Replies

I’m curious about something, and you seem to be up to speed on these matters.

Where I grew up (Missouri), state law required landowners to maintain 50% of common fence lines. Although you were liable for your own livestock, you were not liable for damage if they crossed through the 50% of fence that wasn’t your responsibility, IF the condition of the fencing was deemed inadequate.

What are the rules out west? Do the Feds have any responsibility to fence their property or is it entirely on the owner of the livestock to restrict them?

I can't answer that question except to say that a federal court ruled that Nevada's open range law did not apply in this case. I haven't read the case, which is available only on Lexis and not at www.pacer.gov, so I don't know the basis on which this ruling was made. I may bite the bullet and pay Lexis to obtain a copy of the ruling.

Nevada Revised Statutes §§ 569.440-.450 provide that Nevada is an open-range state. The owner or manager of trespassing livestock is liable for damages to another's property only if the property is enclosed by a "legal fence." There is a process for removing 'estray' and 'feral' livestock, but Cliven Bundy's cattle do not meet the definitions for either category of livestock.

However, a federal court applying and interpreting Nevada common and statutory law in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), ruled that Bundy's cattle were trespassing cattle, subject to removal.

(N.R.S. Ch. 568 - Grazing and Ranging - Cooperation with Federal Agencies in Relation to Grazing Lands specifically applies the federal Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. § 315 to Nevada land and requires the payment of grazing fees for use of federal property.

N.R.S. § 568.350 makes it unlawful for any person to lead, drive or in any manner remove any domestic livestock which are owned by another person from the range on which they are permitted to run without the consent of the owner. Again, a federal court ruled in 1998, and federal courts have subsequently ruled at least twice by referencing the 1998 ruling, that Nevada's open range laws do not allow Clive Bundy to graze his cattle on the BLM land.

I can rationalize it this way: Nevada state law and federal law require that Clive Bundy enter into a grazing agreement and pay a federal grazing fee to graze his livestock on federal property. Bundy has not paid his grazing fee for 21 years.

At common law, there must be a remedy for every wrong.

I can see two possible remedies for Bundy's failure to enter into a new grazing agreement and to pay a grazing fee. One, to sue Bundy for the $1 million+ the BLM claims he owes. I doubt the BLM wants to put this issue in the hands of a jury. Two, to remove the cattle as the remedy for a wrong.