Racist rancher,feds at a standoff.Drone strike looming! (1 Viewer)

[Rove!]

Really sounds like he wants something for nothing.

says he was paying the grazing fee up until the govt said no more grazing because of an endangered tortoise

Did he continue to have his cattle graze on same said land?

yes

but this is an interesting power that the feds have...to seize a land and curtail grazing....probably hurts a lot of ranchers....

if he was less unhinged, after losing in court, he probably should have made other plans, but the underlying issue is an interesting debate.

What land did the gov't seize. Did I miss that part?

endangered tortoise....

 

[CBusAlex]

What land did the gov't seize. Did I miss that part?

endangered tortoise....

Terminal Velocity

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Really sounds like he wants something for nothing.

says he was paying the grazing fee up until the govt said no more grazing because of an endangered tortoise

Did he continue to have his cattle graze on same said land?

yes

but this is an interesting power that the feds have...to seize a land and curtail grazing....probably hurts a lot of ranchers....

if he was less unhinged, after losing in court, he probably should have made other plans, but the underlying issue is an interesting debate.

What land did the gov't seize. Did I miss that part?

endangered tortoise....

So the land was NOT federal land until the government banned grazing because of the tortoise? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

So it sounds like the correct solution would have been to kill off all the endangered tortoise, then the land becomes free to graze on again.

Won't somebody think of the turtles?

 

[Rove!]

Really sounds like he wants something for nothing.

says he was paying the grazing fee up until the govt said no more grazing because of an endangered tortoise

Did he continue to have his cattle graze on same said land?

yes

but this is an interesting power that the feds have...to seize a land and curtail grazing....probably hurts a lot of ranchers....

if he was less unhinged, after losing in court, he probably should have made other plans, but the underlying issue is an interesting debate.

What land did the gov't seize. Did I miss that part?

endangered tortoise....

So the land was NOT federal land until the government banned grazing because of the tortoise? Is that what you're saying?

Not sure when it became Federal land, but per the CNN article in the OP

Bundy's dispute with the government began about 1993 when the bureau changed grazing rules for the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area to protect an endangered desert tortoise, KLAS reported.

 

[tom22406]

Bundy has had a long time to sharpen his message. The fight has been building since 1993, when the Bureau of Land Management changed grazing rules for Gold Butte to protect the endangered desert tortoise.

Bundy refused to go along and stopped paying his fees. Since then, the BLM and federal courts have ordered him to stop letting his cattle roam throughout Gold Butte, and he has ignored the orders because he does not recognize federal authority over the land.

"My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed," Bundy said.

The Bundy family was already ranching here long before the Department of Interior was born, and long before tortoises were protected. But federal courts say he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. BLM has long sidestepped the fight in part because of concerns about what might happen, if it tried to round up his 500 or so cattle that even now are grazing on forbidden public lands.

Bundy says he has always been willing to pay fees but not if it helps to cut his own throat.

"I got no problem with that. I've tried to pay it to Nevada state, to Clark County. They have some of my money in their coffers right now but I'm not going to pay money for the wrong landlord, and I am not going to pay my money to BLM to manage me out of business," Bundy said, "The federal government has seized Nevada's sovereignty, Nevada's statehood. They have seized Nevada's laws and our public land. We have no access to our public land and that is only a little bit of it."

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25168654/i-team-feds-and-nevada-rancher-facing-off-over-public-lands

 

[T Bell]

He probably has a legitimate claim to the land due to adverse possession, but since he is against the government, probably would lose or maybe already has.

Governments are immune from adverse possession claims.

 

[T Bell]

So it sounds like the correct solution would have been to kill off all the endangered tortoise, then the land becomes free to graze on again.

Won't somebody think of the turtles?

Soitenly!

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

He probably has a legitimate claim to the land due to adverse possession, but since he is against the government, probably would lose or maybe already has.

Governments are immune from adverse possession claims.

That's just the law. True patriots know that doesn't apply to them.

 

[T Bell]

He probably has a legitimate claim to the land due to adverse possession, but since he is against the government, probably would lose or maybe already has.

Governments are immune from adverse possession claims.

That's just the law. True patriots know that doesn't apply to them.

I'd love for a bunch of Mexicans to do a parody counter-protest based upon Spanish Land Grants or something.

 

[timschochet]

He probably has a legitimate claim to the land due to adverse possession, but since he is against the government, probably would lose or maybe already has.

Governments are immune from adverse possession claims.

That's just the law. True patriots know that doesn't apply to them.

I'd love for a bunch of Mexicans to do a parody counter-protest based upon Spanish Land Grants or something.

Actually, when Dodger Stadium was built in the early 1960s, a group of Hispanic protestors at Chavez Ravine DID claim Spanish Land Grants in an attempt to block it.

 

[Lutherman2112]

OTHER VOICES:
Rancher in land dispute is a bully, not a hero
By Alan O’Neill
Sunday, April 6, 2014 | 2:03 a.m.

I have been following the news on the proposed roundup of Cliven Bundy’s cattle that are grazing illegally on federal lands in Gold Butte managed on behalf of the public by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

I am familiar with the situation, as I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900.

It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies’ position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.

Bundy is a bully who has used his threat of a range war and to do “whatever it takes” to stop the government from impounding his cattle to scare public officials.

The implications are that he would resort to a gunbattle. And who wants to see another Waco? I was one of those public officials who were told to back off at one point because of concern for violence.

What Bundy is doing is a criminal act, and he should be accountable for his actions rather than be held up as a hero fighting the federal government.

Most of the grazing permit holders on public land are good stewards and law-abiding citizens, and Bundy is doing them a disservice with his actions. He is a perfect example of someone who publicly states that he abhors the federal government but who relies on it for his welfare.

He is grazing free on the public’s land to the detriment of the environment and the honest taxpayers who support his welfare lifestyle.

What if other people decide that they are also going to do whatever they want on federal land regardless of the law and stake claims to that right? A civil society has to have some rules and laws or we would have total chaos.

Bundy has no guaranteed rights on federal land. He only has rights to what he owns privately, yet when you hear him talk, he considers that he has some intergenerational rights to use more than 158,000 acres as he sees fit. And this is some of the most beautiful and important public land in America. What a deal. Wouldn’t any of us like to have such rights?

I am hopeful that the BLM and the Park Service stand strong and conduct the roundup as needed and not be bullied by someone who seems inclined to continue to break the law and brag about it as “the last cowboy standing.” What a warped self-perception and view of his contribution to humanity.

Alan O’Neill is a former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He lives in Southern Nevada.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Oh, look...another moran.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

So his cattle have been grazing illegally for over 20 years. Has this had any negative impact on the endangered desert tortoise? If not, then why the need to prevent grazing?

 

[Rove!]

OTHER VOICES:
Rancher in land dispute is a bully, not a hero
By Alan O’Neill
Sunday, April 6, 2014 | 2:03 a.m.

I have been following the news on the proposed roundup of Cliven Bundy’s cattle that are grazing illegally on federal lands in Gold Butte managed on behalf of the public by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

I am familiar with the situation, as I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900.

It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies’ position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.

Bundy is a bully who has used his threat of a range war and to do “whatever it takes” to stop the government from impounding his cattle to scare public officials.

The implications are that he would resort to a gunbattle. And who wants to see another Waco? I was one of those public officials who were told to back off at one point because of concern for violence.

What Bundy is doing is a criminal act, and he should be accountable for his actions rather than be held up as a hero fighting the federal government.

Most of the grazing permit holders on public land are good stewards and law-abiding citizens, and Bundy is doing them a disservice with his actions. He is a perfect example of someone who publicly states that he abhors the federal government but who relies on it for his welfare.

He is grazing free on the public’s land to the detriment of the environment and the honest taxpayers who support his welfare lifestyle.

What if other people decide that they are also going to do whatever they want on federal land regardless of the law and stake claims to that right? A civil society has to have some rules and laws or we would have total chaos.

Bundy has no guaranteed rights on federal land. He only has rights to what he owns privately, yet when you hear him talk, he considers that he has some intergenerational rights to use more than 158,000 acres as he sees fit. And this is some of the most beautiful and important public land in America. What a deal. Wouldn’t any of us like to have such rights?

I am hopeful that the BLM and the Park Service stand strong and conduct the roundup as needed and not be bullied by someone who seems inclined to continue to break the law and brag about it as “the last cowboy standing.” What a warped self-perception and view of his contribution to humanity.

Alan O’Neill is a former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He lives in Southern Nevada.

Dude (above) has an axe to grind here.

I know the facts here are hard to follow, but is this correct:

1. Bundy was legallly grazing and / or paying his fees.

2. Sometime around 1993 a federal government agency steps in and declares a turtle endangered on that land.

3. Another federal agency steps in and imposes a fee on grazing this land in an effort to protect the turtles

4. Bundy calls BS on this and does not pay the new fees that were imposed

Is this about right?

If so, I'd say Bundy has got a pretty good argument.

good argument or not, he already had his day in court...but then again, we are becoming a squeaky wheel kind of country

 

[Rove!]

So his cattle have been grazing illegally for over 20 years. Has this had any negative impact on the endangered desert tortoise? If not, then why the need to prevent grazing?

good point..if the turtle is happy, we can go back to collecting the grazing fees (and past due fees) and everybody is happy.....

 

[Billy Bats]

Most of the same info but a lot of good pics of Cliven and the first amendment pigpen. Snipers, helicopters, armed soldiers and militias; I can see this ending well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602153/It-like-war-zone-Armed-private-militias-join-battle-southern-Nevadas-rancher-federal-agents.html

If you don't read the article, it's costing upwards of 3 million to collect his cattle. Sweet.

 

[Chaka]

“Watching that video last night created a visceral reaction in me,” said Arizona Rep. Kelly Townsend, a tea party Republican who is driving up from Phoenix to take part in a rally with lawmakers and Oath Keepers near the Bundy ranch Monday. “It sounds dramatic, but it reminded me of Tiananmen Square. I don’t recognize my country at this point.”

JFC

I SAW ENEMY AGGRESSORS!!!

 

[Lutherman2112]

OTHER VOICES:
Rancher in land dispute is a bully, not a hero
By Alan O’Neill
Sunday, April 6, 2014 | 2:03 a.m.

I have been following the news on the proposed roundup of Cliven Bundy’s cattle that are grazing illegally on federal lands in Gold Butte managed on behalf of the public by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

I am familiar with the situation, as I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900.

It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies’ position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.

Bundy is a bully who has used his threat of a range war and to do “whatever it takes” to stop the government from impounding his cattle to scare public officials.

The implications are that he would resort to a gunbattle. And who wants to see another Waco? I was one of those public officials who were told to back off at one point because of concern for violence.

What Bundy is doing is a criminal act, and he should be accountable for his actions rather than be held up as a hero fighting the federal government.

Most of the grazing permit holders on public land are good stewards and law-abiding citizens, and Bundy is doing them a disservice with his actions. He is a perfect example of someone who publicly states that he abhors the federal government but who relies on it for his welfare.

He is grazing free on the public’s land to the detriment of the environment and the honest taxpayers who support his welfare lifestyle.

What if other people decide that they are also going to do whatever they want on federal land regardless of the law and stake claims to that right? A civil society has to have some rules and laws or we would have total chaos.

Bundy has no guaranteed rights on federal land. He only has rights to what he owns privately, yet when you hear him talk, he considers that he has some intergenerational rights to use more than 158,000 acres as he sees fit. And this is some of the most beautiful and important public land in America. What a deal. Wouldn’t any of us like to have such rights?

I am hopeful that the BLM and the Park Service stand strong and conduct the roundup as needed and not be bullied by someone who seems inclined to continue to break the law and brag about it as “the last cowboy standing.” What a warped self-perception and view of his contribution to humanity.

Alan O’Neill is a former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He lives in Southern Nevada.

Dude (above) has an axe to grind here.

I know the facts here are hard to follow, but is this correct:

1. Bundy was legallly grazing and / or paying his fees. Correct

2. Sometime around 1993 a federal government agency steps in and declares a turtle endangered on that land. Not completely correct

3. Another federal agency steps in and imposes a fee on grazing this land in an effort to protect the turtles. Incorrect

4. Bundy calls BS on this and does not pay the new fees that were imposed Incorrect

Is this about right?

If so, I'd say Bundy has got a pretty good argument.

2. US Fish and Wildlife determines tortoise endangered, other Fed Agencies make policy changes. BLM was one.

3. BLM change to protect turtle is to only permit herds of 150 cattle or smaller.

4. Bundy said F U, and never paid for fed permit to graze again, even though he had hundreds of cattle grazing illegally and without permit.

Bundy does not recognized the federal government at all (at 0:45 mark). He is a Posse Comitatus conspiracy theorist.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Muddying the waters from a conspiracy theory perspective is the fact that the head of the BLM is apparently one of Harry Reid's past senior advisers, and:

“[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert,” he wrote. “Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada.” “His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.”

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

The tea party and neo-libertarians are up in arms over all this

Everything else aside, I do hope this doesn't turn into another Waco/Ruby Ridge

 

[Chaka]

He is a Posse Comitatus conspiracy theorist.

Did you call me a ##### communist?

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I heard he scored 5 touchdowns in a single game.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Muddying the waters from a conspiracy theory perspective is the fact that the head of the BLM is apparently one of Harry Reid's past senior advisers, and:

“[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert,” he wrote. “Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada.” “His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.”

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

The tea party and neo-libertarians are up in arms over all this

Everything else aside, I do hope this doesn't turn into another Waco/Ruby Ridge

Company dumps big Laughlin solar project, says market won’t support it
By Conor Shine
Published Friday, June 14, 2013 | 2:33 p.m.
Updated Friday, June 14, 2013 | 5:55 p.m.

A Chinese-backed company is pulling the plug on a multibillion-dollar solar project near Laughlin after it was unable to find customers for the power that would have been generated there, a Clark County spokesman said Friday.

In a letter dated Friday, an executive from ENN Mojave Energy LLC informed the county that the company was terminating its agreement to purchase 9,000 acres near Laughlin, stating that the “market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time.”

The company, a subsidiary of ENN Group, described as the largest energy company in China, said it was unable to sign the necessary power purchase agreements to sell the energy generated from the solar plant to utilities in Nevada or neighboring states.

...

 

[msommer]

I heard he scored 5 touchdowns in a single game.

dammit. I came in to post that

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Muddying the waters from a conspiracy theory perspective is the fact that the head of the BLM is apparently one of Harry Reid's past senior advisers, and:

“[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert,” he wrote. “Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada.” “His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.”

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

The tea party and neo-libertarians are up in arms over all this

Everything else aside, I do hope this doesn't turn into another Waco/Ruby Ridge

Company dumps big Laughlin solar project, says market won’t support it
By Conor Shine
Published Friday, June 14, 2013 | 2:33 p.m.
Updated Friday, June 14, 2013 | 5:55 p.m.

A Chinese-backed company is pulling the plug on a multibillion-dollar solar project near Laughlin after it was unable to find customers for the power that would have been generated there, a Clark County spokesman said Friday.

In a letter dated Friday, an executive from ENN Mojave Energy LLC informed the county that the company was terminating its agreement to purchase 9,000 acres near Laughlin, stating that the “market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time.”

The company, a subsidiary of ENN Group, described as the largest energy company in China, said it was unable to sign the necessary power purchase agreements to sell the energy generated from the solar plant to utilities in Nevada or neighboring states.

...

Oh, I know it's BS...Just saying that there are a lot of people within the tea party/neo-libertarian movements that seem to be looking at this as some sort of stand/statement. The rhetoric on their side seems to have ratcheted up with this one.

 

[Mister Martie]

Muddying the waters from a conspiracy theory perspective is the fact that the head of the BLM is apparently one of Harry Reid's past senior advisers, and:

[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert, he wrote. Reid has been one of the projects most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada. His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

The tea party and neo-libertarians are up in arms over all this

Everything else aside, I do hope this doesn't turn into another Waco/Ruby Ridge

Company dumps big Laughlin solar project, says market wont support it

By Conor Shine

Published Friday, June 14, 2013 | 2:33 p.m.

Updated Friday, June 14, 2013 | 5:55 p.m.

A Chinese-backed company is pulling the plug on a multibillion-dollar solar project near Laughlin after it was unable to find customers for the power that would have been generated there, a Clark County spokesman said Friday.

In a letter dated Friday, an executive from ENN Mojave Energy LLC informed the county that the company was terminating its agreement to purchase 9,000 acres near Laughlin, stating that the market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time.

The company, a subsidiary of ENN Group, described as the largest energy company in China, said it was unable to sign the necessary power purchase agreements to sell the energy generated from the solar plant to utilities in Nevada or neighboring states.

...

Oh, I know it's BS...Just saying that there are a lot of people within the tea party/neo-libertarian movements that seem to be looking at this as some sort of stand/statement. The rhetoric on their side seems to have ratcheted up with this one.

This story has everything to fire up the Tea Party types. People using guns to "protect" themselves against the federal government, decisions made to support endangered turtles, ranchin', etc. FoxNews will be covering it 24/7.

 

[T Bell]

Oh, look...another moran.

Did you mean to say "moron"?

 

[Lutherman2112]

Oh, I know it's BS...Just saying that there are a lot of people within the tea party/neo-libertarian movements that seem to be looking at this as some sort of stand/statement. The rhetoric on their side seems to have ratcheted up with this one.

To me it's amazing that these nuts keep pushing the "government want my land" meme about the 9,000 acres today, yet the deal fell completely apart last year.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Oh, look...another moran.

Did you mean to say "moron"?

No.

Reference

 

[Joe T]

OTHER VOICES:

Rancher in land dispute is a bully, not a hero

By Alan ONeill

Sunday, April 6, 2014 | 2:03 a.m.

I have been following the news on the proposed roundup of Cliven Bundys cattle that are grazing illegally on federal lands in Gold Butte managed on behalf of the public by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

I am familiar with the situation, as I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900.

It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.

Bundy is a bully who has used his threat of a range war and to do whatever it takes to stop the government from impounding his cattle to scare public officials.

The implications are that he would resort to a gunbattle. And who wants to see another Waco? I was one of those public officials who were told to back off at one point because of concern for violence.

What Bundy is doing is a criminal act, and he should be accountable for his actions rather than be held up as a hero fighting the federal government.

Most of the grazing permit holders on public land are good stewards and law-abiding citizens, and Bundy is doing them a disservice with his actions. He is a perfect example of someone who publicly states that he abhors the federal government but who relies on it for his welfare.

He is grazing free on the publics land to the detriment of the environment and the honest taxpayers who support his welfare lifestyle.

What if other people decide that they are also going to do whatever they want on federal land regardless of the law and stake claims to that right? A civil society has to have some rules and laws or we would have total chaos.

Bundy has no guaranteed rights on federal land. He only has rights to what he owns privately, yet when you hear him talk, he considers that he has some intergenerational rights to use more than 158,000 acres as he sees fit. And this is some of the most beautiful and important public land in America. What a deal. Wouldnt any of us like to have such rights?

I am hopeful that the BLM and the Park Service stand strong and conduct the roundup as needed and not be bullied by someone who seems inclined to continue to break the law and brag about it as the last cowboy standing. What a warped self-perception and view of his contribution to humanity.

Alan ONeill is a former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He lives in Southern Nevada.

Dude (above) has an axe to grind here.

I know the facts here are hard to follow, but is this correct:

1. Bundy was legallly grazing and / or paying his fees. Correct

2. Sometime around 1993 a federal government agency steps in and declares a turtle endangered on that land. Not completely correct

3. Another federal agency steps in and imposes a fee on grazing this land in an effort to protect the turtles. Incorrect

4. Bundy calls BS on this and does not pay the new fees that were imposed Incorrect

Is this about right?

If so, I'd say Bundy has got a pretty good argument.

2. US Fish and Wildlife determines tortoise endangered, other Fed Agencies make policy changes. BLM was one.

3. BLM change to protect turtle is to only permit herds of 150 cattle or smaller.

4. Bundy said F U, and never paid for fed permit to graze again, even though he had hundreds of cattle grazing illegally and without permit.

Bundy does not recognized the federal government at all (at 0:45 mark). He is a Posse Comitatus conspiracy theorist.

Still pretty sure he's got a pretty good argument unless his cattle are attacking the turtles.

 

[T Bell]

Oh, look...another moran.

Did you mean to say "moron"?

No.

Reference

Ah, carry on then.

 

[NutterButter]

I think this may be a ruse by Obama to get all these gun loving whackadoos all in one place so that we can drop a daisy cutter.

 

[Lutherman2112]

OTHER VOICES:

Rancher in land dispute is a bully, not a hero

By Alan ONeill

Sunday, April 6, 2014 | 2:03 a.m.

I have been following the news on the proposed roundup of Cliven Bundys cattle that are grazing illegally on federal lands in Gold Butte managed on behalf of the public by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

I am familiar with the situation, as I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900.

It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.

Bundy is a bully who has used his threat of a range war and to do whatever it takes to stop the government from impounding his cattle to scare public officials.

The implications are that he would resort to a gunbattle. And who wants to see another Waco? I was one of those public officials who were told to back off at one point because of concern for violence.

What Bundy is doing is a criminal act, and he should be accountable for his actions rather than be held up as a hero fighting the federal government.

Most of the grazing permit holders on public land are good stewards and law-abiding citizens, and Bundy is doing them a disservice with his actions. He is a perfect example of someone who publicly states that he abhors the federal government but who relies on it for his welfare.

He is grazing free on the publics land to the detriment of the environment and the honest taxpayers who support his welfare lifestyle.

What if other people decide that they are also going to do whatever they want on federal land regardless of the law and stake claims to that right? A civil society has to have some rules and laws or we would have total chaos.

Bundy has no guaranteed rights on federal land. He only has rights to what he owns privately, yet when you hear him talk, he considers that he has some intergenerational rights to use more than 158,000 acres as he sees fit. And this is some of the most beautiful and important public land in America. What a deal. Wouldnt any of us like to have such rights?

I am hopeful that the BLM and the Park Service stand strong and conduct the roundup as needed and not be bullied by someone who seems inclined to continue to break the law and brag about it as the last cowboy standing. What a warped self-perception and view of his contribution to humanity.

Alan ONeill is a former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He lives in Southern Nevada.

Dude (above) has an axe to grind here.

I know the facts here are hard to follow, but is this correct:

1. Bundy was legallly grazing and / or paying his fees. Correct

2. Sometime around 1993 a federal government agency steps in and declares a turtle endangered on that land. Not completely correct

3. Another federal agency steps in and imposes a fee on grazing this land in an effort to protect the turtles. Incorrect

4. Bundy calls BS on this and does not pay the new fees that were imposed Incorrect

Is this about right?

If so, I'd say Bundy has got a pretty good argument.

2. US Fish and Wildlife determines tortoise endangered, other Fed Agencies make policy changes. BLM was one.

3. BLM change to protect turtle is to only permit herds of 150 cattle or smaller.

4. Bundy said F U, and never paid for fed permit to graze again, even though he had hundreds of cattle grazing illegally and without permit.

Bundy does not recognized the federal government at all (at 0:45 mark). He is a Posse Comitatus conspiracy theorist.

Still pretty sure he's got a pretty good argument unless his cattle are attacking the turtles.

He lost his argument in federal court...and the court had to remind him once that his cattle wasn't allowed to graze without a permit.

 

[T Bell]

They should never have let this drag out as long as it has. The government long ago needed to go in and confiscate cattle on its property. Now they've only fed the sense of entitlement and allowed the issue to fester.

 

[Osaurus]

His son is on Fox right now

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

OTHER VOICES:

Rancher in land dispute is a bully, not a hero

By Alan ONeill

Sunday, April 6, 2014 | 2:03 a.m.

I have been following the news on the proposed roundup of Cliven Bundys cattle that are grazing illegally on federal lands in Gold Butte managed on behalf of the public by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

I am familiar with the situation, as I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900.

It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.

Bundy is a bully who has used his threat of a range war and to do whatever it takes to stop the government from impounding his cattle to scare public officials.

The implications are that he would resort to a gunbattle. And who wants to see another Waco? I was one of those public officials who were told to back off at one point because of concern for violence.

What Bundy is doing is a criminal act, and he should be accountable for his actions rather than be held up as a hero fighting the federal government.

Most of the grazing permit holders on public land are good stewards and law-abiding citizens, and Bundy is doing them a disservice with his actions. He is a perfect example of someone who publicly states that he abhors the federal government but who relies on it for his welfare.

He is grazing free on the publics land to the detriment of the environment and the honest taxpayers who support his welfare lifestyle.

What if other people decide that they are also going to do whatever they want on federal land regardless of the law and stake claims to that right? A civil society has to have some rules and laws or we would have total chaos.

Bundy has no guaranteed rights on federal land. He only has rights to what he owns privately, yet when you hear him talk, he considers that he has some intergenerational rights to use more than 158,000 acres as he sees fit. And this is some of the most beautiful and important public land in America. What a deal. Wouldnt any of us like to have such rights?

I am hopeful that the BLM and the Park Service stand strong and conduct the roundup as needed and not be bullied by someone who seems inclined to continue to break the law and brag about it as the last cowboy standing. What a warped self-perception and view of his contribution to humanity.

Alan ONeill is a former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He lives in Southern Nevada.

Dude (above) has an axe to grind here.

I know the facts here are hard to follow, but is this correct:

1. Bundy was legallly grazing and / or paying his fees. Correct

2. Sometime around 1993 a federal government agency steps in and declares a turtle endangered on that land. Not completely correct

3. Another federal agency steps in and imposes a fee on grazing this land in an effort to protect the turtles. Incorrect

4. Bundy calls BS on this and does not pay the new fees that were imposed Incorrect

Is this about right?

If so, I'd say Bundy has got a pretty good argument.

2. US Fish and Wildlife determines tortoise endangered, other Fed Agencies make policy changes. BLM was one.

3. BLM change to protect turtle is to only permit herds of 150 cattle or smaller.

4. Bundy said F U, and never paid for fed permit to graze again, even though he had hundreds of cattle grazing illegally and without permit.

Bundy does not recognized the federal government at all (at 0:45 mark). He is a Posse Comitatus conspiracy theorist.

Still pretty sure he's got a pretty good argument unless his cattle are attacking the turtles.

He lost his argument in federal court...and the court had to remind him once that his cattle wasn't allowed to graze without a permit.

But, but Freedom.

 

[Rove!]

OTHER VOICES:

Rancher in land dispute is a bully, not a hero

By Alan ONeill

Sunday, April 6, 2014 | 2:03 a.m.

I have been following the news on the proposed roundup of Cliven Bundys cattle that are grazing illegally on federal lands in Gold Butte managed on behalf of the public by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

I am familiar with the situation, as I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900.

It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.

Bundy is a bully who has used his threat of a range war and to do whatever it takes to stop the government from impounding his cattle to scare public officials.

The implications are that he would resort to a gunbattle. And who wants to see another Waco? I was one of those public officials who were told to back off at one point because of concern for violence.

What Bundy is doing is a criminal act, and he should be accountable for his actions rather than be held up as a hero fighting the federal government.

Most of the grazing permit holders on public land are good stewards and law-abiding citizens, and Bundy is doing them a disservice with his actions. He is a perfect example of someone who publicly states that he abhors the federal government but who relies on it for his welfare.

He is grazing free on the publics land to the detriment of the environment and the honest taxpayers who support his welfare lifestyle.

What if other people decide that they are also going to do whatever they want on federal land regardless of the law and stake claims to that right? A civil society has to have some rules and laws or we would have total chaos.

Bundy has no guaranteed rights on federal land. He only has rights to what he owns privately, yet when you hear him talk, he considers that he has some intergenerational rights to use more than 158,000 acres as he sees fit. And this is some of the most beautiful and important public land in America. What a deal. Wouldnt any of us like to have such rights?

I am hopeful that the BLM and the Park Service stand strong and conduct the roundup as needed and not be bullied by someone who seems inclined to continue to break the law and brag about it as the last cowboy standing. What a warped self-perception and view of his contribution to humanity.

Alan ONeill is a former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He lives in Southern Nevada.

Dude (above) has an axe to grind here.

I know the facts here are hard to follow, but is this correct:

1. Bundy was legallly grazing and / or paying his fees. Correct

2. Sometime around 1993 a federal government agency steps in and declares a turtle endangered on that land. Not completely correct

3. Another federal agency steps in and imposes a fee on grazing this land in an effort to protect the turtles. Incorrect

4. Bundy calls BS on this and does not pay the new fees that were imposed Incorrect

Is this about right?

If so, I'd say Bundy has got a pretty good argument.

2. US Fish and Wildlife determines tortoise endangered, other Fed Agencies make policy changes. BLM was one.

3. BLM change to protect turtle is to only permit herds of 150 cattle or smaller.

4. Bundy said F U, and never paid for fed permit to graze again, even though he had hundreds of cattle grazing illegally and without permit.

Bundy does not recognized the federal government at all (at 0:45 mark). He is a Posse Comitatus conspiracy theorist.

Still pretty sure he's got a pretty good argument unless his cattle are attacking the turtles.

He lost his argument in federal court...and the court had to remind him once that his cattle wasn't allowed to graze without a permit.

agree, I do sympathize with those whose livelihood and way of life this denigrated or possibly lost in order to save a species of turtle, but he lost the legal battle, so now it's on to the squeaky wheel strategy....

 

[jon_mx]

OTHER VOICES:

Rancher in land dispute is a bully, not a hero

By Alan ONeill

Sunday, April 6, 2014 | 2:03 a.m.

I have been following the news on the proposed roundup of Cliven Bundys cattle that are grazing illegally on federal lands in Gold Butte managed on behalf of the public by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

I am familiar with the situation, as I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900.

It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.

Bundy is a bully who has used his threat of a range war and to do whatever it takes to stop the government from impounding his cattle to scare public officials.

The implications are that he would resort to a gunbattle. And who wants to see another Waco? I was one of those public officials who were told to back off at one point because of concern for violence.

What Bundy is doing is a criminal act, and he should be accountable for his actions rather than be held up as a hero fighting the federal government.

Most of the grazing permit holders on public land are good stewards and law-abiding citizens, and Bundy is doing them a disservice with his actions. He is a perfect example of someone who publicly states that he abhors the federal government but who relies on it for his welfare.

He is grazing free on the publics land to the detriment of the environment and the honest taxpayers who support his welfare lifestyle.

What if other people decide that they are also going to do whatever they want on federal land regardless of the law and stake claims to that right? A civil society has to have some rules and laws or we would have total chaos.

Bundy has no guaranteed rights on federal land. He only has rights to what he owns privately, yet when you hear him talk, he considers that he has some intergenerational rights to use more than 158,000 acres as he sees fit. And this is some of the most beautiful and important public land in America. What a deal. Wouldnt any of us like to have such rights?

I am hopeful that the BLM and the Park Service stand strong and conduct the roundup as needed and not be bullied by someone who seems inclined to continue to break the law and brag about it as the last cowboy standing. What a warped self-perception and view of his contribution to humanity.

Alan ONeill is a former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He lives in Southern Nevada.

Dude (above) has an axe to grind here.

I know the facts here are hard to follow, but is this correct:

1. Bundy was legallly grazing and / or paying his fees. Correct

2. Sometime around 1993 a federal government agency steps in and declares a turtle endangered on that land. Not completely correct

3. Another federal agency steps in and imposes a fee on grazing this land in an effort to protect the turtles. Incorrect

4. Bundy calls BS on this and does not pay the new fees that were imposed Incorrect

Is this about right?

If so, I'd say Bundy has got a pretty good argument.

2. US Fish and Wildlife determines tortoise endangered, other Fed Agencies make policy changes. BLM was one.

3. BLM change to protect turtle is to only permit herds of 150 cattle or smaller.

4. Bundy said F U, and never paid for fed permit to graze again, even though he had hundreds of cattle grazing illegally and without permit.

Bundy does not recognized the federal government at all (at 0:45 mark). He is a Posse Comitatus conspiracy theorist.

Bundy recognizes the federal government. But just not the federal government right to come in and make land use laws. I don't find the turtle a compelling reason for the government to do it, but government has grown to the point we may never reign it in.

 

[Lutherman2112]

OTHER VOICES:

Rancher in land dispute is a bully, not a hero

By Alan ONeill

Sunday, April 6, 2014 | 2:03 a.m.

I have been following the news on the proposed roundup of Cliven Bundys cattle that are grazing illegally on federal lands in Gold Butte managed on behalf of the public by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

I am familiar with the situation, as I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900.

It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.

Bundy is a bully who has used his threat of a range war and to do whatever it takes to stop the government from impounding his cattle to scare public officials.

The implications are that he would resort to a gunbattle. And who wants to see another Waco? I was one of those public officials who were told to back off at one point because of concern for violence.

What Bundy is doing is a criminal act, and he should be accountable for his actions rather than be held up as a hero fighting the federal government.

Most of the grazing permit holders on public land are good stewards and law-abiding citizens, and Bundy is doing them a disservice with his actions. He is a perfect example of someone who publicly states that he abhors the federal government but who relies on it for his welfare.

He is grazing free on the publics land to the detriment of the environment and the honest taxpayers who support his welfare lifestyle.

What if other people decide that they are also going to do whatever they want on federal land regardless of the law and stake claims to that right? A civil society has to have some rules and laws or we would have total chaos.

Bundy has no guaranteed rights on federal land. He only has rights to what he owns privately, yet when you hear him talk, he considers that he has some intergenerational rights to use more than 158,000 acres as he sees fit. And this is some of the most beautiful and important public land in America. What a deal. Wouldnt any of us like to have such rights?

I am hopeful that the BLM and the Park Service stand strong and conduct the roundup as needed and not be bullied by someone who seems inclined to continue to break the law and brag about it as the last cowboy standing. What a warped self-perception and view of his contribution to humanity.

Alan ONeill is a former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He lives in Southern Nevada.

Dude (above) has an axe to grind here.

I know the facts here are hard to follow, but is this correct:

1. Bundy was legallly grazing and / or paying his fees. Correct

2. Sometime around 1993 a federal government agency steps in and declares a turtle endangered on that land. Not completely correct

3. Another federal agency steps in and imposes a fee on grazing this land in an effort to protect the turtles. Incorrect

4. Bundy calls BS on this and does not pay the new fees that were imposed Incorrect

Is this about right?

If so, I'd say Bundy has got a pretty good argument.

2. US Fish and Wildlife determines tortoise endangered, other Fed Agencies make policy changes. BLM was one.

3. BLM change to protect turtle is to only permit herds of 150 cattle or smaller.

4. Bundy said F U, and never paid for fed permit to graze again, even though he had hundreds of cattle grazing illegally and without permit.

Bundy does not recognized the federal government at all (at 0:45 mark). He is a Posse Comitatus conspiracy theorist.

Still pretty sure he's got a pretty good argument unless his cattle are attacking the turtles.

He lost his argument in federal court...and the court had to remind him once that his cattle wasn't allowed to graze without a permit.

agree, I do sympathize with those whose livelihood and way of life this denigrated or possibly lost in order to save a species of turtle, but he lost the legal battle, so now it's on to the squeaky wheel strategy....

And it isn't just federal law protecting the tortoise; the State of Nevada legislated the tortoise as "threatened". And in a way I do sympathize as well with those whose livelihoods were denigrated, but the foundation for Bundy's argument is terrible.

His forefathers established a homestead on the property in question before the state of Nevada formed. They didn't own all the grazing land, but free ranged cattle on it. When the state formed (here's a part I'm not certain about), all untitled land within the state went to the federal government. Bundy's disputes that the federal government has the right to exist, and therefor, they don't own that land.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Article from 2001:

Rebelling ranchers: Sagebrush movement continues fight for land
By Steve Kanigher
Friday, May 11, 2001 | 5:52 a.m.

Rancher Cliven Bundy scatters cattle along the hilly range above his Riverside home by piping spring water to strategically placed metal troughs.

By reducing the distance between watering holes, Bundy said he prevents overgrazing of the land he uses 70 miles northeast of Las Vegas. Doves, quail and other wildlife also take advantage of the troughs, reinforcing his belief that he is improving the environment as well as hunting opportunities.

But for 10 years he has been fighting the Bureau of Land Management, which claims he is trespassing on its range land because he refuses to pay grazing fees.

"The BLM (officials) started calling themselves land managers and then landlords and then claimed they owned the land," Bundy said. "Instead of spending my time ranching, I'm spending my time fighting to hang onto my rights."

Bundy, 54, has come to symbolize the Sagebrush Rebellion, a radical states' rights movement started by Nevada ranchers in the 1970s. Rebels such as Bundy disdain the fact that 87 percent of Nevada land is owned and managed by the federal government.

The rebellion seemingly died in 1996 when a federal judge ruled unconstitutional a 1979 state law claiming Nevada had power over all public land within its borders. The federal government claims ownership of much of the West because that land was ceded to it in 1848 via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the conclusion of the Mexican-American War.

But the rebels, who go by such names as the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood and Nevada Freedom Coalition, scored their biggest victory in 22 years on April 26 when the Democratic-controlled Assembly overwhelmingly passed Assembly Bill 391. That legislation would have given counties more authority over public land within their boundaries.

The Sagebrush victory was short-lived, however. On a simple voice vote requested the next day by Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno, the Republican-controlled Senate unanimously killed AB391 without discussion.

The vote befuddled supporters such as Carson City attorney David Horton, co-author of the bill.

"It kind of made a mockery of the Senate as a deliberative body," Horton said. "The problem with the Senate procedure is that it didn't allow for examination of the bill."

But BLM spokesman Bob Stewart said the rebels' position is flawed because the U.S. Constitution recognizes federal land rights, including the acreage granted in the 1848 treaty.

"The United States has the authority to manage the territory that belongs to the U.S.," Stewart said. "The United States Supreme Court has held that territory can be interpreted as land. The land can be distributed to the states, but there is no provision that the land had to be given to the states."

As rebel supporters have since learned, even rural lawmakers are no longer as fond of the Sagebrush Rebellion as they once were.

That was evident in a March 7 letter that Assemblyman John Carpenter, R-Elko, wrote to Nevada Committee for Full Statehood member Carolyn Bauer of Sparks. The letter was prompted by the pro-Sagebrush committee's accusation that he was standoffish toward its petition demanding enforcement of the state public-lands act.

"I have stood for states' rights and return of our land longer than the people who are on the committee," Carpenter wrote. "Now don't get me wrong. I believe in your cause, but the reality is that there are too many court cases, which have gone against your petition."

Constitutional problems with the 1979 law were reiterated by the Nevada attorney general's office and Legislative Counsel Bureau in letters to the Assembly criticizing AB391.

"This office accepts, as it should and must, the legislative findings that extensive federal ownership of land in the state is onerous, and that the state has a strong moral claim upon the public lands," wrote Senior Deputy Attorney General C. Wayne Howle on March 28. "However, this office did not before, and cannot even with the proposed amendments, state a good faith legal argument in support of a legal claim to the lands."

The Assembly eventually passed a watered-down AB391.

But Horton said the Senate defeat would not kill the rebellion. Instead, he expects that individual counties will consider ordinances to expand their authority over public land for fires and other emergencies.

Horton said it's possible the ordinances will be modeled after a New Mexico law that gives its counties the authority to remove hazardous undergrowth and fire-damaged trees from public land without federal permission. That law, signed in March by Gov. Gary Johnson, was in response to forest fires last year that his state blamed on federal negligence.

"The counties should pick areas where there is already statutory support," Horton said. "The problem is that the feds do not pay attention to local law."

One gets a different perspective from BLM law enforcement ranger Ron Crayton of Las Vegas. Crayton, a nine-year BLM veteran who patrols about a million acres of Southern Nevada desert, spends most of his time looking for unlawful off-roaders such as dirt bikers or for illegal dumps of household or commercial waste.

But he said his encounters with individuals who challenge his authority are rare.

"A lot of this job is simply showing a presence," Crayton said. "If an ATV (all-terrain vehicle) won't stop for you, there's no sense chasing it. I would rather educate someone than write them a ticket."

Bundy, whose ancestors began ranching the Riverside area in the 1870s, claims unfettered right to graze where he does because his family has always held water rights in that area.

Like other ranchers who joined the Sagebrush Rebellion, Bundy opposed BLM's expanding authority in the past 25 years that prohibited or restricted grazing in areas deemed historically or environmentally sensitive. About 10 years ago he "fired" the agency by withholding grazing fees.

The BLM's expanding authority is the main reason Clark County, which had more than 50 ranches 10 years ago, is now almost out of the ranching business, Bundy said. He also blamed rural lawmakers for abandoning the rebellion by killing AB391.

"Anything they would have passed would have strengthened public-land law and state sovereignty, but they ruined that," Bundy said. "We'll continue to fight for full statehood the rest of our lives."

But BLM spokeswoman Jo Simpson said Bundy is one of no more than five ranchers who refuse to pay federal grazing fees in Nevada. Although Bundy has been repeatedly cited for trespassing and has lost in federal court, the BLM has yet to crack down on his operation.

"We do intend to take action," Simpson said without elaborating. "That can range from voluntary compliance, which we prefer, to impoundment of cattle.

"We have more in common with most ranchers than we have differences. Most ranchers do a good job and are in compliance with their permits."

That was echoed by Betsy MacFarlan, Nevada Cattlemen's Association executive director in Elko, who said there are more than 600 grazing-permit holders in the state.

"There are individuals who would say the Sagebrush Rebellion still exists, but Cliven is on the extreme fringe," MacFarlan said. "The majority of ranchers in this state abide by the law."

MacFarlan conceded that most Nevada ranchers have moderated their view toward the federal government. For example, last month members of the state cattlemen's association met in Washington with Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and top BLM officials.

Increased cooperation between federal and local authorities also has occurred in Nye County, whose fight over road access led to the 1996 federal court ruling that declared the state public-lands act unconstitutional.

Nye County Commissioner **** Carver, who made the cover of Time magazine in 1995 for his part in the fight over road access, said his county has enjoyed cordial relations with the BLM and Forest Service in recent years.

"I just had a meeting with them, and they asked how they can help us," Carver said. "That's a lot better than it was years ago."

Rural state legislators also have toned down their anti-federal rhetoric while holding out hope that the Bush administration will be friendlier toward ranchers and miners than former President Bill Clinton was.

Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, said this is a bad time to confront the federal government.

"It would rock the boat and send the message that we do not want to cooperate," Rhoads said. "I anticipate the Bush administration will look upon it favorably to release more lands in the West."

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

OTHER VOICES:
Rancher in land dispute is a bully, not a hero
By Alan O’Neill
Sunday, April 6, 2014 | 2:03 a.m.

I have been following the news on the proposed roundup of Cliven Bundy’s cattle that are grazing illegally on federal lands in Gold Butte managed on behalf of the public by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

I am familiar with the situation, as I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900.

It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies’ position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.

Bundy is a bully who has used his threat of a range war and to do “whatever it takes” to stop the government from impounding his cattle to scare public officials.

The implications are that he would resort to a gunbattle. And who wants to see another Waco? I was one of those public officials who were told to back off at one point because of concern for violence.

What Bundy is doing is a criminal act, and he should be accountable for his actions rather than be held up as a hero fighting the federal government.

Most of the grazing permit holders on public land are good stewards and law-abiding citizens, and Bundy is doing them a disservice with his actions. He is a perfect example of someone who publicly states that he abhors the federal government but who relies on it for his welfare.

He is grazing free on the public’s land to the detriment of the environment and the honest taxpayers who support his welfare lifestyle.

What if other people decide that they are also going to do whatever they want on federal land regardless of the law and stake claims to that right? A civil society has to have some rules and laws or we would have total chaos.

Bundy has no guaranteed rights on federal land. He only has rights to what he owns privately, yet when you hear him talk, he considers that he has some intergenerational rights to use more than 158,000 acres as he sees fit. And this is some of the most beautiful and important public land in America. What a deal. Wouldn’t any of us like to have such rights?

I am hopeful that the BLM and the Park Service stand strong and conduct the roundup as needed and not be bullied by someone who seems inclined to continue to break the law and brag about it as “the last cowboy standing.” What a warped self-perception and view of his contribution to humanity.

Alan O’Neill is a former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He lives in Southern Nevada.

Dude (above) has an axe to grind here.

I know the facts here are hard to follow, but is this correct:

1. Bundy was legallly grazing and / or paying his fees. Correct

2. Sometime around 1993 a federal government agency steps in and declares a turtle endangered on that land. Not completely correct

3. Another federal agency steps in and imposes a fee on grazing this land in an effort to protect the turtles. Incorrect

4. Bundy calls BS on this and does not pay the new fees that were imposed Incorrect

Is this about right?

If so, I'd say Bundy has got a pretty good argument.

2. US Fish and Wildlife determines tortoise endangered, other Fed Agencies make policy changes. BLM was one.

3. BLM change to protect turtle is to only permit herds of 150 cattle or smaller.

4. Bundy said F U, and never paid for fed permit to graze again, even though he had hundreds of cattle grazing illegally and without permit.

Bundy does not recognized the federal government at all (at 0:45 mark). He is a Posse Comitatus conspiracy theorist.

When I first read this the words "posse comitatus" popped into my head for a second.

 

[mr roboto]

This story is kind of interesting.

 

[timschochet]

This story is kind of interesting.

To me what's interesting is not the rancher himself, but the Tea Party types who are coming to his support. These people begin with the conviction that the federal government is the enemy and they are eager to rally behind anyone who defies that government- so long as its a conservative rebellion that is. They're not going to support a progressive rebellion like Occupy Wall Street or black protests against racism- when those kind of protests occur, these same people usually demand that the authorities come down hard. But when an older white man defies the government and threatens to use guns to defend his "rights", that's a hero to rally behind.

 

[Rove!]

Article from 2001:

Awesome article. It looks like it provides a fair back story for what is happening now. It makes that letter from the BLM guy posted earlier sound really toolish

 

[Slapdash]

This story is kind of interesting.

Yeah, but the thread isn't

 

[Joe T]

This story is kind of interesting.

To me what's interesting is not the rancher himself, but the Tea Party types who are coming to his support. These people begin with the conviction that the federal government is the enemy and they are eager to rally behind anyone who defies that government- so long as its a conservative rebellion that is. They're not going to support a progressive rebellion like Occupy Wall Street or black protests against racism- when those kind of protests occur, these same people usually demand that the authorities come down hard. But when an older white man defies the government and threatens to use guns to defend his "rights", that's a hero to rally behind.

Wut

 

[mr roboto]

Tim, I will never defend you again. WTF?

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I will never defend you again. WTF?

What do you take issue with?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Where does the Erie Doctrine fit into all of this?

 

[the moops]

He probably would have paid less in grazing fees than he has in attorney fees