Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire letter to the editor, another side of the Bundy story

By DR. LARRY MOSES

No one asked me but� There has been a great deal of discussion about rancher Cliven Bundy and his cattle. Some people support Cliven; others support the stand the federal government, egged on by environmentalists, has taken.

This caused me to turn to the Nevada Revised Statutes to see what laws Mr. Bundy has violated, if any. Why turn to state law to deal with the federal government on federal land? Because in the 1930�s, the federal government turned over to the various western states the responsibility of �protecting, improving, and developing public lands fit for grazing of livestock� within their borders.

The state of Nevada, which was dominated by ranchers and miners in the 1930�s, took that responsibility to heart and this effort resulted in the state passing The Taylor Grazing Act in 1934. This act is codified in NRS 568, and is in effect today.

According to NRS 568.010, it is �An act to stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range��

I am not an attorney, and I do not play one on television, but I read NRS. 568 which includes 568.355 which defines the term �open range� as �all unenclosed land outside of cities and towns upon which cattle, sheep or other domestic animals by custom, license, lease or permit are grazed or permitted to roam�.

I am not about to tell you how these statutes should be interpreted. However, it seems that if one is to debate the issue, one should take the time to read the law. Apparently, the law can be read in more ways than one. Mr. Bundy and the federal judges certainly see it differently.

NRS 568.230 states: � �It is unlawful � (to) restrict or interfere with the customary use of the land for grazing livestock by any person who, by himself or herself or the person�s grantors or predecessors, has become established, either exclusively or in common with others, in the grazing use of the land by operation of law or under and in accordance with the customs of the graziers of the region involved.�

That brings into question what does customary mean under the law? NRS 568.240 states: �Customary or established use� to include the continuous, open, notorious, peaceable and public use of such range seasonally for a period of 5 years or longer immediately before March 30, 1931, by the person or the person�s grantors or predecessors in interest, �Any change in customary use so established must not be made after March 30, 1931, so as to prevent, restrict or interfere with the customary or established use of any other person or persons. NRS 568.230 to 568.290, ��does not prohibit any such established user from continuing his or her grazing use, as established by operation of law or in accordance with such customs.� NRS 568.290 states: �Nothing in NRS 568.230 to 568.290, inclusive, amends or repeals existing law regarding the grazing use of the public lands or of water for the purpose of watering livestock, or modifies or compromises any valid rights or priorities which exist therein on March 30, 1931.�

Since the federal government closed much of the contested area to grazing, they surely cannot charge Bundy for not paying grazing fees.

They have charged Mr. Bundy�s cattle with trespass. However, the state trespass law states it is the responsibility of the landowner to fence out cattle, not the rancher�s responsibility to fence them in. According to state law, there can be no damages collected for trespass unless the cattle have breached a �legal fence.� NRS 569.431 states: �a legal fence means a fence with not less than four horizontal barriers, consisting of wires, boards, poles or other fence material in common use in the neighborhood, with posts set not more than 20 feet apart. The lower barrier must be not more than 12 inches from the ground and the space between any two barriers must be not more than 12 inches and the height of top barrier must be at least 48 inches above the ground. Every post must be so set as to withstand a horizontal strain of 250 pounds at a point 4 feet from the ground, and each barrier must be capable of withstanding a horizontal strain of 250 pounds at any point midway between the posts.�

Has the federal government fenced the boundaries of Mr. Bundy�s ranch?

Here is an interesting side note. There are cattle legally being grazed by another rancher in areas being searched for Bundy�s cattle. If the Utah cowboys round up any of those or even herd them without permission of the legal owner they are in violation of NRS 568.350 which states: �It shall be unlawful for any person to lead, drive or in any manner remove � any head of neat cattle, � the same being the property of another person, from the range on which they are permitted to run in common, without the consent of the owner thereof first. �Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. �such person shall be civilly liable to the owner of livestock so removed from the range for the value of all such stock and the necessary expenses incident to their return.�

It should be noted that federal courts don�t give a rip about Nevada State Law. They have ruled against Mr. Bundy and have ordered him to remove his cattle.

It should not come as a surprise that the federal government would ignore state law. This same government sued the State of Arizona to stop their enforcement of federal immigration laws. By imperial decree, the federal government today is selecting which law it will or will not enforce.

It�s not the 1930�s anymore and Nevada politics are no longer controlled by ranchers and miners. They have been replaced by BMW driving snobs who wouldn�t know a day�s work if they saw it.

The bottom line issue is not Bundy�s cattle. It is the environmentalists� interest in closing the Gold Butte and surrounding area to all but their elite backpacking buddies.

And we will soon see the old here die too young because the law will say they have no real quality of life and we don't have the money to prolong their useless (to us) nonproductive life, and the folks will say it's ok, because its the law.

It appears some here haven't read the 10th ammend. ....or Article I section 8 of the US Constitution( "....and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings..")

Could someone show me where the fed gubbermint has purchased, let alone authorized by state legislatures, said "fed" lands from the states?

Looks more like the Tayler Grazing act was changed by the feds whether the states authorized it or not. And since when has the Endangered species act ever been enforced with equal attention to local economies as is stipulated by the very law itself?

Bundy WAS breaking the law. There is no question the land is owned (titled) by the Federal government who is free to lease or not-lease it. By not paying the grazing fees (about $1,000,000 over 10 years), Bundy set himself up for the BLM actions.

No one to blame but himself.

Actually, the state in question...Nevada took up that very question and voted and decided that they had not given that all empowering authority to the federal government.

http://4thst8.wordpress.com/2012/02...rtue-when-your-rights-are-being-ignored/

So when the government says your guns are illegal your just going to hand them in and walk the other way?

Bundy's grazing rights predated the blm and there bullschit tortoise crap.

This is a must watch. No matter what side you take.

Bundy WAS breaking the law. There is no question the land is owned (titled) by the Federal government who is free to lease or not-lease it. By not paying the grazing fees (about $1,000,000 over 10 years), Bundy set himself up for the BLM actions.

No one to blame but himself.

Wrong, grazing rights are not leases. they are property, this pesky fact was affirmed in the Hage case, all the way to the Supreme Court.

There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are �just� because the law makes them so.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

~ Frederic Bastiat

Bundy's claims preexist both the government claims and extorting agencies, but government is plunder and has create[d] for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Government gangsters' extortion rackets differ from urban gangs' extortion racket only in their ability to give themselves legal sanction and to provide better uniforms for their thugs.

The BLM is not the bogeyman as many here would like to believe. It is not a nameless, faceless organization out to get one man. It is an agency filled with average, everyday people trying to do their job, and managing land for competing interests is a hard one at that. Mr. Bundy has had more than ample time to resolve this issue amicably and reasonably, it is time that he suffer the consequences that anyone else would who blatantly breaks the law. That he is seeking public support on emotional grounds here in southern Utah reveals a last ditch effort by a man who has been beaten in court because he has no case.

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/a...unter-opinion-on-range-war/#.U0oH_ld8qSp



COUNTER OPINION to opinion of St. George News columnist Bryan Hyde

(See: March 31 Perspectives: The Bundys vs the bureaucracy)

� When dealing with any organization or entity in an exchange of goods or services, whether it is car insurance, a government contract, or your legal rights, you must be sure to cover all of the obligations on your end. Otherwise you risk losing something on a technicality. It all boils down to holding up your end of the bargain. As they say, ignorance of the law is no defense. Cliven Bundy made this mistake in his battle against the Bureau of Land Management to graze his cattle. He had a permit (which is a contract) with the government to graze his cattle on BLM land. That permit had requirements and benefits attached to it.

Under the Taylor Grazing Act, a permit system was set up that granted grazing privileges, not rights. The grazing permit is a revocable license under the law, not creating any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the land. In the early 1990s the BLM revised Mr. Bundy�s, and other ranchers�, permits to protect the desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy did not like the revision and so he made, in my opinion, a catastrophic, knee-jerk mistake when he stopped paying his grazing fees in defiance. It was catastrophic because what he did the moment he stopped paying was remove all legal standing he had. He relinquished any claim he had to graze on public land. When he did that, the BLM rightfully canceled his permit and would not grant him anymore permits.

One can sympathize with a choice that feels like no choice at all, to feel like an agency is limiting all of your options, or in Mr. Bundy�s case, taking away his right to make a living. But in reality, it was Mr. Bundy who made the choice. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy. The best course of action for Mr. Bundy would have been to keep paying his grazing fees while fighting the changes he saw taking place, and then he would have a legal leg to stand on. As it stands, he has no legal standing or rights to graze on public land; he is illegally grazing his cattle and has been for 20 years, all because of that one impulsive decision. Never hand your �enemy� the win for free. Know your rights, know the law, and know your obligations stipulated in the contract because then, no one will be able to find fault with your cause.

As it stands, there is plenty of fault to find with Mr. Bundy�s case. He did it wrong 20 years ago and is still doing it wrong today.

When the Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was done in response to the cries and pleas of ranchers out West dealing with decades of rangeland deterioration, conflicts between cattle ranchers and migratory sheepherders, jurisdictional disputes, and states� rights debates, who needed help; see Encyclopedia of the Great Plains Web page on the Taylor Grazing Act.

There is a theory about what happens to a resource that is free. It is an economic theory called the Tragedy of the Commons which states that individuals acting independently and rationally according to each one�s own self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group�s long-term best interests by depleting the common or shared resource. In other words, when a common good is �free,� people will selfishly use it until it is gone because they cannot self-regulate, and those who try, quickly give up when no one else does.

The Taylor Grazing Act was a system set up to counter the selfish interests of the individual for the whole by regulating grazing and land use. This government regulation was meant to ensure that the vegetation could regenerate and continue to provide productive land, further ensuring that grazing would continue into the future for everyone.

In the 1960s and 1970s, public appreciation for public lands and expectations for their management rose to a new level, as made clear by congressional passage of such laws as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Consequently, the BLM moved from managing grazing in general to better management or protection of specific rangeland resources, such as riparian areas, threatened and endangered species, sensitive plant species, and cultural or historical objects. Consistent with this enhanced role, the Bureau developed or modified the terms and conditions of grazing permits and leases and implemented new range improvement projects to address these specific resource issues, promoting continued improvement of public rangeland conditions. See the BLM�s Web page: Fact sheet on the BLM�s Management of Livestock Grazing.

In other words, public lands grew to include the interests of more than just ranchers. The BLM and other land management agencies had to manage the land for energy development, timber harvest, recreational activities, education and youth programs, and for scientific research. No longer did the land belong solely to ranchers and cattle. It is hard to share when you have been using it for a long time, but share we must when it is a public good and resource. Most of the other ranchers in Nevada understood this when the desert tortoise got listed on the Endangered Species Act and complied.

In the early 1990s when this was taking place, there was a land swap between Nevada and the Federal Government where Nevada offered to buy the grazing allotments to protect the desert tortoise in exchange for desert tortoise habitat that they could destroy for development. The ranchers grazing on those allotments were offered the chance to sell their allotments and did to the tune of roughly $5 million dollars. Mr. Bundy was not given the option of a buy-out for his allotment because he had forfeited his rights to it when he stopped paying his fees. Therefore, the permit was sold to Nevada for $375,000.00. When Mr. Bundy was shut-out, he decided not to recognize the federal government�s authority over him, and started grazing illegally.

The BLM has tried repeatedly and patiently to handle this matter civilly as can be shown by their 20 year efforts to do so. They went through the courts to get court orders to have his trespassing cattle removed. The judges have continually sided with the BLM, and have issued court orders to Mr. Bundy to remove his cattle. But he has ignored them. Now it appears the Nevada Cattleman�s Association is leaning toward supporting the BLM�s removal of Mr. Bundy�s cattle because he is law breaker. While they are paying their grazing fees to graze their cattle, Mr. Bundy is stealing to graze his. It is not fair for the BLM to turn a blind eye to this or to let it go on any longer. Worse than that, however, is the fact that Mr. Bundy is grazing his cattle at the public�s expense.

We pay tax dollars to have our public lands managed, to have equal access under the law, and to have the law enforced. Mr. Bundy has made his right to graze his cattle more important than all other interests. Some might argue that this is an environmental issue, a liberty issue, or a property rights issue, but it is an equal rights legal issue. According to Mary Jo Rugwell, the former BLM Southern Nevada District Manager:

There are hundreds of ranchers that follow the rules. They have grazing permits, pay their fees and manage their cattle as they are supposed to. A lot of other users of public lands also pay for permits and follow their stipulations. It�s just not fair to all of those people that Mr. Bundy does what he wants and doesn�t follow the rules (see court orders linked on the BLM�s Web page here).

He, and others like him or supporting him, may not like the Endangered Species Act and may not like federal law or control, but not liking something does not excuse one from breaking the law. Furthermore, not believing in laws does not make them any less real, valid, or enforced.

While this is an emotional issue for many who know and like Mr. Bundy, at the end of the day, he brought this on himself. If he is a victim of anything, he is a victim of his own arrogance. He willfully broke the law and chose not to work within the confines and limits of it. He has gotten away with it for 20 years. It is time for the BLM to call his bluff and end his free grazing and law breaking now. If he wants to sue Clark County, the state of Nevada, the BLM, the cowboys who will be rounding up his cattle, or anyone else, let him do it. He does not have a case, as has been shown. His argument is weak at best. As Lloyd D. George, United States District Judge stated:

Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of public lands in Nevada, or that his cattle have not trespassed on the New Trespass Lands� the public interest is served by the enforcement of Congress� mandate for management of the public rangelands, and by having federal laws and regulations applied to all citizens equally. (Emphasis added. See also: Moapa Valley Progress article dated April 18, 2012, here.)

The BLM is not the bogeyman as many here would like to believe. It is not a nameless, faceless organization out to get one man. It is an agency filled with average, everyday people trying to do their job, and managing land for competing interests is a hard one at that. Mr. Bundy has had more than ample time to resolve this issue amicably and reasonably, it is time that he suffer the consequences that anyone else would who blatantly breaks the law. That he is seeking public support on emotional grounds here in southern Utah reveals a last ditch effort by a man who has been beaten in court because he has no case.

Submitted by Greta Hyland

Letters to the Editor are not the product of St. George News, its editors, staff or contributors. The matters stated and opinions given are the responsibility of the person submitting them; they do not reflect the product or opinion of St. George News.

Resources

BLM: Northeast Clark County cattle trespass website
BLM: Taylor Grazing Act
Bundy Ranch blog
Bundy Ranch blog: Contact information for Clark County and Nevada officials

Related posts

Letter to the Editor: The spirit of the West; range war
Range war: BLM, Iron County to work together on feral horse issue � Iron County
ON Kilter: Bundy�s victim mentality costs him grazing rights
Range war: County resolves to solve wild horse problem if BLM prioritizes Bundy cattle � Iron County
Range war: County Commissioners oppose BLM bringing Bundy cattle to Utah � Washington County
Range war: Rancher stands defiant as BLM moves to impound �trespass cattle�
Perspectives: The Bundys vs the bureaucracy
ON Kilter: Trespass cattleman not above the law
BLM, National Park Service close public lands due to trespassing cattle dispute
�Where�s the line?� Ivory�s crusade to return public lands to the states

Email: newsstgnews.com

Twitter: @STGnews

Copyright St. George News, StGeorgeUtah.com Inc., 2014, all rights reserved.

Well said..

It brings to mind a scenario I thought of..since this could apply to the local dairy farmer I work part-time for in summer/fall. They milk approx. 1700 Holsteins. The income from the cows must pay for all the taxes, equipment and maintenance of the operation, plus provide for, in this case, three families (third generation). As of now, they are 'permitted' by the WI-DNR to run this number of cows. What if the DNR arbitrarily decides something (waterway, insect, turtle, you name it) needs 'protecting', issues some rule/regulation and then come to the farm and say, " the rules have changed and you can only milk 500 cows now."

They'd be bankrupt in 6 months or less. What are these farmers going to do? Say, "Ok, well, thank you DNR, guess I'll just apply at Mickey-D and flip burgers." Or will they fight for their livelihood and tell the DNR to take a flying eff?? I've known this farm family for many decades. They're excellent stewards of the land and they follow laws. But at some point, excessive laws, rules/regulations can, and will, get to the point of people not being able to comply..