In other words, it’s not that the Federal government is hoarding the land like a miser. It’s that NOBODY ACTUALLY WANTS TO OWN IT! It’s poor land. It’s land that ranchers would have to maintain and pay property taxes on out of pocket instead of basically paying a fairly nominal grazing fee to set their cattle out on.
Many parcels of land in this region were “patented” from the US government to veterans for services rendered during the Revolutionary War. Patents are essentially deeds. In addition, the French settled in many areas, and many parcels were owned by French people, who received their titles from France. This was particularly true in central Illinois. The US government had to make settlements with those owners. In examining title to parcels of land in central Illinois, one begins with the patent from the US government. However, those deriving titles from the French government also claimed title to many parcels.
It sounds like in a nutshell, the first 17 or so states owned their land outright prior to being states. The rest, except Texas, Alaska and Hawaii were all formed as territories out of existing Federal land gained either through the original western claims, the Louisiana Purchase, or the post-Mexican war cession. Texas and Hawaii, entering the union in as sovereign nations. retained ownership of their land.
So any unsold land remains owned by the Federal government in most states- but only the Western states have any appreciable amount of land unsold, and most of that is cruddy range land or mountains.
Not true. Case in point in Nevada - someone wanted it as grazing land, they just didn’t want to pay fair market value for it. Also, it is impossible to offer to buy it from BLM if you do want the land.
Thanks everyone for contributing to this informative thread. I found the links provided very helpful.
Yes, thanks to all. I get it now! Bump summarized the story well.
Yes and no. Technology has changed a lot in the last century. Land that could not be reasonably farmed in the 1800s might be easily farmed today by trucking in water, doing drip irrigation, etc. then when your 10 years or whatever are up, take full title and turn off the tap. Free land. The government does not want to simply hand over title for no permanent benefit. The original homestead acts were to set up permanent inhabitants, not to create a loophole where someone could grow fruit trees for 10 years in return for a square mile of free cottage land. In fact, given today’s environmental preoccupations, they certainly don’t want people ripping up square miles of scrub.
The point was that the land was unused, so as long as nobody got greedy the whole community could share the open range. No need to draw lines, put up miles of fence, say “keep your cattle over there”. As I understood it, quite a few ranchers use the areas- Bundy just thinks the price is too high. The BLM had to check brands to separate legit cattle from Bundy’s.
Plus the government was giving small ranges to farmers. They were not going to sell hundreds of square miles to single landholders for almost nothing. That would be a gift to the ranchers, and would mean that if irrigation or some such happened, or if a railroad wanted to go through, etc. - no development would happen… And the 1800s were all about development, not perpetuating open ranges.
Mr. Buddy should get his cows off OUR land.
It’s perfectly possible, but expensive. Very expensive. You really think you could farm a piece of dry scrubland for 10 years at a cost less than the $100/acre such land goes for on the private land market? Well, you’re wrong, probably by an order of magnitude or two.
Depends what you mean by “farm”, I guess.
What were the requirements for homesteading?
You could plant a few acres of fruit trees, drip irrigation.
If the government still had unlimited homesteading on all federal land, I imagine you could get some land with a choice view that simply isn’t on the market. There are some millionaires or billionaires that might pay someone to do so… I agree, it’s thoroughly impractical for someone in my financial bracket.
Did you have to live on it? that would be the assumption before the automobile, but today a 100-mile commute a few times a week is no less impractical than trucking a tanker load of water every so often for irrigation.
This - Homestead Acts - Wikipedia - just says “improvements” and in one case, plant 40 acres of trees to get 160 acres. Title vested typically in 5 years. It also mentions a number of groups play fast and loose with the process to acquire “…huge tracts of land…” 
This link http://www2.lhric.org/pocantico/westward_expansion/homesteadact.htm shows a claim where only 35 acres were ploughed for crops, but the title claim was for 160 acres.
I believe Mr. Bundy’s refusal to recognize the federal government is soundly based on the fact that he has a long standing contract with the state which grants him grazing rights. The rights are similar to title of a home or automobile, they are prove ownership of a property.
The contract was between the state and Mr. Bundy, he has always honored said contract, he played all fees to the state as I understood it up to the time of the stand off 3 years ago.
His argument was he would not honor any illegaly gained control by the federal government. As I remember the history of land ownership out west the states were granted all ownership other than lands already titles to others.
The states then were responsible for what became overwhelming tasks and responsibility of mostly transferring ownership of the land to the public. The representatives from the western states asked the federal government to form a agency to consolidate and manage the land. Ownership was not given back to the federal government any more than is ownership given to a real estate agent when you agree to allow him or her to sell your house.
Mr.Bundy’s contract would by law need to be honored by the new legal owner of the land…grandfathered as they call it.
As it was explained to me the federal government sued the state and through unconstitutional trickery stole the state’s land at some point after Mr. Bundy’ grazing right contract was in place with the state tbe legal owner. This would be no different than if the real estate agent claimed ownership of your home through illegal claims of say abandonment.
This is why Mr.Bundy refused to obey new rules outside the scope of the contract already in place. Again think about how you eod react if the mortgage on your house was suddenly changed by doubling the interest rate and the term was cut from 30 years to 10 years…what would you do?
I believe Mr. Bundy’s refusal to recognize the federal government is soundly based on the fact that he has a long standing contract with the state which grants him grazing rights. The rights are similar to title of a home or automobile, they are proff or ownership of a property.
The contract was between the state and Mr. Bundy, he has always honored said contract, he payed all fees to the state as I understood it up to the time of the stand off 3 years ago.
His argument was that he would not honor any illegaly gained control by the federal government or changes demanded by the BLM.
As I remember the history of land ownership out west the states were granted all ownership other than lands already titles to others.
The states then were responsible for what became the overwhelming tasks and responsibility of mostly transferring ownership of the land to the public. The representatives from the western states asked the federal government to form a agency to consolidate and manage the land. Ownership was not given back to the federal government any more than is ownership given to a real estate agent when you agree to allow him or her to sell your house.
Mr.Bundy’s contract would, by law, need to be honored by any new legal owner of the land…grandfathered as they call it,
As it was explained to me the federal government sued the state and through unconstitutional trickery stole the state’s land at some point after Mr. Bundy’ grazing right contract was in place with the state when the state was the legal owner. This would be no different than if the real estate agent claimed ownership of your home through illegal claims of say abandonment.
This is why Mr.Bundy refused to obey new rules outside the scope of the contract already in place. Again think about how you would react if the mortgage on your house was suddenly changed by doubling the interest rate and the term was cut from 30 years to 10 years…what would you do?
I hope you would refuse the new illegal terms and hire a lawyer.
Sovereign zombies! Hide the gold fringe!
Back to the zombie OP.
I am familiar with Utah. The Feds gave 10’s of thousands of acres to the state for schools. Utah has sold many of theses parcels to finance their education system.
But you are correct, the Feds kept control of much of the state. And in many instances, they are protecting it for generations to come.
Why was Mr. Bundy’s contract with the state, instead of with the landowner?
Oh, and another point: Nevada, or any other western state, does have control over federal land within its borders, in the same sense that it has control over Las Vegas. Commit a crime in Vegas, or on BLM land, and you can be arrested by Nevada police and tried in Nevada courts. But the state doesn’t have total control over either, because it doesn’t own the property: Las Vegas is owned mostly by various casino companies, and BLM land is owned by the federal government.
That worthless desert or grazing land? You would have to live on the designated land, build a home, make improvements, and farm it for a minimum of five years.
Off grid, no roads, no water.
Literally everything you “understand” about the case is wrong, and whoever explained it to you is an idiot.
Bundy never had a contract with the state. The land where Bundy grazed his cattle has been under the control of the BLM and its predecessor agencies since 1934. It has been federal land since it was ceded by Mexico in the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo. Bundy owned his own ranch - not the grazing lands - under Nevada’s territorial (i.e. federal) homestead law. The states could take over public lands more or less whenever they asked to. Nevada never asked for the lands that Bundy grazed his cattle on because they were largely worthless.
In 1993, grazing rights on portions of the land were restricted to protect the desert tortoise. There’s some argument about whether this was actually necessary, but Bundy never bothered to get involved in the dispute until after it was settled. Instead, he stopped paying his federal grazing fees in 1993. After a couple of years the feds revoked his permit (they had paid other ranchers in the area for their renewable grazing rights, but Bundy refused).
Bundy never paid and “fees” to the state, because the state didn’t administer his land. There was no state agency to pay any such fees to, even assuming the fee existed. He paid grazing fees to the BLM until 1993, when his permit was revoked.
For 20 years, Bundy lost trial after trial against the government - in which his made-up stories about how Nevada owns the land were rejected by almost every possible court - and by the time of the standoff he owed the feds a million dollars in back grazing fees.
Bundy isn’t an aggrieved person whose mortgage payment was jacked up overnight. He’s more like a trespasser who refused to leave your house when his lease expired, and claims you can’t sue him for unpaid rent because the state actually owns your house.
I suggest you educate yourself on the facts, and try again. Wikipedia has a good summary. Or you can read the court documents yourself.