Posted on 04/16/2014 5:24:40 PM PDT by Kaslin
Deserts always feel like my natural habitat, and I am very fond of them. That being said, I have, for my sins, spent a fair amount of time in Clark County, Nev., and it is not the loveliest stretch of desert in these United States, or even in the top twelve. Protecting the pristine beauty of the sun-baked and dust-caked outskirts of Las Vegas and its charismatic fauna from grazing cattle — which the Bureau of Land Management seems to regard as an Old Testament plague — seems to me to be something less than a critical national priority. At the same time, the federal government’s fundamental responsibility, which is defending the physical security of the country, is handled with remarkable nonchalance: Millions upon millions upon millions of people have crossed our borders illegally and continue to reside within them. Cliven Bundy’s cattle are treated as trespassers, and federal agents have been dispatched to rectify that trespass; at the same time, millions of illegal aliens present within our borders are treated as an inevitability that must be accommodated. In practice, our national borders are a joke, but the borders of that arid haven upon which ambles the merry Mojave desert tortoise are sacrosanct.
Strangely, many of the same people who insist that Mr. Bundy must be made an example of for the sake of the rule of law protest at the same time that it is not only impossible but positively undesirable for the federal government to deploy federal resources to rectify the federal crime of jumping the federal border.
Apparently, there are trespassers and there are trespassers. The citizens of this country, like those of any country, have an interest in the question of who is permitted to immigrate here and on what terms. Those interests and the ability to act in their furtherance are generally considered to be a substantial part of what we mean by “sovereignty.” Sovereignty has, historically, been regarded as a serious business. But if we judge the federal government by its actions rather than by the words of its functionaries, the defense of national sovereignty is many, many places down the federal to-do list from looking after tortoise welfare.
I myself am fairly liberal on the question of immigration and a sucker for desert creatures that have fewer than eight legs but at least two. There are intelligent and honorable people on both sides of our immigration disputes and on both sides of the Endangered Species Act. But juxtaposing the energetic and heavily armed attempted enforcement of the Endangered Species Act with the utter disregard that the federal government has shown for our immigration laws produces a political equation that is impossible to balance. You could be a strict rule-of-law man and demand rigid enforcement of both immigration laws and environmental laws. You could be a latitudinarian and prefer lax enforcement of both. You could make a case for focusing on legitimate federal priorities and be Attila the Hun on the border but Mr. Magoo on turtle turf. But what argument is there for taking a pass on actual federal responsibilities, among which defending the border looms large, while sending in the big guns against felonious specimens of beef on the hoof?
The two legged trespasser befoe the 4 legged ones argument is Strong.
The two legged trespasser before the 4 legged ones enforcement argument is Strong.
Something that is getting kind of lost in all of the positioning is the role of the BLM in relation to other agencies. For critical habitats or scenic areas, there are wilderness area designations. The National Parks and forests also protect wildlife and scenery, but offer more access by humans. National monuments are also used for middle level access by the public and protections for wildlife.
And then there is the BLM land. BLM land is the "miscellaneous" category of federal land. It is land that has been designated for multiple uses, including for natural resources , recreation, and ranching. BML land is very good for wildlife, but only in a roundabout way. Most BML land, is open to the public, but it isn't particularly attractive as a tourist destination, and so it gets far less human traffic, which leaves the animals alone. But it is wrong to say that BML land is for the preservation of endangered species and critical habitats, because if it was a critical habitat, it wouldn't be designated BLM land.
Don’t let the feds distract you with their “protect the tortoise” bald-faced lie. It is completely untrue. Cattle do not harm tortoise habitat, they expand and enhance it. There are more tortoises there now than there were before cattle.
Here’s how it works:
A tortoise has a fairly small travel radius from food and water, because they travel so slowly. Cows, on the other hand can range much farther from water. The cows make regular deposits in the form of partially digested plants and water. When a tortoise comes upon one of these hospitable piles, they see food and drink - so they don’t have to keep as close to the water hole. Voila! More available habitat = more tortoises.
It is a complete fraud - and we should not give their duplicity the honor of even considering it other that a complete lie.
BLM are lawless
1866 Water Law/ USC CHAPTER 15 §661
U.S. v. Estate of E. Wayne Hage
We all understand. Illegal aliens will one day vote for Rats. I seriously doubt Cliven Bundy ever will. “Reward our friends, punish our enemies”. Valerie Jarret.
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.