Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Harry Reid Says Bundy Ranch Incident is Not Over

It sure was.

What part of in 1993 they took 450,000 acres of his permit to ranch cattle on it and cut his permit to 150,000 acres and 150,000 acres, and thus rendering him unable to make a living there any longer is false?

Run, Forest, Run...

The government calls it trespass, but it most certainly isn't about fees and contracts as that there are no fees and no contracts.

what about from '94-'98?

Civil disobedience.

He may not have been legal. But he was damn sure right!

He tried paying the entire amount to the state. He felt he was giving money to the BLM that was using his own money against him. (Which they were.)

The state could not take it, so he socked it ,and to this day, said he would gladly pay all fees once his ranch permit is restored. Doesn't sound like a freeloader to me.

we've been down this road. where does it say we are obligated to provide the Bundys with 600,000 acres of grazing for eternity?

he didn't owe the state. you don't get to pay "Fred" if you don't like how "Joe" uses the money you owe him

We certainly have.

They aren't. Not under the playbook you have today. That what he has been fighting in court for 20 years to try and change, because it's not fair, nor in the best interest of the public. But, winning against a system that makes the laws, and then adjudicates them when they are all in favor of the government isn't in the playbook either. The rational that government WILL win, no matter what the circumstances needs to be changed.

I see. Like Bundy, you're not arguing for state sovereignty, you're arguing for your version of it,;even after two fed courts and a appellate court said no.

That's Anarchy,sport. Good luck with it. Don't forget my 2 x 4 comment.

The Courts have ruled against the United States government many, many times. They didn't in this case.

The BLM did not write or sign the Taylor Grazing Act, nor did they issue the Court Orders against Bundy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AUnited_States_v_Bundy_Court_Order_July_2013.pdf&page=1

Elected Congressman wrote the bill, signed by an elected President, the disagreement about the law between Bundy and the Federal Government settled by the U.S. District Court as provided for in the Constitution.

Some of you guys think it's unfair. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you don't write your own laws and none of you dictate to me or any other American what the law should be or what's morally right or wrong.

Just because you think you are standing up for your version of freedom doesn't mean you are in the right or are going to prevail. George Washington personally led the troops against the Whiskey Rebellion. Washington of course was a well known commie and liberal, right? I mean, who else would support the government on an issue?

The contentious policy at the heart of Cliven Bundy's armed standoff with the government
By Peter Weber | April 14, 2014


Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has been illegally grazing his cattle on federal land for more than 15 years. On Saturday, Bundy, his family, and dozens of armed supporters convinced the federal Bureau of Land Management that confiscating Bundy's cattle wasn't worth human bloodshed.

"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 concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," newly sworn-in BLM Director Neil Kornze said in a statement. "We remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public lands ranchers do every year.... Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially."

Of course, it was the long lack of administrative and judicial success that led to last week's BLM operation to round up and impound Bundy's cattle. Bundy stopped paying grazing fees to the federal government in 1993, after the BLM changed the terms of the grazing allotment near Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas along I-15. The BLM canceled his permit, and when that didn't work, it took him to court.

In 1999, the Nevada district court permanently barred Bundy from grazing his cattle on the land, charging him $200 per animal per day they remained on the land; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. That is where the most of the $1 million fine comes from.

Bundy's defense is threefold: He claims his family has been raising cattle on the land since 1877, before the BLM existed, so his rights to the land trump the federal government's; he asserts that Nevada really owns the federal lands � a radical offshoot of the long-simmering Sagebush Rebellion � so he should only pay grazing rights to the state or local government; and he has guns.

The courts didn't agree with Bundy's first two defenses. But the three combined make for a pretty strong emotional case, and that drew more than 100 kindred spirits from across the West, notably some heavily armed members of the Operation Mutual Aid militia, to help him defend his claim.

"If you believe in the authority of the federal government over public lands � established unequivocally in the U.S. Constitution � there is ample justification for the impoundment," says Christi Turner at High Country News.

But Bundy and his allies don't seem to care much for federal authority over public lands. On Saturday, after reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, singing the national anthem, and saying a few prayers, the armed gathering drove and rode horses to the BLM's holding pens to demand the release of the some 400 head of cattle the federal government has seized. A tense, four-hour standoff ensued, with each side pointing guns at the other.

Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie negotiated the end of the standoff, with the BLM essentially throwing in the towel: It released the cattle and started closing down the cattle-grabbing operation. It's hard to fault the agency for stepping back to avoid an armed conflict � a bloody confrontation would have been good for nobody � but it wasn't exactly a shining moment for the rule of law.

The BLM was enforcing a court order (read it here), and Bundy has been flouting the law for 20 years, illegally grazing his cattle on land that isn't his and without permission. His supporters raised weapons at federal agents. "We were dedicated to opening those gates and peacefully walking through to retrieve those cattle," Ammon Bundy, one of Cliven Bundy's 14 children, told Reuters. "The presence of weapons was needed in order to intimidate them."

Cliven Bundy, apparently buoyed by his success, ordered Gillespie to disarm all BLM rangers on federal land � the sheriff wisely ignored that ultimatum.

But let's look at Bundy's larger point, that the federal government shouldn't control 87 percent of Nevada and 60 percent of the 12 states in the West. This includes many of the country's most beautiful national parks, forests, and wilderness areas, but also huge swathes of scrub lands, timber forest, and areas with mineral and energy wealth.

It is sort of an accident of history and because of the whims of Congress that the federal government controls all that land. In the mid-1800s, lawmakers passed laws encouraging settlers to colonize the West, with the idea of carving up the new U.S. territories into privately held parcels. Starting with Theodore Roosevelt, though, U.S. lawmakers started to conserve public lands for the public with the creation of the national parks.

In 1934, Congress created the U.S. Grazing Service to manage cattle and sheep grazing on public lands, and in 1946 the Grazing Service was combined with the General Land Office to create the BLM. In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, formally setting aside federal public lands for multiple public uses, including recreation, ranching, and mining. The BLM, Forest Service, and National Park Service have been juggling those competing interests ever since.

For Bundy to have the right to graze his cattle in Gold Butte/Bunkerville area, the U.S. government would have to sell him the land, cede it to Nevada, get the area's endangered species removed from the endangered list, and/or lose to Bundy in a court of law. What seems certain is that this standoff isn't over. Even if Bundy and the BLS reach an amicable settlement, the inherent conflict will always fester between environmentalists and hikers who want to preserve the land and ranchers, miners, foresters, and motor-vehicle enthusiasts who want to be a little rougher on the public lands.

In other words, even if we cede the argument to Woody Guthrie that this land is your land and this land is my land, we'll always want to use the land for different purposes. The many Westerners who live on or near these public lands have a point when they complain about being restricted in what they can do near their homes largely so people in the big cities � Seattle, Denver, Portland � and the public lands�sparse East Coast have someplace to hike and camp and fish.

But personally, I'd rather err on the side of having that fight than losing the argument to private developers. So far, Congress agrees.

Not in land cases. All the cards on their side of the table.

I won't forget it Bob. Just remember that you'll need it. Might pack a lunch too.

You remain clueless. You should have listened to your own advice.

Anyways, I'll look forward to when you actually understand the facts and law relevant to this dynamic rather than relying on the attaboys of 5-6 folks who are completely daft or who can't think for themselves and rely on plus one and attaboys without having a clue as to why.

So as a lawyer you don't believe that there should be the ability of the People to change unfair laws that are totally slanted towards big government?

It ain't the court cases that change those things like the Jim Crow laws. It's the people speaking out against them.

Or maybe you don't believe in that either?

Rbar,

I'm going to try and help ya out a little. I'm going to try and explain in the simplicity that just maybe the azz hole of azz holes can understand.

If a person was taking care of his wife and children. Living with in his means like a good person should. And to do this it took one thousand dollars per week. And being a good provider and good worker. You were successfully doing so. Not only were you successful. But your employer had every intention of keeping you around, because you were good at what ya do.

Than one day the BLM knocked at your door and said. Due to the exhaust emitted from your vehicle. You now could only use your car two days per week. Cutting your one thousand per week to two hundred fifty per week. You wouldn't possibly be pissed would you?? Mind you your employer still was begging you for your service. This is what has been happening to ranchers, seems like forever. For all kind of bugs, lizards, spotted owls, and in this case turtles. And what they did to Mr. Bundy probably cut a little deeper. There was no real reason. Like some provisions in lease agreements described below. It was simply an agenda.

From family members that have leased land. My understanding they can change lease arrangements based on rain fall as to the amount of head the lease will feed. And this is understandable to the rancher. Who is most always a steward of the land including the wild life. In lean years the smaller outfits have to sell almost the entire herd. With hopes of having enough to live on and start again when rain provides enough feed to make it profitable again. The bigger out fits usually have enough deeded ground. That they haul both water and hay, and try and hang on. To be clear Mr. Bundy was wrong to stop paying the lease. For quote un quote legal reasons. According to the ones that make the rules as they go. He would have gotten a lot more support. Had he just have paid, and just ran enough head to make a living. No matter what BLM said.


But the fools that believe this is about Mr. Bundys lease. You are definitely not rowing with both oars in the water. Try looking at militarized bunch of thugs that trampled on the first amendment and wasn't happy about Americans second amendment rights either. I'm not going to take any of ya by the hand explaining the situations to ya. Look it all up before ya engage your big mouths.


Take care, Willie

The federal government owns the land. Please tell me you understand state legislatures don't have the power to take it back because they didn't like their earlier deal.

Conservatives understand the argument. Anarchists do not.

Property "rights" are a cornerstone of conservative thought.

When did you lose sight of that core principle?

You're arguing for government freebies and you don't even realize it.

you've got that pot/kettle thing going on. that 'stand-off' was just about the perfect picture of Natural Selection for both sides

Jesus Bob, you sound like nancy pelosi.

Yeah, not being taxed to exercise a liberty is a freebee.