Insanity over Bundy Ranch standoff
I know, I haven’t written about this subject, that being the standoff of the ranch family Bundy in Nevada. Mostly because I didn’t understand the whole thing until yesterday, but then I’m focused on military issues and the grazing laws and the Bureau of Land Management don’t concern me now that I left my civilian job. Anyway, a whole bunch of people were headed to the Bundy ranch and BLM backed off concerned about public safety Fox News reports.
Bureau of Land Management Chief Neil Kornze announced an abrupt halt to the weeklong roundup just hours before the release.
“Based on information about conditions on the ground and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concerns about the safety of employees and members of the public,” Kornze said in a statement.
Hundreds of states’ rights protesters, including militia members, showed up at corrals outside Mesquite to demand the animals’ return to rancher Cliven Bundy. Some protesters were armed with handguns and rifles at the corrals and at an earlier nearby rally.
So BLM is going to take the issue up in court, like they should have done in the first damn place, instead of showing us why they need to scarf up all of the ammo in the market place.
But here is why I’m finally addressing the issue; some of my conservative so-called “friends” on Facebook were asking why the military wasn’t getting involved to protect the protesters from the BLM thugs. So my question is “WTF is wrong with you?” Since when is it the military’s job to protect private citizens individually from other government agencies? When has it ever happened in American history. Yes, yes, I know, they’re supposed to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, but do you understand what it is you’re expecting the military to do and do you understand the precedent it would set if generals ordered the troops to stand against the BLM?
What exactly did you expect them to do? Take over the Bureau of Land Management offices in DC? Roll out tanks from the nearest post to Nevada? Do you really expect them to accomplish all of that without orders from their commander-in-chief (who by the way would never order them to do that any-damn-way).
Sometimes conservatives are as stupid as the liberals – because they get emotional about something, the military should act now to make them feel better about themselves. Of course, their questions about the military not defending the Bundy’s and their fans is supposed to prove that military has no problem rounding up Americans on Obama’s orders. It was to prove that the folks in the military are automatons who slavishly follow whatever orders they are given. Mental masturbation completely vacant of any reason.
I blame the fact that some conservatives are a bunch of Rand & Ron Paul huggers these days.
Category: Military issues
“I blame the fact that some conservatives are a bunch of Rand & Ron Paul huggers these days.”
I can’t add better Jonn. Well…except if I get ONE MORE SPAM message from Rand or Ron asking for support…I am thinking seriously of changing email addresses.
Let me teach you how to add a spam rule… much better than changing your addy.
Better yet just add them to your list of blocked email addresses. That option is probably hiding in your email settings.
It seems like every time a somewhat good idea comes up it gets taken off track by some who are just a little more emotional than necessary. The counter-protest to the Muslim activities on the National Mall on 9/11/13 and the groups who met in DC to protest the Memorial barricades had good intentions, but then got carried away with Kokesh-like fervor (by some).
Kudos to the Bundy Ranch supporters, but it’s not time to rise up in an armed revolution to the US Government. Just my opinion.
I wonder how the judge will react when the BLM states that they didn’t have a warrant for their actions, but were doing what they did for public protection.
They should have went to the courts first, not went all Rambo. There is new information that this whole thing happened because of Harry Reid. I’m still checking on the information, but this might be bigger than Fast and Furious.
Oh, Flagwaver, now you have me on tenterhooks again! Keep us updated.
BLM already had a court order to be doing what they were, which was seizing his cattle illegally on US Government Land he had been Court Ordered off of in legal battles dating back to 1993.
Actually, they had been ordered to pay grazing fees. And has paid, until who to pay was no longer clear. The fact that they had to pay grazing fees on land they’d owned since the 1870s is idiotic to start with.
Bundy did not own the land. It is and has been Federal land. He was only being restricted from grazing on specific areas like all of the other cattle ranchers in Nevada. Who had and still have no issues with the deal they get.
Bundy was paying the Federal Government until he decided he did not want to move his cattle and has alternatively stated it is state land or his own.
The courts agreed with BLM and he is the one in the wrong here.
No it wasnt federal land it was public land – i.e. nobody had claimed it – until recently when the BLM claimed it. The fact his family had been using it for years probably should have used to justify its continued use. And Reid is wrapped up in this too: http://goo.gl/mi8ZZ5
No. just… no.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/is-harry-reid-involved-seven-answers-to-seven-questions-youre-probably-asking-right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/
What!?! The Feds are trying to shut down the Nevada Bunny Ranch?
Well, I know that This Ain’t Hell has had its differences with Air Force Amy, but outrage I say-outrage! To arms, to arms!!!
Wait, what was that-Bundy Ranch you say? (Channeling Emily Litella) Never mind.
OOoh! Brain farts on Sunday afternnon!
Yes, threre IS a big difference between Bunny and Bundy, but I DO like the way you addressed it.
68W58 Wait are we talking about the Bunny Ranch? I thought we were talking about the whole Ted Bundy mess! Who knew? I gotta get my Bunnys and Bundys straight.
Reply to all:
FYI, it’s not what we all think.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/is-harry-reid-involved-seven-answers-to-seven-questions-youre-probably-asking-right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/
It’s also been revealed that Reid had that land slated for a Solar Energy Farm to be installed, which is a venture by a Chinese company that Reid’s son is working for as a lobbyist. Reid had his hand deep in the pudding on this deal, and it already stinks to high Heaven, something that could make the Teapot Dome Scandal look tame.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/is-harry-reid-involved-seven-answers-to-seven-questions-youre-probably-asking-right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/
THANK YOU
Exactly RunPatRun……I had every intention to attend the 2 Million Bikers at Wasington DC but it soon became twisted into an anti-Muslim event by those who stand with one foot on the edge of the right handed scale. Same thing here IMO. Excessive and repulsive much like the extreme gun rights clowns who think a firearm is a necessity at any venue. Makes them sure of themselves I guess much like the douche bags who get drug through a city park by a Rottweiler who only perverse intent is for the owner impress a someone else as though he has a pair.
Just a small point about BLM taking it up in court…that is exactly where this has been since 1993. Bundy has lost every time. I think Bernath is his attorney.
As to all the folks heading there looking to take on Uncle Sam, it is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy for a good number of them. No idea of the actual issues at hand and allowing themselves to be spoon fed all the “proof” big brother is out to get them.
Bernath only does class action (when not acting as his own
idiotadvocate). I suspect he was representing the turtles.I had one of those turtles hold us up at NTC because it parked its ass under a Humvee and no one could touch it or risk a massive fine. We had to wait for the “experts” to come out, pick it up and move it away from the vehicle… That was in 1993. Ferociously being protected as they were endangered.
The turtle excuse is just that; an excuse. They have shown that many of those same turtles have perished in government holding areas, already. So, if the turtle is such a BFD; why have more been killed by the feds than would ever be endangered by grazing cattle?
I’m not unfamiliar with how land issues and the government happen (I grew up on a farm) and I can tell you that with the way things have been going these days, we’re lucky that we all aren’t being fined. I have watched as a heavy rain caused an area to flood for about a week and the DNR comes in and declares it a wetland, so you can’t do anything with it, even though you “own” it, and you now lose productivity on that land. You still have to pay taxes on it, you still have to care for it, because if you don’t, the government will drop the hammer on you. THAT is what has been happening to the Bundy Ranch. It has happened at many places around this country, but you don’t hear about most of them. So, I wouldn’t be all cock-sure to be taking the government’s explanation as gospel, either.
Please cite your source on the Feds killing turtles…yep I saw the claim coming via prison planet and it is utter nonsense. A turtle refuge that relies on private and federal grants has lost its funding due to budget cuts. That was just recently and has nothing to do with this asshat Bundy.
Is the government perfect? He’ll no. In this case though they are in the right. The Nevada Cattle Owners Association supports the BLM in this. Not one other member has opposed the restriction from specific lands they once used.
They all including Bundy(if he would have paid) enjoyed extremely generous land leases. It is doubtful they could maintain the land for what they pay and we all lose money on those deals. BLM loses millions on those land leases
Lose money on those deals? If “we” do, then there must be too many bureaucrats “maintaining” it.
I think this is probably the source, rb325th. Sounds to me like the Federal government – specifically the BLM – is indeed involved in the planned euthanasia operations.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/desert-tortoise-faces-threat-own-105104423.html;_ylt=A0SO8wOlVEdTOiYA3SVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzY3MxNGQxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDMwNF8x
Can’t say I support the Bundys here, but the BLM isn’t exactly always on the “side of the angels”, either.
When did the feds decide to make it a protected area because of a turtle? What justification did they use as the basis for making that many acres restricted? Is it like the spotted owl bs in the Northwest? We were told that they couldn’t live outside of a certain area in the Northwest, so all sorts of land was restricted because of it and lo and behold; those damn spotted owls were spotted (pun intended) living in fucking power lines in Arizona! Oh, but we have to take away land, water (for a guppy), and all sorts of other areas because we’re the federal government and we own it all. If we want to take something; then we claim an environmental issue is at play and no one dares to argue with that, so the feds can take whatever they want from whomever they want in the name of evnironmental protection.
Now, if Bundy has been a problem since 1993; why the hell did the feds wait so long to do something? Why didn’t they just arrest him at his house? I’m definitely not a fan of infowars or prisonplanet, but there are more sources out there than just them. As for land leases; how much money does it take to maintain the land? Does the government do much of anything with it? Oh, that’s right, they don’t have to because they might run over a turtle. Reminds me of the millions of acres of desert that Feinstein had shut down in Kalifornia for a lizard or rat or some such shit.
Even stupid laws are valid, Old Trooper. But until they’re changed, they’re still the law.
Bundy has been thumbing his nose at the BLM in court for literally years. And he’s got a perfect record in court: an “o’fer” – as in lost every freaking time.
Federal officials likely didn’t have good reason to arrest Bundy. Best I can tell, all of his actions have been economic, non-criminal actions subject to civil penalties and/or property seizure. The latter appears to be what the BLM was planning to do recently, albeit in a heavy-handed, over the top way. Can’t really say I can blame them for overreacting, though, given some of the prior rhetoric from Bundy and his supporters.
As I said earlier: the BLM isn’t always on the side of the angels. But Bundy is simply a hardheaded fool unwilling to accept the fact that he’s lost his land leases – frankly, through his own stupid decision to quit paying his BLM lease fees years ago – who now has absolutely no recourse. He is IMO now simply tilting at windmills.
I agree with the economic side, however; why hasn’t the BLM taken the action of getting a lein put on his property and auctioning off his ranch? If it’s really been as long as some claim; this would have been done years ago. Over $1 million in fees? Yeah, I would like to see any of us try to get waya with owing the gummint over $1 million and not have them do something before now. What will be interesting will be what happens after they clear the cattle from the land i.e. will a solar farm magically appear?
Also; not everyone has the resources to fight the feds, like the Sacketts, but this happens every day. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-allows-idaho-couple-to-challenge-epa-on-wetlands-ruling/2012/03/21/gIQAFgdsRS_story.html
Y’all can go on believing that the government is always right and side with them, but I won’t/don’t. I have seen this happen too many times. Most of the time, no one hears about it, because not everyone can afford to stand up to the government and that’s what they count on.
Well, no-one has made any such claim, or anything like it, so…..
“Nevada Cattle Owners Association supports the BLM in this.”
1. There is no “Nevada Cattle Owners Association.”
2. But “[a]n article in the Las Vegas Review Journal quoted a statement from the **Nevada Cattlemen’s Association** which took pains to point out they had nothing to do with Bundy’s ‘range war.’
“‘Nevada Cattlemen’s Association does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter, and in addition **NCA believes the matter is between Mr. Bundy and the federal courts**,’ the association said.”
Which is hardly the same thing as “supporting the BLM.”
and the rest of his commentary on Bundy…
…”Asked about the Bundy situation, NCA president Ron Torell told ABC News, “This has gotten way out of hand.”
“Asked if other Nevada cattlemen were as angry with the federal government as Bundy, Torell said, “absolutely not.”
It’s true, he said, that many NCA members are disgruntled at having to deal with BLM’s bureaucracy. But, he noted, 87 percent of Nevada land is public land, so cattlemen cannot survive on private land alone. “It’s important for our permitees to work with the land management agencies. We want to be good stewards of the land — to protect natural resources.”
Of the Bundy affair, he said, “These types of situations have a way of painting the entire industry with controversy.”
I agree with rb325th. This has been taken up in court time and time again. Each time, Mr Bundy was told he could not graze his cattle on this land. The land was closed to cattle grazing in 1998. Why is he still using it??
Right or wrong. He still used the land without permission after he knew it was closed to cattle grazing.
A few things from what I’ve gathered in reference work via the Interwebz:
1. Nobody is taking Bundy property (land).
2. The land in question is BLM land (public land that belongs to all of us).
3. Bundy hasn’t paid grazing fees in more than 21 years (approximately $300K).
4. 21 years ago the land was deemed environmentally sensitive because of the desert tortoise.
5. Bundy hasn’t won any of its court battles going back two decades.
6. Bundy hasn’t paid a federal judgment of $300K.
7. Bundy was ordered to remove his cattle in 1998.
8. Bundy has defied every court order ever issued.
9. No one is above the law.
10. Bundy was told a few months ago his cattle would be confiscated if he didn’t move them. He chose not to.
The way I’ve heard it, the Bundys have been running their herd on state land for generations. Then BLM either claimed it or tried to invoke some long-standing obscure claim that nobody ever heard of, then tried to slap Bundy with a multi-million dollar fine for fees nobody ever told him he owed. I also heard the court ruling was chickenshit. I hadn’t heard about the Harry Reid angle.
Of course I’m sure I haven’t heard the whole story, and it sounds like assholery abounds on both sides at this point.
The land was never Bundy’s to use or to own. Never. EVER.
There’s an article floating around on the internet from InfoWars “explaining” why the feds actions are unconstitutional.
It is every bit as accurate as you would expect an article from Infowars to be, which is to say, ZERO.
The land is federal public land, owned by the US and administered by the BLM.
I won’t even print out stuff from Infowars to line my cats litter box.
Wasn’t taking a side, just saying what I heard.
A couple of good things may come from all this, even at the expense of the Bundy Ranch. It has brought attention to the fact that this “sensitive” tortoise seems to be thriving in spite of cattle in the neighborhood, which simply proves how insane the prohibition against cattle there was in the first place.
Can’t eat the turtles, but with beef prices what they are (record highs) is this really the time to reduce grazing? Who decided that this turtle was more important than beef eaters? Are those who made that decision then prepared to modify it now that the turtle seems to not need protection?
Of course, not having cattle grazing the lands provides an opportunity to hire more union mowers. They wouldn’t kill any of those precious turtles would they? Of course, letting it all naturalize would be idyllic, until the inevitable prairie fire, which would also not kill any of those protected turtles either, right?
It’s not about the solar energy facility.
It is about water.
It is about allowing the Bellagio water show to waste enormous amounts of water. It’s about golf courses in the high desert.
It’s about amusing ourselves to death . . .
Cow, turtles, and snipers
Serious business.
Notice the difference in government reaction regarding this and the occupy movement? You should. It’s troubling.
Like you, I was very concerned with the federal response to this. It appears that they were at first willing to escalate this and the film of them abusing civilian protesters was disturbing. I was glad to see that cooler heads prevailed and the government had the good sense to back down and let the situation calm down.
It appears that Mr. Bundy has used up the good graces of the U.S. government. I cannot imagine how this will go if there is another confrontation. It appears to me that there are too many of our citizens that are willing to take on the government for stupid reasons. I blame the inflammatory rhetoric and actions of the Obama administration for this. This Us against Them has got to stop. The race baiting has got to stop. Or the next confrontation may not end as peacefully.
In 1998, Mr Bundy was taken to Federal Court over this. If he thought that this was state land, then why was he taken to Federal court over this? He wants it to be state land, it’s not. If it was state land, please explain why federal agencies are out there without the Governor or anyone from the state of Nevada crying foul? Mr Bundy’s arguments about who’s land it is doesn’t hold water.
He should get behind the Paiute Indians. If anyone has a right to the land it’s them.
Article 1, Section 8, item 17 lays out what the fedzilla is allowed to own as real estate.
There’s another bit in, iirc, Article 4, giving the fedzilla management rights over territories (not yet state AO), and there’s imminent domain laid out in the Constitution…
But, nothing in the Constitution gives the fedzilla the right/power to own large swaths of land simply to own them.
How can we claim to be honorable persons, defending the Constitution, against all enemy, foreign or domestic, if we don’t give a shit what the Constitution actually says?
The tortoise issue is bullshit to begin with. It’s only “endangered” because it’s a convenient tool to hammer private and commercial owners of lands the fedzilla wants to own.
It’s so endangered, that the fedzilla is slaughtering a rather large batch of them due to them becoming inconvenient.
The eco movement has pulled this sort of crap since it agitproped enough activist judges and honorless douchebag legislators to give the fedzilla that power.
Here’s something from an earlier abuse of illegit power usurped by the fedzilla.
The Stand at Klamath Falls
http://www.jeffhead.com/klamath/
And, final note to the thumbsuckers that live on their knees in obedience to the mouth breeders that manage their opinions, I am not a paulista, nor do I have any respect, what so ever, for that inbred sack of shit.
When Nevada became a state in 1864 it specifically disclaimed any ownership over Federal lands not already appropriated (i.e. owned.)
As for the authority for the Federal government to own land, it’s right there in the Constitution: Article IV section 3.
“So my question is “WTF is wrong with you?” Since when is it the military’s job to protect private citizens individually from other government agencies? When has it ever happened in American history.”
Umm, Jonn, I can only recall once. It was like the 1950s at a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. But that didn’t involve another federal agency. Apple and oranges.
Jerry, that was the national guard, sent in by the governor. POTUS would never authorize the military to do that. The Nevada governor could have sent in the NG, but that would possibly be political suicide. FUBAR situation no matter what…
Ike then ordered the NG to vacate and the 101st took over and did escort the students in. The governor sent the NG to keep the students out. So yes, NG was there, but so was AD. I’m not saying the Bundy ranch episode warrants it, just saying that it has happened.
Jerry is much closer to correct than you are, Rob.
During 1957, 9 Black residents of Little Rock, Arkansas, attempted to register at Little Rock Central High. They were not permitted to attend. Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas ARNG, ostensibly to “maintain order”. In reality, they acted to block the students’ attempt to enter the school on 3 September 1957.
On 24 September 1957, the POTUS ordered the 101st Airborne to provide escort to the 9 students as they attempted again to attend Central High the following day. The POTUS also Federalized the Arkansas ARNG at the same time, placing it under Federal authority.
Elements of the 101st Airborne provided escort for the students in late Sep and into Oct 1957. At that point, soldiers from the 101st Airborne were withdrawn and soldiers from the Federalized Arkansas ARNG continued that mission until the end of the school year.
Bottom line: Federal troops (yes, National Guardsmen are Federal troops when they are serving under Federal active duty orders) did protect US citizens from “other government agencies” – Arkansas state government agencies, to be precise – and from both the general public in Little Rock in 1957-1958.
http://www.nps.gov/chsc/planyourvisit/upload/Site%20Bulletin%20Little%20Rock%20Nine.pdf
A similar thing happened in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in 1963 – albeit on a much smaller scale. In that case, George Wallace did his famous “stand in the schoolhouse door” stunt – until Deputy AG Nicholas Katzenbach made a phone call. Shortly afterwards, the POTUS Federalized the Alabama ARNG and had them remove Wallace so that three black students could enroll. Again: once Federalized, National Guard troops ARE Federal soldiers.
From what I have read in court documents, Bundy was not ordered to remove his cattle from public lands. He was ordered to reduce the number of cows grazing on the lands in order to protect the habitat of other animals (including the dreaded tortoise) from overgrazing.
The grazing fees Bundy was paying was below market rate (ie below that which other ranchers and land owners would charge.)
The BLM has gone through the courts for 20 years. In 1993, a court ordered Bundy to pay a fine of $200 a day per head of cattle until the grazing fees were paid. He did not. That is how the monies owed got so high.
Bundy is not a person entering into this with “clean hands.”
At the same time, the government’s reaction is somewhat heavy handed. I am not sure where the concept of “first amendment zones” came from. Without knowing more, it is troublesome on some level to think of snipers being used by the BLM. (That is assuming that there were snipers as reported.) However, I can see the BLM using people with long rifles with scopes to scout for the cows, watch and protect their people. If that makes them a “sniper,” then a good majority of hunters in this world are snipers.
The “solar farm” is not an issue. The land on which the farm was to be built is 30 miles away from the land they Bundy’s were using. That farm is a dead deal anyway.
It seems that there are a lot of people and a lot of websites who are looking to gin up this issue without people knowing the whole truth.
Is Bundy totally in the right? In my opinion, no.
Is the Federal government totally in the right? In my opinion, no.
The Feds did make one wise decision and that was to pull back. Someone was going to get injured in that confrontation between Federal agents with backup and armed protestors and militia groups.
This mess is not over.
Gitarcarver, BLM doesn’t have “snipers” in the military sense. They have sharpshooters who are used to cull herd animals that move too fast or live in areas too remote to be handled quickly except by air. They shoot from helicopters. Animals that I know for sure are handled this way are canines of various types, and wild horses. There may be others.
Pinto,
Thanks for the information.
The other day Bundy’s son was stopped from filming the cattle removal from a “non free speech zone” and claimed he was being watched by “snipers.”
That claim was picked up by a lot of sites and spread like wildfire.
I am far more likely to agree with your information and assessment than the idea that the BLM has military trained snipers. (Hey! Maybe they went to Christopher David Duke’s awesome school!)
In a way, that was part of my point that there are a lot of people who want to ramp this situation up. It is far more evil and conspiracy minded to say “the government was watching us with snipers” than the truth of why BLM officers might have long guns with scopes on them.
Thanks.
Bundy may have been grazing cattle on the land, but he didn’t own it. Since a homestead claim was never filed, it was always federal land, now part of the BLM. He’s just another rancher overgrazing sensitive land and trashing it with his cows. The carrying capacity of desert like that is pretty low, and like many other places, our public land has been altered and damaged by selfish “welfare ranchers” who benefited from sweetheart, way-below-market-value deals with the Fed. Now that the BLM and Forest Service are belatedly (like 100 years too late) trying to undo over a centuries’ worth of damage by balancing the number of livestock, welfare ranchers across the west, who often consider themselves self-styled John Wayne types, are howling. No, this guy is a poser and his family has been sucking on the public tit. for generations.
“No, this guy is a poser”
A poser eh? Posing as what?
I’ve met many many of Clive’s ‘type’ over the years, and while they are frequently out of touch with the realities of the modern world, they are generally solid people. The type of people who opened this country up for all of us through the very hard headedness people now want to ridicule.
Taken as a whole, they certainly don’t deserve the derision one can ‘read’ in your attitude.
Joe, you might want to go spend some time on a modern ranch. You’ll find that the ranchers work hard not to overgraze their cattle, and consider themselves to be stewards of the land they use. Gone forever are the cattle baron days of old. Modern ranchers are at the forefront of the effort to maintain western lands, both for their cattle and for wild animals. I’m not going to say that there isn’t conflict, and that some of the ranchers butt heads with the government and others, but most of the ranchers do strive for balance now.
Here’s some Ranching 101 for ya, Joe:
Cattle need feed and water to survive. Without these, your herd dies and you’re screwed. Graze is cheaper (obviously) than throwing hay. However, overgrazing means you have no more graze. Your herd starves, and you’re screwed. Ranchers strike a balance to keep their herd as large as they can without overloading the land they graze on.
You ever wonder why almost all male calves get their nuts snipped? Bull meat tastes like cow meat or steer meat. It’s population control! Steers don’t make babies! Steers are the primary meat source, cows are breeding stock, and the handful of bulls are kept separate most of the time. The bulls aren’t boning the cows unless it’s time to replace some stock. Some ranchers even go so far as to artificially inseminate their cows to remove the element of chance. The size of the herd is carefully controlled to prevent overgrazing.
Ranchers generally push their herd to a new grazing area at intervals. This allows the grass to reseed and grow again. Erosion damage is minimized, water sources can replenish. Any rancher who lasts more than a year knows that fucking up your land is fucking yourself.
Like I said, this is Ranching 101. Spend some time on a ranch before claiming to be an expert.
I’ve thought there was something a little hinky about Bundy’s position from the git go, The Blaze’s article clears up quite a bit.
That said, I’m still disturbed by the handling of the whole thing on the part of the Federal Government.
The US Forest service and BLM have tac-teams? Really? What, are the friggin bunnies and bears going to go Rambo on campers some day? Are the trees and shrubs gonna declare a revolution and drop wood?
Sorry, but I have a real problem with so many Federal agencies being armed these days, let alone employing SWAT type training and tactics.
If Bundy is so egregiously in violation of court orders, a Federal warrant should have been sworn out for him long ago, and it should have been served by his local sheriff’s office or the US Marshal’s office. This goofing around by other peripheral alphabet-soup agencies is dangerous and foolish.
The inmates are well and truly in charge of the asylum.
In the case of the Forest Service, the problem of cannabis grow sites on National Forest land has been increasing dramatically over the last 15 years, as has the sophistication of the growers’ booby traps and the arsenal they they have. Some are cartel-owned, some independent.
Growers set up their operations on Forest land, which by law is a public-access recreation area, some of them also run clandestine meth labs on-site, and (I’m talking to you here, Joe) they cause far worse environmental damage than all the cattle on the continent. Between booby traps and armed growers who don’t want their operation exposed, they are a tremendous threat to hikers, campers, hunters, wildland firefighters, and anybody else who ventures into the wilderness for work or pleasure. It’s not widely publicized, but people have been murdered over this.
USFS LEOs make major busts on grow sites every year. They have good reason to be well armed. BLM has the same problem on some of their land. Keep in mind that both agencies are also responsible for law enforcement on any land owned by the Department of Agriculture or Department of the Interior, respectively.
Now that absolutely doesn’t justify rolling in to this little grazing rights squabble like they’re going to retake Fallujah, but they do have a legit need for some armed personnel.
Not
Their
Job
Or more precisely, at least from my perspective, Should Never Have Morphed Into Their Responsibility!
Sorry, I don’t care what justifications are given, we have a Federal LEO agency (or 3) already tasked with handling what you described, the friggin forest service doesn’t need door kickers, and neither does the BLM.
Not sure about BLM, but law enforcement has been part of the Forest Service’s job since the agency was created, along with fire suppression, land management, and resource conservation.
Most of the Forest Service’s personnel, budget, etc. go to the fire suppression and resource management aspect of their mission. They don’t have many LEOs.
Way back when the Forest Service was founded, every employee was called a ranger and was a fireman, forester, and gun-toting cop rolled into one. These days, “ranger” refers to the chief in charge of each district of a National Forest. Firefighters, foresters, and cops are all separate positions all reporting to the ranger.
So yes, it IS their job on National Forest land. Since the disputed territory is apparently BLM-owned and not on fire, there’s really no reason for any Forest Service personnel to even be there in any capacity.
So, who should be doing that job, if not the agencies that manage the lands?
FBI?
BATFE?
BP?
Friggin’ Coast Guard?
Oh I don’t know, HOW ABOUT THE FRIGGIN ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED LAW ENFORCEMENT ARM OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
You know, the Marshals???
Managing the land is NOT managing bad guys, it’s managing the LAND and RESOURCES.
Please explain to me how spreading law enforcement duties across multiple agencies with competing priorities is more economical or efficient than keeping those responsibilities consolidated in one or two agencies and simply growing their size.
Posing as a self sufficient, rugged individualist riding the range (with his zircon encrusted tweezers?) when in fact he is one more type of welfare recipient……
There’s no posing involved when you’re perfectly capable of pulling it off. Fact is, as is the case with most agricultural pursuits in this country, if the the Federal Government stepped completely out of the picture our ranchers and farmers really would be the wealthiest citizens in our country just based on market forces.
Yeah, Jacobite, I agree that they’d be more profitable without federal interference.. And the countryside would become a cow-blasted moonscape devoid of any life other than bovine. They tried the whole idea of unrestricted extractive industries in the period between the Civil War and the early 1900’s – some historians refer to that period as the Great Barbecue. You can still see the scars from that time all over the west. That’s one reason the BLM was created. What you can’t see is all the wildlife that isn’t there, that’s been extirpated. This is the perfect example of the need for an overarching authority to manage a resource when individuals do not have the right incentives. I bet Mr. Bundy couldn’t give a s**t if the Desert Tortoise went extinct. But a lot of the lands owners (i.e., the American public) do care deeply.
Thank you for making my point, kinda hard to claim someone is a welfare recipient when what’s really happening is the exact opposite. 🙂
Thanks for playing.
And oh ya, please put me down as one of those people who could really care less about the desert tortoise.
Don’t kid yourselves- the Feds don’t care about the Tortoises, either.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/desert-tortoise-faces-threat-own-105104423.html;_ylt=A0SO8wOlVEdTOiYA3SVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzY3MxNGQxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDMwNF8x
The whole thing is hinky as hell.
This article is the most informative as to why Bundy is pushing back on the BLM.
http://www.libertyandlead.com/2014/04/13/why-cliven-bundy-is-not-wrong-from-a-fellow-rancher/
This whole thing is nothing new – I’m getting flashbacks to the 90’s when county officials in Catron County, NM authorized the arrest of federal agents and tried to take control of federal lands. Some ranchers near the contested Gila River drove federal employees and researchers off public land at gunpoint. We’ve seen how that all worked out for them. The Bundy’s have won a little battle, but they will lose the war the saame way Catron County lost, thankfully.
Actually, the BLM and Bundy have been in court over this twice already. BLM won. And Bundy refused to obey the terms of the decisions.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/is-harry-reid-involved-seven-answers-to-seven-questions-youre-probably-asking-right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/
Now, let’s extend the debate a bit by analogy. If I were to
a. log on public lands without permits/fees
b. enter National Parks/Forests without paying the required fees
c. mine or drill on BLM land without permits or fees
….would anyone have the same sympathy for me? If I was to do so for nearly 20 years, making a profit at it, how then?
What about claiming ownership without actually satisfying any of the legal requirements for doing so?
Please allow me to answer your question with a question.
Is the idea of “Manifest Destiny” a legal position, or a moral one?
I bring that up to try and establish some idea of moral parity between Federal actions and the actions of those who buck the system in favor of more traditional property rights.
Is Bundy’s position illegal based on current law? Yep.
Is Bundy’s position morally superior to the Federal government’s? Taken in a certain light I believe so.
Wonder if miners had to get BLM (or General Land Office) permits during the Gold Rush?
One thing this brought out (again), a lot of people do not trust or like the government, the number seems to be growing.
All land in the public domain that was not already put to use or otherwise restricted was open to being claimed for the purpose of mining. Yes, it was controlled by the US Government.
There is a lot of InfoWars stuff out there I’m not buying. BUT, if BLM and the feds were clean and in the right on this, I don’t think they would have backed off in the face of a handful of militia and protesters.
I disagree, I think they stepped back given the very real threat of violence by a bunch of folks who have been itching for a fight with the Government for years, because they believe all the conspiracy theories out of places like Infowars.
These folks who proclaim to love the Constitution, they do not even understand that the Land being owned by the Government is Constitutional.
I partly agree with you, I’d just point out that some of those folks are perfectly aware of the constitutional questions involved and feel that the Federal Government is no longer faithfully representing their responsibilities.
While I’ll admit there looked to be some real window lickers in that crowd, I also have to ask, how many window lickers do you think there were who thumbed their noses at the British Empire and helped overthrow a, for their world at least, legal government in favor of something new in the 1700’s?
What is the cosntitutional question here? The federal Government under Article 4 section 3 owns land and is allowed to set the rules and regulations for its use.
That is in the US Constitution, as it was ratified by the States. It was the will of our Founding Fathers that the federal Government be allowed to own lands and govern their use, just as it was they stated it was our Right to bear Arms.
So, tell me again please what is the constitutional question here, and if there is one it should be addressed in the Courts as our Founding Fathers also desired.
Saturday 19 April 2014, is Patriot Day, and will mark the 239th anniversary of the “shot heard ’round the World”, which officially began the American Revolutionary War of Independence.
It’s also the 71st anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, the 21st anniversary of the Waco Massacre, and the 19th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing (which wouldn’t have happened if only there were prosecutions of the Waco Massacre perpetrators).
In the words of Captain John Parker to the ONLY seventy-seven (77) men and boys hastily assembled on the village green at Lexington – – – ;
“Don’t fire unless fired upon, but, if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!”
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS ! ! !
We’ll need them to overthrow our government.
“SUPPORT OUR TROOPS ! ! ! We’ll need them to overthrow our government.”
A topic worthy of discussion in these pages:
What do the [ahem] “sheepdogs” do when it becomes evident that their masters aren’t shepherds, but wolves?
Impending S.W.A.T. raid targeting Bundy Ranch, knowing there WILL be bloodshed.
http://youtu.be/6_HhFE1nEi4
@ rb325th
My point isn’t that it’s un-constitutional for the Federal Government to own land.
My point is that a lot of people feel that ‘addressed in the court’ as you suggest, doesn’t work in this country anymore for multiple reasons, including improper ‘legislating from the bench’.
When the government leaves the governed feeling as disenfranchised as so many do these days, especially out here in the Western and Southwestern states, it’s only a matter of time before people start pushing back in a more material way.
This whole event and the support it received was NOT entirely about the old rancher and his cows. It was a pretty public statement against the Leviathan our Federal Government has become, a bloated whale of a government that is decreasingly bearing any resemblance to what our Founders envisioned or intended.
Take another look at our founding document, what does the following mean to you?
“—-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
How much ‘Patient sufferance’ are we supposed to endure?
How often must we ‘Appeal to their native justice and magnanimity’ before enforcing some of our own?
As I stated before, while I agree that Mr. Bundy’s legal position sucks, I also believe that his moral position is understandable and worthy of support.
The issue in this case though, is that neither Bundy nore his Family ever owned the land in question. They just “used” it. Bundy himself had paid lease fees to the BLM up until 1993, when according to his own family he just decided it was no longer in his best interest.
The State of Nevada never owned the land, and has stated as much.
The Courts in this Case did their job, after the BLM simply ignored him until 2012 when the issue was finally forced. So for 9 years he stole from We the People… yet somehow we are supposed to take up arms at his behest for a myriad of reasons.
I have heard yours now, that it is some form of “court nullificcation”, others say it is because the Feds cannot own land, despite wha tthe Constitution states about that, that the land belonged to the State and because they allowed him to be there for so long he had some sort of “pre-emminence” to using it at no cost to himself. Then there is the latest craziness about Solar Farms, the chinese and harry reid… it doesn’t matter that the deal was to build the solar farm in an area almost 200 miles away from where he was grazing cattle and 100 miles from his actual home..
The legalities of it are covered by the US Constitution, the nevada Constitution, and Bundy did not and does not have a leg to stand on. The rest of this is nothing more than people allowing themselves to be worked up into a frenzy defending a greedy old man based on a bunch of made up nonsense.
I swore an Oath to Protect and Defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and I will honor my oath.
Don’t try to piss on my back and tell me it is raining to get me to wrongly take up arms against my government.
I am not saying you are doing that, I am saying Bundy and a large number of the usual suspects are doing just that.
I swore the same oath you did, and gave 20 years of service to it.
I’m Not a blind follower however.
George Washington once swore an oath in uniform to the British Crown. What does that make him?
As I said above, I am not going to lose my shit over some made up crisis by a bunch of loons supporting another loon.
What could possibly happen is not something I will get all worked up about either. An asteroid could fall out of the sky tomorrow and wipe us all out too… has more of a chance of happneing than most of the “what ifs” I hear coming from the far right.
I am not a blind follower of any ideology. Especially when I see how fast and loose people are willing to play with the facts and the US Constitution.
Another article worth considering on the Bundy situation:
“The Cliven Bundy Standoff: Wounded Knee Revisited?” by Will Grigg, April 10, 2014
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cliven-bundy-standoff-wounded-knee.html
So…once this finally get’s settled and Bundy and his cattle are booted from the property (years from now), how long until they start fracking??
Now THERE’S a good question. 🙂
This has nothing to do with Fracking or Solar power… or anything else but one man deciding he was above the federal law.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-bundy-ranch-dispute-as-blm-exploiting-fracking-rights.3439/
nbcguy wasn’t saying there is anything eminently percolating out there, sheesh.
Lol.
You are aware that using your apparent world veiw we should all still be British Subjects right?
Metabunk as a source? wow.
A source that sources all of the sources it used to produce its story.
So, tell me what did you see wrong in the story itself other than where it is posted?
Your assinine commentary about me aside, I have quoted the US Constitution and other spources that show that bundy is in the wrong in all of this. That the US government does and has owned the land, that Bundy himself had ackowledged that but decided he no longer has to obey federal law.
So tell me how that equates to wanting us to still be British Subjects?? WTF Over, because now you are just coming in broken and silly.
God Bless the Queen… (sarc)
On the question of Metabunk let’s just say I have I’ve spent plenty of time there and the pattern to his slant is obvious to me, if you think that’s a good place to vet popular issues please carry on. Moving on, I never said anything equates to wanting to be a British Subject, nice attempt at redefining the argument though. What I pointed out is that the logic you are using to defend your position could also have been used to defend the Brits in the 1700’s. They were the ‘legal authority’ and if we had simply followed the rules and obeyed the law there would have been no war and everything would have been Skittles and rainbows. Right? As for offering asinine commentary about you, I’m sorry, but making a logical observation hardly rises to the level of ‘commentary’, asinine or otherwise. You swore an oath, good for you, so did I, but even George Washington had to re-evaluate his oath to the Crown when it became obvious that he was backing something detrimental to the improvement of the human condition here in the colonies. “I swore an oath” is a lousy defense for an opinion in this case. As for you pointing out that Bundy is on the wrong side of the current legal questions, again good for you, I did to, or did you miss that part in your haste to be ‘right’? My point is that in my opinion, and a lot of other’s, it is the Federal Government playing fast and loose with the Constitution, I think there is a case to be made that Article 1 Section 3 is very precise in what it allows the Fed to own in the way of property, and that Article 4 Sec 3 is to a large degree tempered by it. And THAT leads right back to court for interpretation, which leads RIGHT back to my argument that the trustworthiness of the courts is suspect for many, and in the absence of that, what other satisfaction can a common citizen expect in our country today? A… Read more »
jacobite, you seriously need to research the Article 4 Section3 Clause 2 of the US Constitution. If you did so, you would find that you are barking up the wrong damned tree here, and that everything I have stated is almost entirely accurate. I may have gotten a name or two incorrect along the way, but the substance of what Art 4 Sec 3 Clause 2 states is that the US government can own property and set the rules fo its use.
This as well as all the other Articles of the Constitution were discussed at great lenght, debated, rewritten, and finally agreed upon at the Constitutional Convention and subsequently ratified by the Colonies.
All the Articles were written at the same tuime, and none of them unless they specifically state have nothing to do with the previous or latter articles. There would be no reason to state something or expound on something in Article 4 that was adressed in Article 1(by the way article 1 section 3 deals with elections of represenatives, division of the houses, VP Role…). They simply would have rewritten it (as they did) to include the desired language at the time.
I reccomend the following link.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_3_2.html
The employees of the BLM and Forest Service are some of the most dedicated workers out there, and they do a good job on very limited resources. It’s a disgrace that they have to put up with this s**t from a black helicopter hothead. The west is full of Cliven Bundy’s and the common refrain is, “This is the way my grandpappy did it, this is the way I want to do it”. Fortunately, a dying breed.
A real rancher:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/16/1292565/-An-Idahoan-shows-Bundy-what-a-real-Western-rancher-is#