paid to do it-No one blinks an eye that PETA killed the remaining LIVE animals because the animals were rats and/reptiles that likely eat rats…Sorry, having a WTF moment!!!~And likely had permission from the court to do it-rats and reptiles…of course they did…

I imagine a deal was cut to close this case…When is the butcher jailed for the cows he slaughters?!?! Animal Rights Extremists Nazi Gestopos claiming their best work to date-huh?!? “PETA called it the largest-ever seizure of animals in California.”

Not about the animals and all about the money-PETA gets paid 88K…More shocking is that they actually prosecuted this!!! Your taxpayer money hard at work!!!-BULLSHIT!!!

http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/lake-elsinore/lake-elsinore-headlines-index/20140416-lake-elsinore-owner-in-animal-cruelty-case-to-pay-88k-to-peta.ece

LAKE ELSINORE: Owner in animal cruelty case to pay $88K to PETA

The owner of a Lake Elsinore exotic animal business – where thousands of dead or dying rats and reptiles were found in revolting conditions following an undercover investigation by animal-rights activists – has avoided jail time but was ordered to pay more than $190,000 in restitution.

Mitchell Steven Behm, 55, of Coto de Caza, the owner of Global Captive Breeders, admitted to a dozen misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty in a plea agreement with prosecutors April 3. Behm was sentenced Wednesday, April 16, to five years’ probation and 200 hours’ community service. Under the terms of his probation, he will not be allowed to keep animals or be involved with animal-related businesses.

Judge Judith Clark ordered Behm to pay more than $102,000 to the city and about $88,000 to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which uncovered the conditions at the business and helped with the cleanup.

Behm declined to comment after the hearing Wednesday, April 16, at the Southwest Justice Center in French Valley.

Behm and the former manager, David Delgado, had been charged with more than 100 counts each of felony animal cruelty.

Delgado, 30, of Rialto, has pleaded guilty to a dozen counts of felony animal cruelty. He is scheduled for sentencing May 22 and faces a maximum of five years, four months in jail.

John Hall, a spokesman for the Riverside County district attorney’s office, emphasized the lengthy probation period ordered for Behm and the importance of restitution, which might have taken years to get if the case had gone to trial.

As part of the plea deal, Behm has already repaid most of the amount. The balance is due within 90 days.

In December 2012, more than 18,000 rats – bred for use as reptile food – and hundreds of reptiles were seized from Global Captive Breeders. Any rats and reptiles that weren’t already dead were euthanized during the cleanup of the 3rd Street facility, which had been open since 2009.

PETA called it the largest-ever seizure of animals in California.

The organization had launched its own investigation of Global Captive Breeders months earlier and, after gathering evidence through an undercover informant working there, reported the business to officials. PETA posted videos on its website showing maggot-ridden reptile carcasses, rats struggling to keep their heads above water in flooded bins, an employee shooting a rat with a BB gun and more.

Willa Bagwell, executive director of the nonprofit animal control provider Animal Friends of the Valleys, said dozens of people worked for eight days sorting through the rotting carcasses. She said the stench was overwhelming and there were rats and large snakes loose in the building.

“It’s too bad he got the place cleaned up for him instead of having to do it himself,” she said of Behm.

Bagwell said she would have preferred to see Behm do jail time.

“We just don’t want him to be around animals,” she said.

Dan Paden, a PETA spokesman, said in an email that the probation terms accomplish PETA’s “most important goal – to keep Behm and Delgado away from animals for as long as legally possible.”

“Behm’s restitution to PETA,” he added, “will allow us to continue to expose such cruelty to animals, wherever it occurs.”

______________________

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinion of others…Stay tuned  -B

 

Bundy Ranch-What you are NOT being told

•April 16, 2014 • Leave a Comment

Comment to this blog you might have missed which included the u-tube above:
Interesting information of the manipulation of OUR federal public land (and this video at the link is discussing the controversy about Rancher Clive Bundy down in Clark County (southern) Nevada) by the BLM and various individuals, corporate businesses/industries, etc.

And I will say again, people from various walks-of-life should band together and KEEP the federally PROTECTED wild horses and burros ON their VAST Herd Management Areas (and many HMA’s have been ZEROED-OUT, and there are NO HORSES there anymore; does everyone know why that is? Yep, eradication of the protected wild horses and burros, and once the HMA’s are zeroed-out, the BLM does NOT reintroduce horses and/or burros again because the land is then fenced off, and being used for other purposes) where they are mandated by law to be allowed to ROAM FREE (no fences) because once they are eradicated, the fences will be strung very quickly that will allow corporate business interests operating on OUR public land to completely take over and FENCE ALL OF THE PUBLIC OUT.

And I’ll be really honest with everyone, as I always am, but I tend to put people off with my bluntness as I blurt things out; even though I’m hoping people will give a sh*t about other people, animals, the environment, etc and besides just their own agenda and what affects them, their family, etc, I still am not seeing various people, groups, organizations, etc being willing to work together to try to benefit all of us whatever our interests are, in hanging on to our PUBLIC land, and NOT letting corporate business interests entirely take it over……DIVISION between what are normally opposing groups is the typical way that the “powers that be” get what they want.
HOWEVER, there are also the “shills” and “pretenders” planted within our own groups that create DIVISION and unrest among people who are supposed to be “on the same page” but are not.

The federal wild horses and burros REALLY are federally PROTECTED folks, REALLY they are, and if it wasn’t important for the corporate business interest factions that want to control OUR public land to eradicate them using the BLM and other government agencies to do it so that they can put up fences everywhere to keep the public OFF our own public land, we’d be seeing them left alone to be managed PRIMARILY on the federal PUBLIC land as they are mandated BY LAW to be managed (Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971). We also would not see the BLM dangling the carrot in front of peoples faces of paying them to keep captured wild horses of any and all kinds on their private land, and in “eco-sanctuaries”, which if any and all kinds of wild horses go there, they are nothing more than “zoos” with the “prime specimen” (genetically strongest and best) horses there that should instead be wild on the range because their genetics are what the wild horses are all about in terms of their strength, toughness, their natural physiology, and behavior that has not been screwed up by humans, etc.

But instead, no matter how many protests there are, no matter how many meetings wild horse advocates attend, no matter how much is written by so many people explaining why they should be primarily managed on the public Open Range, with solutions to keep them from over-populating there, no matter how often the misinformation is exposed, no matter what anyone does, they are STILL being eradicated in ramped-up numbers, and the DIVISION between opposing sides, and in our own groups continues, and is getting worse when certain people need to be “taken out” and “shut up” and they don’t have the money to fight back.

We “regular people” ARE the majority, so if we could ever decide to really CARE about other “regular people” and what they want too, we could WORK TOGETHER (and I’ve often through the years worked with people who I might not agree with on certain issues, or perhaps don’t really like the person, but in order to get what I want too, – in this case, the federally protected wild horses and burros primarily managed on the federal PUBLIC land as they are mandated by law to be managed -, I am willing to problem-solve and compromise a bit in order for us all to win) as the majority, and not be so “me, me, me, and only me and mine”, we can WIN what we want before it’s too late regarding OUR PUBLIC land, and before the DIVISION does the dirty work and the corporate business interests (and you know what everyone, corporations could even operate out there on the public land too, but with corporations, it’s always about “more, more, more” and “we want it all to the exclusion of anyone or anything else”, so that is not going to fly for we “regular people” and what we want) entirely take over OUR public land that we pay taxes on.

I would love to speak to “regular people” from all walks of life who want to SHARE our public land, so please SHARE this wherever you see fit everyone, and maybe we can turn this thing around before it’s too late.
_____________________

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned, follow this blog and share this post -B

Thank you Laurab for yet another well written comment to this blog!!!

Who really owns Nevada?!?-Concerning the Nevada Stand-off

•April 16, 2014 • 2 Comments

______________________

“renegade rancher” my ass…

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/16/why-does-federal-government-own-84-of-nevada-and-what-can-reid-do-to-give-it-back-112757

Why does federal government own 84% of Nevada and what can Reid do to give it back?

Many say Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could easily arrange for his home state to get back most of the 84 percent of Nevada territory owned and controlled by the federal government. So does the Democrat represent the interests of Nevada, or does he put the interests of the U.S. government and the Democratic Party over his own state’s needs?

Nevada would get what it deserves if Reid drafted a measure to treat Nevada the same way as other states. The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives would eagerly vote to treat Nevada like a grown-up. Instead, Reid runs the U.S. Senate with an iron fist, to the detriment of his own voters.

Renegade rancher Cliven Bundy raised a question during the hair-raising show-down between the Bureau of Land Management and the militia supporting the cattle rancher. Bundy says he was paying grazing fees to Clark County, but that the county stopped accepting his payments. Bundy insists that Nevada, not the U.S. government, owns the land where his cattle graze.

According to the ranchers’ argument, the federal government “owned” or controlled every territory before it became a state, but once statehood was reached, the land became the property of the new state.

So how is it that the U.S. government owns 84 percent of Nevada? It certainly looks like Nevada citizens are being treated unfairly. It is almost as if Washington, D.C., is treating Nevada like a child that can’t manage itself.

Ranchers support Cliven Bundy
Photo: WND Facebook

Many Western states were treated unequally when they joined the Union. Unlike Eastern states, Congress reserved vast amounts of federally-owned land in the “Enabling Acts” for statehood in the West. Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution requires an act of Congress to create a state. Keeping the majority of land in federal control seems in conflict with the very concept of statehood. The second paragraph of Section 4 appears to authorize this bizarre practice. But on closer inspection, that is far from clear.

The Nevada Constitution includes an “Ordinance” section that adopts the requirements of the congressional Enabling Act. A second rewrite of the state constitution was approved by voters on Sept. 7, 1864. Nevada became the 36th state on Oct. 31, 1864. Nevada agreed to let the federal government own “unappropriated land” within the state, “unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.”

Las Vegas Review Journal reported in December:

Some Nevadans, particularly from the rural areas of the state, have been pushing the idea of a state takeover of federal lands for years.

Supporters were successful in the 2013 session of the Nevada Legislature in getting a measure passed to allow for a study of the concept.

The group created by Assembly Bill 227, the Nevada Land Management Task Force, has been charged with evaluating whether the state should consider taking over control of some of the public lands now managed by federal agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, which controls 76 percent of the land in the state.

The task force will submit its findings to the Legislative Committee on Public Lands by Sept. 1.

All these years later, Congress could easily right this discriminatory wrong. As the leader of the U.S. Senate, Reid could propose a change reverting the property to Nevada’s control, and Republicans in the House would enthusiastically agree.

Nevada voters should tell the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House to end the discrimination against Nevada and release the “unappropriated territory” to the management and ownership of their own state government.

ZOO WARS~SEIZED-Rocky the Bobcat-More BULLSHIT!!!

•April 15, 2014 • Leave a Comment

Would someone please tell the dog catcher he’s just a dog catcher…This is not a full blooded Bobcat and she has the proper permits!!! Once again, this is BULLSHIT!!!

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9499348 

NJ woman fights to get pet bobcat back

A New Jersey woman wants her pet bobcat back after animal control removed the animal when it escaped for the second time in six months.

Pet lover Ginny Fine of Beach Haven West is missing her legally owned, 3-year-old hybrid bobcat ‘Rocky’ who is being cared for right now at the Popcorn Park Zoo.

Animal control officers seized Rocky when he recently returned home after escaping for the second time in six months.

“People hear ‘bobcat loose” and it was frightening,’” said Fine.

Fine says Rocky, half bobcat and half Maine coon cat, is neutered, declawed and decidedly domesticated.

“He’s not scary. He is very sweet, very loving. He honestly is like a big house cat,” said Fine.

“One of the problems with the cat escaping and getting out is because it is declawed it couldn’t defend itself,” said John Bergmann, Popcorn Park Zoo.

With help from an anonymous donor, and at the township’s insistence, Fine is planning to replace, enlarge and better secure a special pen built for Rocky in the backyard.

“So long as she constructs the enclosure, keeps the cat in that enclosure and prevents it from getting loose again in the future, we have no objection to the cat going back to her,” said Captain Tom Dellane, Stafford Township Police.

They’ve never seen him, but neighbors Lily and Bonito Sanchez couldn’t believe Rocky the bobcat weighs in at 38 pounds.

“That’s big, pretty big! Don’t mind as long as she keeps it in the house,” said Bonito.

“I just want to do whatever the township wants me to do to conform to whatever it is they are saying needs to be done to get him back home,” said Fine.

Fine has a hearing in municipal court on Friday and is hoping the judge will okay the plan to let Rocky return home.

____________________

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinion of others…Stay tuned and follow this blog  -B

 

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 101 other followers