Skip to comments.Nevada Showdown: All Hat, No Cattle (Hurl Alert applicable?)
Posted on 04/15/2014 7:42:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and his well-armed supporters forced the well-armed federal government to back down and return Bundy's seized cows -- which were seized because Bundy, 67, stopped paying grazing fees in 1993. How does anyone get the government to back down?
At first blush, Bundy seemed to have right on his side. He's a cowboy who just wants to keep being a cowboy.
The federal government, which owns more than 80 percent of Nevada land, including the land on which the Bundy family had settled, threatened to put him out to pasture. The Bureau of Land Management told the rancher he would have to cut back cattle grazing on federal lands to accommodate the threatened desert tortoise. So in 1993, Bundy stopped paying federal grazing fees. "They were managing my ranch out of business," Bundy explained, "so I refused to pay."
As the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorialized, the federal government has endangered a Western way of life in deference to "the 'threatened' desert tortoise and a supposedly fragile desert ecosystem that somehow has sustained cattle and the reptiles since the 19th century."
The BLM surely has earned its black-hat reputation in Nevada. In a classic example of federal overreach, the BLM carved out a small "First Amendment Area" for pro-Bundy protesters, which only fueled the public's distrust of government. Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval suggested that the BLM reconsider its approach to constitutional rights -- and Sandoval's a former federal judge, whom you would expect to stand up for the federal court orders Bundy is flouting.
Sandoval issued a statement before the BLM backed down in which he argued, "No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation" that he was placing on BLM's doorstep.
That sentiment ought to apply to Bundy, as well. The rancher says he does not recognize the authority of federal courts. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws," Breitbart Texas reports that the scion told talk radio. "But I don't recognize the United States government as even existing."
He was willing to start a "range war" and risk the lives of his supporters in order to retrieve some cows. He doesn't feel he has to recognize a government elected by his fellow citizens.
The BLM clearly can be accused of overreach, but who elected Bundy to be judge, jury and sheriff?
Bundy could have fought the government at the ballot box by trying to elect members of Congress who want to defang the BLM. (It's strange when you realize that for all their anti-Washington sentiments, Nevada voters have sent Harry Reid to the Senate repeatedly since 1986.) That's the American way. Threatening to shoot law enforcement officers who simply are carrying out court orders is not
***How did that happen?***
There are some good and informational comments after the article.
Worth doing some research for dates and reasons for the Federal land grabs. What happens when States have rights but no land.
Starting with the dates of Statehood etc., Go for it K!!!!
The federal government IS WE THE PEOPLE. The PEOPLE own that land. The use of that land by cattlemen (some of the PEOPLE) for grazing costs WE THE PEOPLE exactly NOTHING! Therefore the federal government has no right to collect any such fee. The fees become part of the massive cauldron of waste and fraud.
Where the fedgov actually provides services, a fee can be justified, national parks for example. But the money should stay there rather than be appropriated by Washington for nefarious uses.
A little thing called the "Mexican-American War."
The history of the land in question, regarding its use, has been that it was open range.
That’s near-enough to being a town commons.
In the absence of the national public enumerating the procedures for using the land, then the local customs of the common law - for use of the commons - would prevail.
As such, the Bundy family and other ranchers continued to use the land as open range for generations.
Eventually, the federal bureaucracy and politicians and vested interests being who they all are ... they have been working thru legislation and the courts, to end the use of open range as a local commons.
That’s a hard thing for a long-established way of life to accept: a change from local customs to bureaucratic, yet even more heavy-handed-bureaucratic impositions that end the benefits of the traditional land use.
Re the land in question, Mr. Bundy is apparently the last man standing ... and resisiting ... the change from local, common conservation and use of the land ... to federal, heavy-handed control of the land.
Mr. Bundy feels that it is in his blood and in the blood of his community, that the trust he has upheld in conservation and use of the land, has been worthy. In addition, he objects to the heavy-handed-ness of the federal government’s methods.
I am certain, that there is no cause for the federal government to use force of arms.
The matter boils down to, how do we manage the boundaries between local oversight of the commons vs. national government oversight of the commons, for lands that are ostensibly national public property ... yet these lands are affectionately held by tradition in the local public’s trust?
The federal government had no right to make those rules. See #22.
“Wow it looks like the government owns almost all of Nevada. How did that happen?”
There is a systematic legal process being carried out by the federal government, via the BLM, to force ranchers off their land.
Yes. Bundy doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. It is legal in America to systematically kill the rancher and farming lifestyles that built this once great country.
It was also entirely legal for the Brits to raise every single tax...and quarter every single troops, they hoisted upon their Colonial subjects.
Any horses’ azz can say with precise correctness that Bundy’s actions are illegal. But, at the same time, he is absolutely correct and right in what he did.
“...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...,” Declaration of Independence..., Thomas Jefferson
Federal Acquisition of Land Within States
By Bill Howell and J.L. (Jim) Tenney
Does the federal governments purchase of lands within the boundary of a state require the consent of the state legislature? If we are in a sovereign state, the answer is absolutely, yes! As a Constitutional Republic, if our elected representatives are not accountable and do not uphold our state sovereignty and individual liberties, then we are lost.
Although the Enclave Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, Clause 17, authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land within the boundary of a state, it is very specific and limiting as to what type of lands the federal government can own and control within a given state. It also leaves no doubt that the state legislature has to relinquish control of those lands. The relevant portion of the Enclave clause reads:
Congress may exercise exclusive legislative 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
Can any agency of the federal government come into a state and purchase land without state authorization as any other buyer would? Is it a private property right for a property owner to sell to the federal government? A proper reading of the Enclave Clause shows the answer to both of these questions is NO.
Is it true that there used to be over 50 ranchers in that area? If so, what happened to them and why?
Why does a federal agency need U.S. military equipment?
What exactly is Harry Ried's involvement in this?
If Bundy has not paid since 1993, how come the Feds wait this long?
After last weekend with the BLM and the Cowboys, how long do you think it will be before the Rodeo Clowns are wearing Obama masks again.
Perhaps the Cowboys should be on horseback wearing the White Hats with Obama masks the next time BLM shows up at the Bundy ranch.
You heard it hear first. :)
68 posted on Tue Apr 15 09:21:09 2014 by Balata (Obama is a Lying Fraud, and so are his followers!)
Another city slicker who doesn’t know a thing about ranching.
Where does SHE think her beef dinner comes from? those cows don’t raise themselves & they don’t all find a McDonald’s every morning & go commit suicide on the doorstep and magically turn into hamburger patties. The also don’t find themselves on the doorstep of a grocery store or a high end restaurant, either.
She asks why Harry Reid gets re-elected over & over again? It isn’t from Northern Nevada!! She needs to investigate closer why people all over the country are fraudulently voting. Harry gets re-elected with illegals voting & union members voting and many of them voting multiple times.. with glee! Where does she think that ACORN was so busy??? Las Vegas!! Clark County, Nevada, is rife with illegals. That might enlighten her as to the quality of Harry Reid-—and his whole family.
And don’t tell me that ACORN is no longer—they just splintered into many smaller parts—they are still very active with voter fraud. In the 2008 elections here in Nevada, ACORN got caught turning in 400,000 fraudulent voter registrations. There were only about 2,500,000 total residents in the state-—TOTAL. It took the state AG over 2 years to ‘investigate’ and she finally fined ACORN a whopping $5,000. That amounts to 1.25 CENTS per fraudulent registration!!
How many votes got thru from registrations they did ‘catch’? Do some stronger investigating, Saunders. You just might raise your own profile.
His son is representing a Chinese company that wants to build a solar farm in that valley!! Can you connect the dots, Debra?
The brand new head of the BLM is a person who was an aide to Harry Reid for 9 years!! He was just confirmed about a week ago!! Connect the dots!! You call yourself a reporter? Find out some facts!!
Harry is also involved with the Southern Nevada Water Authority in taking water by pipeline from the eastern half of Nevada to Las Vegas. The SNWA has bought up every available ranch for sale in the past 20 years to take away the water rights. Such rights go back to 1852 with many court adjudications. Harry wants a 490 mile pipeline to move that water which will make eastern Nevada another dust bowl. What exactly is the hydrological aquifer in that valley & surrounds? What water is under Bundy’s ranch? how come he is the last rancher who hasn’t sold out??
How easily would YOU sell a ranch that YOUR ancestors started over 150 years ago??? What would be YOUR price of leaving??? Where would be YOUR line in the sand???
Apparently, more than just Bundy think there IS a line in the sand. Lots of people were there this past weekend, and lots more are willing to support Bundy again.
IF you think you as a consumer don’t need Nevada & it’s agriculture, you are clueless about how may tons of hay are grown here which feed dairy cows in other places. What do you use on your kids cereal, Debra? champagne??? What do you use for cooking? Or do you just always make ‘reservations’??
Get a clue, America!!! The Feds & the BLM are out of control. They spent over $3 million to harass Bundy & go after $1 million in grazing fees they say he owes. Also- They cut his grazing allotment down to where they were only allowing him 250 cows on 260,000 acres!!! Do the math! That is over 1000 acres PER COW!! It is also not enough cows to run the ranch profitably. That kind of land/cow ratio is nuts!!!
Harry Reid is a person with a very checkered past. His whole family follows in his footsteps.
Perhaps Saunders would like to turn into a REAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER and look hard into all the questionable land deals & swaps that Harry has been in the middle of.
Keep in mind that the BLM & it’s sister groups, the US Forest, etc., shut Americans & tourists out of all American PUBLIC places during the ‘shutdown’ last October. They spent millions of dollars preventing us from PAYING to get into such sites, costing them more loss of income.
Ask the tour bus driver who paid her permit during the shutdown the day before she took people into Yellowstone Park —(they took her money) & she was prevented from taking them to the geysers. The tourists were restricted to their hotel in Yellowstone for 2 days & even on the long trip out of the park, they were prevented from even using the rest areas until they were out of the park. But they sure kept her permit money!!! Some of the Japanese tourists thought they were under arrest!!!
That sure was a helpful move for our economy—doncha think, Debra??
There were 50 more ranchers in the same area of the Bundy ranch. ALL the others have sold out. Bundy is definately and literally the LAST MAN STANDING. He is to be praised.
His family owned that land long before the BLM declared themselves in charge of things, and long before the BLM was made up our of whole cloth.
In Nevada, the BLM & the Feds control OVER 84% of the total land mass.
How about your state, Saunders? How much of your state produces not one red cent of property tax because it is controlled by the Feds & as a resident, you have to PAY to go onto public land????? How about begging the local BLM agent for a permit to hold any kind of organized event, while loose bands of motorcycles blast all over the place? How? THEY are NOT ‘organized’!! They never require a permit!!
Tell me about how there is such a sluggish economy and then blockade a perfectly well run event using desert trails & roads. Every one of those competitors buys fuel, an entry, food, receives a finishing award, and professional persons are hired to control the event. Keep choking off all these events & you cripple the economy even further. All of this is on “PUBLIC LAND”.!!
Don’t tell me this isn’t true-—
I LIVE HERE!!!
And how are they treating him about this debt?
It truly baffles leftists that ANYONE would dare think they should resist illegitimate authority.
Not just leftists. All statists. For them, authority IS legitimacy.
Don’t know if you are seeing stories in your area, but the IRS is taking peoples refunds on this years taxes to pay for ‘what their parents owe the government’ from years past. It doesn’t seem to matter how long ago your parent died, either. When people call, they get very little concrete information.
Why such is owed isn’t very clear in any of these stories. Don’t know if it is Medicare end of life costs, or some kind of cooked up ‘overpayment’ on Social Security, but the IRS IS definately collecting such out of this year’s tax refunds.
Congress & the Feds in general are out of control.
The funny/ironic party about “authority IS legitimacy” is that it relies on FORCE to make it true.
Well, that “legitimizing” force just got met with stronger force. So, is the stronger force therefore more legitimate?
If “might makes right”, then those who opposed them are “right”.
If not, then there is an objective source of “right”, and they’ll have to abide by it as well if they expect those that resist them to do so.
You are right. We have lost our representative govt.
RFesearch Wayne Hage in Tonapah, Nevada & find out how many years he fought with the corrupt BLM and how much money he WON in Federal court.
last I knew, they still haven’t paid him and interest is accruing every day. Instead, they go after Bundy.
That land is valuable.
The federal government has the full authority to extract value from that land for the benefit of the public treasury.
Charging grazing fees has a long and established legal history.
Why should one citizen get to benefit from the land without paying? If Cliven Bundy has some mythical "right" to profitably use federal land, why can't any individual citizen just move there, build a house or a factory or an amusement park on it?
It's federal land, and the federal government has authority to determine its use.
A fellow named Hage has fought things in court for as long as Bundy. The court ruled:
In the present case, the Governments actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court, and the burden on the Government of taking a few minutes to realize that the reference to the UCC on the Estates application was nonsensical and would not affect the terms of the permit was minuscule compared to the private interest affected. The risk of erroneous deprivation is great in such a case, because unless the Government analyzes such a note in the margin, it cannot know if the note would affect the terms of the permit such that the acceptance is in fact a counteroffer.
The Government revoked E. Wayne Hages grazing permit, despite his signature on a renewal application form, because he had added a reference to the UCC to his signature indicating that he was not waiving any rights thereby. Based upon E. Wayne Hages declaration that he refused to waive his rightsa declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rightsthe Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed....
...The Government has sufficiently proved an ongoing trespass to warrant a permanent injunction, although not so broad an injunction as the Government desires. Defendants are also entitled to an injunction, as outlined, infra. There is a great probability that the Government will continue to cite Defendants and potentially impound Defendants cattle in the future in derogation of their water rights and those statutory privileges of which the Government has arbitrarily and vindictively stripped them. There is also a probability that Defendants will continue to permit their cattle to graze in excess of the incidental grazing permitted during stock watering that cannot reasonably be prevented. The Court will therefore enjoin all parties in certain respects and will require Hage to apply for a permit and the Government to grant it...
...THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the denial of E. Wayne [*192] Hages renewal grazing application for the years 19932003 was an abuse of discretion, as well as a violation of due process, as the only reason given for the denial was that the applicant noted near his signature that he did not thereby relinquish certain unidentified rights under the UCC, a superfluous condition that cannot possibly have affected the terms of the permit. It is this violation that has led to all of the allegedly un-permitted grazing to date and the BLMs refusal to offer any permit to Hage himself.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government is enjoined from unreasonably interfering with the ability of Defendants Wayne N. Hage and the Estate of E. Wayne Hage to bring cattle to those water sources and attendant ditches in which these Defendants have vested rights to water their cattle as identified herein. The Government may impose reasonable regulations upon access to these water sources, such as specifying which routes shall be used for ingress and egress, if it is necessary to impose such restrictions for legitimate purposes. Reasonable regulations are those that neither prohibit access to the water nor restrict access to the water in a way that unreasonably burdens the ability to access and use the water.
A more productive course of action might be for the state of Nevada to sue the BLM, arguing the BLM is violating public law by trying to eliminate grazing on public land in violation of federal law.
The land the federal government has in Nevada was not purchased or taken from the state of Nevada after the fact by Congress - the federal government owned that land before Nevada was ever a state.
Also, the individual states are not sovereign, by definition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.