Hunting Washington Forum

Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: wolfbait on January 09, 2018, 10:57:58 AM

Title: FEDERAL COURT RULES FOR RANCHERS, AGAINST FOREST SERVICE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE
Post by: wolfbait on January 09, 2018, 10:57:58 AM: FEDERAL COURT RULES FOR RANCHERS, AGAINST FOREST SERVICE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/federal-court-rules-for-ranchers-against-forest-service-in-property-rights-casehttps://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/federal-court-rules-for-ranchers-against-forest-service-in-property-rights-case
Title: Re: FEDERAL COURT RULES FOR RANCHERS, AGAINST FOREST SERVICE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE
Post by: timberfaller on January 09, 2018, 11:59:59 AM: "the U.S. Forest Service put the family through decades of endless bureaucracy and litigation.”

The Sierra Club taught the Feds and others very well!!

Its what happens when "agency's" hire the "best and the brightest" and don't check their "backgrounds"!!
Title: Re: FEDERAL COURT RULES FOR RANCHERS, AGAINST FOREST SERVICE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE
Post by: csaaphill on January 11, 2018, 06:51:08 PM: Quote from: wolfbait on January 09, 2018, 10:57:58 AM
FEDERAL COURT RULES FOR RANCHERS, AGAINST FOREST SERVICE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/federal-court-rules-for-ranchers-against-forest-service-in-property-rights-casehttps://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/federal-court-rules-for-ranchers-against-forest-service-in-property-rights-case
Same as the Bundy's then but for these people they won. Why as in what Ryan had stated in his opening statement why put up signs saying no more moo by 92 if they're not up to something.?
Same as this case why fence off where they know fully well ranchers will need that to water their cattle.?
Title: Re: FEDERAL COURT RULES FOR RANCHERS, AGAINST FOREST SERVICE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE
Post by: Special T on January 11, 2018, 08:51:49 PM: Quote from: wolfbait on January 09, 2018, 10:57:58 AM
FEDERAL COURT RULES FOR RANCHERS, AGAINST FOREST SERVICE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/federal-court-rules-for-ranchers-against-forest-service-in-property-rights-casehttps://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/federal-court-rules-for-ranchers-against-forest-service-in-property-rights-case
This is the kind of lawsuit the Bundies should have been up against. I won't make a determination that the Bundies water/grazing rights were broken, but that wasn't what the lawsuit was about.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Title: Re: FEDERAL COURT RULES FOR RANCHERS, AGAINST FOREST SERVICE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE
Post by: csaaphill on January 11, 2018, 08:58:51 PM: locked the other one :bdid:
but here
What is this about? The court orders. They say my father had an opportunity in the courts. The court wouldn’t consider states rights. They have forgotten they are servants of the people
This is the correct meaning to we the people not the other one! >:(
Title: Re: FEDERAL COURT RULES FOR RANCHERS, AGAINST FOREST SERVICE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE
Post by: Humptulips on January 12, 2018, 07:48:14 PM: It is worth noting that the ranchers who filed this lawsuit died before this ruling came out in their favor. Also worth noting even though the Court ruled they had water rights they still did not get any compensation for losing the water all the years the suit went through the courts. What did they get?

“both parties should undertake a renewed effort to ascertain whether alternative water sources can be made available to SGA to allow this family enterprise to continue in the cattle business on a viable basis.”

So now they are supposed to negotiate I suppose. Doesn't sound like they won much.
Title: Re: FEDERAL COURT RULES FOR RANCHERS, AGAINST FOREST SERVICE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE
Post by: NW SURVEYOR on January 14, 2018, 07:01:36 AM: It should be noted that the use of the water predated Statehood and as such rights could be established.
If no rights had ripened before Statehood, they could not come to fruition afterwards.

The Bundy case is completely different.
The Feds owned the land well prior to the arrival of the Bundy clan.
No "Rights" could be established by Bundy which makes his claim invalid.

My two cents.
Rob.