Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Occupation of land in protest

Someone help me understand the details of the Clive Bundy family’s occupation of BLM (no, not that BLM, the other BLM) land a few years ago. I know the Feds didn’t waste much time removing them and possibly pressing charges.

But help me in the comparison.

I know the Bundy’s were armed and occupied public land in protest of something. But what were the details and how was that different than these nut bags in Seattle.

Not defending anyone or any ideology just wanting some clarification on the similarities and differences between:

-The Occupation
-The Motivation
-The Gov Response
-The Media Coverage (I know it was pretty one sided in both instances).

I’ll hang up and listen.

They are diversified antifay nutbags
Without nuts. Like "Mounds"

I’m not sure about the Bundy clan, but the CHAZ/CHOP clan (despite the guns, murder, rape and assaults) all have feelings, and the kind hearted authorities don’t want to hurt them, interesting thing is, from what I’ve seen just looking around at the faces in the background on news reports etc , most of the “protesters” look like your typical white antifa basement dweller, obviously some people of colour, as well, but the antifa types seem to have taken over/infiltrated the movement for for their own ends under the guise of supporting BLM. also the Bundy clan didn’t have the support of Soros like BLM and therefore CHAZ/CHOP do.

I don’t remember all of the details but from a fundamental standpoint the Bundy’s were against federal government overreach something that’s real and wanted less government control not more (communism) that blm wants.
From a practical standpoint they weren’t taking over private property and had zero physical assaults, sexual assaults, homicides within their own group.

My recollection is that Bundy was protesting as related to grazing rights on BLM land and taxes/fees associated therewith.

However, the main difference is that was a federal response, and the state of Washington, mayor of Seattle, are simply refusing to respond. This would not be tolerated on federal land with the current administration. Doubtful many states would tolerate it. I am curious to know what the tipping point would be to make it a federal issue without the consent of the governor.

From what I remember bundy had a grazing lease on BLM land for many years but stopped paying the lease,,but kelt grazing his cattle,, as he didn't believe it was constitutional for the feds to own land. He lost several court cases against BLM and eventually they moved to evict his cows off and he came back with the occupation. BLM backed down and about 2 years later Bundy's followers occupied the malheur refuge as a protest against the feds owning land

Lots of folks against the feds owning land. National forests on two sides of me and I agree they aren't the best neighbor but that's a far cry saying that the feds owning land is unconstitutional. There are 2 problems with that argument. First the original colonies originally had land claims running either to the Pacific or the Mississippi. About the same time the constitution was written they gave these claims to the feds in exchange for the feds assuming the state's debt attributable to the revolution. So the founding fathers were certainly comfortable with feds owning land. Second if its unconstitutional for the feds to own land then it's illegal for them to buy land so the only answer would be to give the Louisiana purchase back to France

Bundy was the last holdout after several other ranchers were forced out of business after BLM raised the fees for grazing on federal land they had been using for years, to the point that it was not profitable to do so. Bundy had offered to pay the fees at the former, lower rate, but Harry Reid and the Chinese investors who had him and his family in their pocket wanted the land for development purposes prevented BLM from honoring their previous commitments. When the feds contracted with a commercial cattle shipper to confiscate or kill the cattle, Bundy called in a few favors from bikers, skinheads, militia groups, and others who were on the shady side of the law to face off with the feds. The standoff came close enough to a shooting situation that the outnumbered feds backed down. Bundy was arrested, and beat them in court on the inciting to riot charges and other stuff they trumped up against him, but he went bankrupt in the process and lost his cattle anyway.

His son, Ammon, occupied some federal buildings while protesting the BLM, and one of his bunch was ambushed and killed by the feds. I think he also won in court when a jury refused to convict him.
Jerry

Interesting version, not exactly accurate but interesting.

Grazing fees on BLM land have run in the neighborhood of $1.50 to $1.35 per month for a cow/calf pair. If the Bundy bunch could not afford that, they were on the verge or economic destruction for some other reason.

Fees for private property run in the neighborhood of 12.00 to $25.00 per month.

The Hammonds were convicted of arson of federal lands. The Bundy family and friends decided to “help” them by occupying the Malheur.

Wasn't necessarily the fees, but the timing and conditions of grazing that made it unworkable. There were once 52 lessees in the BLM field office jurisdiction in that area. The Bundys were the last, all the others went out of business because it was impossible to turn a penny. The foil was pretty much for protection of desert tortoises, but research as of late shows that cattle grazing and disturbance is both not harmful and/or actually beneficial for the tortoises. Which is why the tortoises were there in the first place.

There's really no similarity between the Bundys and the antifas. Rural, urban Far Left, Far Right.

That said, I think the Bundys really misread their moment of fame. They conflated the egregious punishment of the Hammonds with the overarching concept of "federal management." Management can be good if the president wants it to be, and Congress allows it. Multiple use is a great thing. But the protest should have been limited to freeing the Hammonds from a sentence under TERRORISM guidelines that "shock the conscience." The Bundys really hurt the cause with their overreach AND a whacking dose of naivete about how the media really works..

The is a documentary on Prime right now about the Bundy saga, "No Man's Land".

Thanks for all of the replies. I knew some general basics about the Bundy situation but not many details. But I think the contrast in media coverage is awful.

Pretty much:

Bundys: white nationalist bigots
Antifa: summer of Love peaceful protesters

The differences are huge.

The Bundy's did not hold private property by force. They didn't destroy it, nor burn it. They deprived no citizens of civil rights.

Antifa committed murder, burglary, robbery, arson, and deprived thousands of citizens of their private property, and destroyed privately owned businesses, cars, houses and did incalculable damage to public property. All done by armed force.

The Bundy/Hammond families weren't backed by the democrat party.

Bundy's were Republicans, Occupiers are Democrats. Any other questions?