Bundy is the face of this - like it or not. It’s his argument that is being used for a rallying cry and it’s terribly flawed.
My view of the government is probably identical to yours. However, I own a good plot of acreage and I am sitting the middle of it typing. If my neighbor just pushed his cows onto my property that would be wrong and illegal. I like that it is wrong and illegal. It protects my property and rights.
Bundy let his cows graze on land that was not his. He paid for the rights then stopped paying. A nice profit there. He is not a victim - he is a thief. Showing that we will rally behind his cause is telling my neighbor he can push his cows on my grass for free - sorry, if you can’t see the problem.
You and I probably agree that the land Bundy’s cows were grazing should belong to the state of Nevada because it would likely generate more economic activity benefitting us all. I don’t like the amount of landlord business our government is doing, but I do like laws that protect my property. If those laws are not enforced on public lands what would they care about my lands?
I am not your enemy. If we can’t win the battle of public debate over government it will be each man or group of men for themselves. That is the reality we face, but let’s be realistic - right now the federal government, my state government, and county government to include the courts all protect my right to let my grass grow and die each year as I see fit. Bundy opposed that - albeit on public land, but the principle remains the same.
His cows are not a constant - they are born - they graze and fatten up, and they are harvested. He can’t plant trees he is going to sell on my land either without my permission. That is the real argument here and I am disappointed more of us seem to miss the point. If Bundy can’t cut it in the cattle business he should fold. I can grow apples you won’t believe in my orchard here in the Northwest, but I could not do the same thing living in Florida. Range cattle in scrub brush like this is a tough business and the market dictates if they make a living or not.
If Bundy’s family did not have enough land to support a ranch that’s not my fault, but it does not give him the right to graze his cattle on my land without compensation or my permission. Again, the BLM is NOT price gouging these guys and every roundup every year this man should have adjusted his herd to what he could legally support. That is ranching.
Would you send a SWAT team next door then?
No sir, our views are not the same.
You're comparing your natural right of ownership, to the DELEGATED right of administration of the Federal Government.
This man, however unlawful, is grazing his cattle on public land. And, to no SMALL degree this land rightfully should be delegated to the states for further disposition.
Folks East of the Rockies don't get it for the most part.
Out here it's hard to have a beer on BLM land without a Ranger telling you he's going to look in your truck, or he's going to seize it on the spot.
50 miles from nowhere.
That's why the BLM backed out. They have to go back to the roads wearing their history and reputation.
I believe the FEDS started squeezing his land requirements due to this
turtle, he had ALWAYS paid his fees then his land for his cattle became
smaller and smaller due to this turtle, then I also believe when you pay
RENT for the right to graze there are certain things the Feds are responsible for maintaining the land which were also NOT being done!!
He believes the state should get the fees and be responsible for
maintaining the land local gov is always closer to the land NOT THE FEDS!!!!”
Isn't that state an open-range* state?
If it is, then it is the responsibility of the owner to fence their lands to keep cattle out.
Did the BLM, who claim to be the owner do this?
This is completely avoiding the [very real and important] issue of whether or not the Constitution allows the federal government to own lands for purposes other than ports, forts, post-offices and "other needful buildings"; good argument can be made that ownership of lands which are not used for these functions by the federal government is illegitimate. — It is also avoiding the issue of how much land is claimed by the federal government (in excess of 80% in NV's case) and if such can be compatible with the idea of a sovereign state.
| * | In the Western United States and Canada, open range is rangeland where cattle roam freely regardless of land ownership. The practice was used in Mexico, and some argue it may have been the predecessor to the open range practice in the American West, which borrowed many other cattle raising techniques from Mexico. Where there are "open range" laws, people wanting to keep animals off their property must erect a legal fence to keep animals out, as opposed to the "herd district" where an animal's owner must fence it in or otherwise keep it on the person's own property. |