Report: BLM Committed ‘Intrusive, Oppressive Militaristic Trespass’ Against Cliven Bundy

[41mag]

a hand out to the ranchers.

another potential viewpoint, is that 'We the People' are represented by 'the ranchers' willing to invest time & effort to help facilitate benign sustainable use of what is largely otherwise wasteland that might well be paved over for another Area 51 aerodrome or ruthlessly mined with destructive processes to gather that rich bed of what Sen Reid was attempting to sell to the high bidder.

Further, an issue I read about but lost track of the legal disposition of the argument, was the actual 'ownership of the land'. IIRC Bundy was asserting the "State of Nevada" owned that parcel of land, which was at some point simply assimilated by the 'fed.us.gov' under the BLM etc. One of the arguments I read, was since his family had been leasing the land for over 100 years from 'Nevada' and his existing contract had been ignored, etc. Perhaps I misunderstood his issues or the legal process.

One of the things I was very amazed to see, was during the Nevada standoff, with both sides facing off with firearms at the ready. The tension built (who knows the reality?) and a sudden mistake anywhere could have resulted in massive shoot out. A single 'newsman' (forget his name/ties/actual employer) stepped out in between the opposing forces and spoke some clear and necessary words. I was impressed with his bravery/effectiveness and have never seen much discussed of his role.

 

[JRuby]

another potential viewpoint, is that 'We the People' are represented by 'the ranchers' willing to invest time & effort to help facilitate benign sustainable use of what is largely otherwise wasteland that might well be paved over for another Area 51 aerodrome or ruthlessly mined with destructive processes to gather that rich bed of what Sen Reid was attempting to sell to the high bidder.

Then why did bears ear get dismantled for commercial purposes instead of protecting the natural resources

Also if the ranchers not paying the cost of the grazing program some one else is.
Taking from one to pay for someone else's share is the definition of a hand out

 

[41mag]

JRuby, I don't intend to present this as arguing with you, simply expressing a point of view.

Then why did bears ear get dismantled for commercial purposes instead of protecting the natural resources

I disagree with your premise. The land belonged to Utah and was appropriated by fed.us.gov.

The State of Utah approved of the change. I believe the People of Utah have more interest and right to administrate the area than the politicians of DC. My opinion YMMV.

As far as 'the costs of the grazing program' go, much of that budget is for bureaucrats and their new pick up trucks on a regular basis. Their retirement depends on following what Great White Father tells them to do.

Grazing cattle in arid scrub lands on a sustainable basis, as in a family on a particular patch of such over multiple generations, requires far more wisdom than the paperwork generated by a bureaucracy in DC.

And the 'taking from one' to 'pay another' is the very sweat and blood of that (small time) family rancher sending his tax money from that operation, to DC to have people living on pavement all their lives tell him what/how/when to do it.

As I recall, the Bears Ears area went from some 300 square miles or so, to over 2000 square miles under the fed.us.gov confiscation. Considerable questions about the reality of the theory you espouse.

 

[JRuby]

It is Christmas. I have decided that there are better things to do today than argue points. I see things differently but that is for another day.
Merry Christmas

 

[nwheavy75]

Did they stop paying for the grazing rights?

You are very mis-informed, it came out in the Bundys last court appearances that all they owed to the "State", not 'Fed" was about $8,500. Not the one million that the MSN harps on day in and day out. It has always been known that the Bundys only owed the State of Nevada. They had a grazing contract with them. There was no BLM 100 years ago when they were granted grazing rights.

 

[41mag]

It is Christmas. I have decided that there are better things to do today than argue points.

agree
Merry Christmas

 

[ZigZagZeke]

You mean it's an entitlement aka a hand out to the ranchers.

What part of "grazing rights are purchased" don't you understand?

 

[JRuby]

What part of "grazing rights are purchased" don't you understand?

Does Bundy have a deed ? Does he pay his fees for using the land. If the answer is no to both of these he has no say in what the government does with beyond his vote.

 

[clearconscience]

Agreed I think were all in the same boat at the end of the day.

Merry Christmas!!!

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Did they stop paying for the grazing rights?

In 1848, as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States purchased from Mexico land that is now the southwestern region of the United States. Since then, the government has continuously owned land in what is now Nevada, including the Bunkerville Allotment. The Nevada Territory was partitioned in 1861 from the Utah Territory, and became a state in 1864. The original settlers in the 1840s and 1850s were Mormons from Utah and southern small-time farmers and ranchers from Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. After the end of the American Civil War, much of the land was settled by rural farmers, squatters and small-time cattle ranchers from Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri and Kansas, escaping from the post-Civil War Reconstruction and the associated violence and displacement.

Since 1934 federal rangelands in Nevada have been managed principally by either the Bureau of Land Management or its predecessor, the United States Grazing Service, or the United States Forest Service. As of 2010, 47.8 million acres (more than two-thirds of Nevada's 70.3 million acres) were managed by the BLM. Throughout the nation, the BLM manages nearly 18,000 grazing permits and leases, of which about 700 are in Nevada. The season of use and the details of forage are stipulated in permits and leases; thus federal control can be exerted on the land used for grazing. However, Bundy's grazing rights established in 1877 predate the 1934 grazing act, which was voluntarily entered into by ranchers in order to have a theoretically neutral third party administer grazing rights.

Under BLM permits first issued in 1954, Bundy grazed his cattle legally and paid his grazing fees on the Bunkerville Allotment until 1993. In 1989, the federal government declared the desert tortoise an endangered species and began negotiating a habitat conservation plan in Clark County, NV to meet the needs of both the tortoise and the people, such as Bundy, who were using the land. In mid-1991, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service approved a short-term conservation plan that allowed for development of about 22,000 acres of tortoise habitat in and around Las Vegas in exchange for strict conservation measures on 400,000 acres of federal BLM land south of the city. This included the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. In 1993, a permanent conservation plan was put into place that more than doubled the conservation area, and included the Bunkerville Allotment. [It has since come to light that there was research at the time, which was suppressed, showing that cattle pose no threat to tortoises and have not impacted their survival.]


With the establishment of the permanent conservation area the government offered to buy back grazing rights in that area. Unlike many ranchers, Bundy refused to sell his grazing privileges back to the federal government. Instead, as a protest, Bundy did not pay his renewal fees in 1993. His permit was canceled in 1994. Although the agency made several attempts to have Bundy renew the permit, he declared that he no longer recognized the BLM's authority to regulate grazing, and asserted that he had "vested rights" since 1877 to graze cattle on the land. Federal courts have consistently ruled against Bundy, ruling him a trespasser with no right to graze on federal land. The courts authorized the BLM to remove Bundy's cattle and to levy damages for his unauthorized use.


Bundy accumulated more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees and court-ordered fines. [Fines ranged upward of $46 per day per cow.]

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Does Bundy have a deed ? Does he pay his fees for using the land. If the answer is no to both of these he has no say in what the government does with beyond his vote.

So it's OK for the government to step on the pre-existing rights of someone you don't like. I'd love to hear what you have to say when they do it to you.

The Hammonds and others in the Malheur area had DEEDED water rights which included physical access to that water by their cattle. The USFS decided to simply fence off that water so the cattle couldn't get to it and had the senior Hammond thrown in jail when he protested. But you're OK with that because you believe the BS spewed by the know-nothing media.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Does Bundy have a deed ? Does he pay his fees for using the land. If the answer is no to both of these he has no say in what the government does with beyond his vote.

Grazing rights are usually included in the deed to the private land to which they are attached. The purchase price of that private land includes the value of those grazing rights, and the value of the land on which property taxes are based includes the value of those grazing rights. So ranchers who have public grazing rights pay to purchase those rights, pay taxes on the value of those rights, and also pay management fees to the federal government. Doesn't sound like a giveaway to me.

 

[JRuby]

Grazing rights are usually included in the deed to the private land to which they are attached. The purchase price of that private land includes the value of those grazing rights, and the value of the land on which property taxes are based includes the value of those grazing rights. So ranchers who have public grazing rights pay to purchase those rights, pay taxes on the value of those rights, and also pay management fees to the federal government. Doesn't sound like a giveaway to me.

So has he been paying those fees. Wether you like it or not that is federal land not state. So he owes the federal government and it is 20 years past due. Sounds like a free loader.

 

[clearconscience]

So he failed to pay his fees then?
That's all I needed. He should have fought it correctly, he probably firgured he could protest and nobody would know he was grazing for free.
Is the BLM f'd up? Yes
Do they have too much power and use it abusively? Yes
Should they be defunded? Yes

But Bundy was still wrong.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

So has he been paying those fees. Wether you like it or not that is federal land not state. So he owes the federal government and it is 20 years past due. Sounds like a free loader.

I guess we know what you'll do when the government comes for our guns.

 

[Mikej]

I think the bigger question is why did they stop paying for grazing rights.

My understanding is that over a period of many years the BLM had used the fees and terms of the leases like a club against area ranchers. Bundy finally had enough, snapped, and gave a big middle finger to the BLM.

Sounds like the property taxes I must pay if I want to live here.

 

[JRuby]

I guess we know what you'll do when the government comes for our guns.

Guess the fact that we have a free loader has an effect on how I support the 2a. Don't see the correlation. Nice try.