1. per the article “Just before the round-up began, Bundy claims armed federal agents surrounded his 150-acre ranch. “
Note - 150 acre ranch. That is what Bundy OWNES. Trust me, you can not raise 500 head on 150 acres. Even with good grazing and grass, the most you can load an acre is about .75 head. In scrub grass area like this local terrain, you may have to have 5 acres per head.
2. The land that the article incorrectly reports as Bundy’s ranch where the 500 head are being raised belongs to the US government. While Bundy’s family may have grazed their cattle on this federal land for a long time, it is still federal land. That is why there is a grazing fee in the first place. Trust me, NO ONE pays grazing fees for land that they own. The whole reason for having the land in the first place is so that you dont have to pay fees and can use your own land as you see fit. The fact that Bundy admits that they have paid grazing fees and are still willing to pay grazing fees is defacto proof that the land belongs to the federal government.
3. Since the federal government is the owner of the land in question, they have the right to say how that land is going to be used. In this case, the government has decided to set aside that land for some tortoise habitat. As such, they have told the rancher that in addition to the grazing fees that he owes, he is no longer able to graze on federal lands as that has been set aside.
4. Bundy has decided to violate private property rights (federal government land) and squat on federal lands without paying the fees or recognizing the right of the land owner to determine the use of the land.
The problem here is no different from a landlord and a renter. If the renter does not pay rent, and continues to use the house, the landlord gets a letter of eviction and has the Sheriff evict that person off the landlords property.
Some thing you are missing... Bundy had more land until the BLM took it away from him....
[ The problem here is no different from a landlord and a renter. If the renter does not pay rent, and continues to use the house, the landlord gets a letter of eviction and has the Sheriff evict that person off the landlords property. ]
I see it as an analogy of the welfare state, the state gives for a long time and then when they taketh away you see people get really angry...
Of course they will never take an EBT card from a thug who wont work, but they will take away the cattle from some rancher...
The politicians are great at playing “Most bang for the buck” with their lever pulling idiots...
This all got out of hand years ago, the federal government encouraged ranchers to think of it as “their land” it was supposed to be a perfect relationship between the government and ranchers. Government would let ranchers use land that in some cases was claimed by rancher before the
BLM existed when the unwritten code of the west was secure water and you could use all the grazing land you could control. The relationship between feds and ranchers was a secure and solid one at that time, like a happy marriage- rancher invested money in government land for improvements like water that benefited wildlife and allowed that to flourish. Roads were built,fences were built, waters put in sometimes at total rancher expense, sometimes on a cost share but rancher generally always provided the labor. This benefited the government in income from leases (which were always cheaper than private leases because rancher was expected to and in some cases required to make improvements and steward the land, benefited the wildlife because water was readily available, benefited the general public because there were roads and wildlife that would not have otherwise been there.
The relationship between ranchers and the federal government was so strong that federal grazing leases were/still are in fact considered part of the ranch. They were considered that way by the government, by banks, appraisers, tax entities. Ranches were valued based on the grazing lease that went with the ranch. Because of this relationship there is no real way to compare federal grazing leases to private leases.
The relationship between ranchers and the government went sour years ago when liberals decided cattle were bad and we should all be vegetarians so cattle/ranchers needed to go. liberals started using endangered species, environmental issues- you name it to get ranchers off of government land. I have no idea when it all began for sure since there was no FR then to keep up with shenanigans but I know it was going sour in the 1970s in some places. Going back to water rights, some ranchers had legally filed water rights in some cases on land they did not technically own. In some places there is a distinct difference between land ownership, water rights, mineral rights, and those rights can be owned by different people. Some of the ranchers owned water rights on what came to be government land. A rancher here in NM got in a similar situation as Bundy and relied on his documents that showed his family owned water rights on government land before the government claimed “ownership” remember state rights were more important then than federal laws and states allowed this to happen. Google Kit Laney NM to see the issues he had with the feds. In some places the government filed for water rights that were already owned by ranchers and then passed laws that the rancher would lose his water rights for non- use and would then not allow the rancher to have cattle there to use the water- catch 22. It has all been very complicated legally over the years.
Upshot is the article that said Bundy’s neighbors had been regulated out of business but he held firm sounds pretty accurate as to what started this battle.
I have to thank my lucky stars that my father was so wise, and that he and my grandfather did not trust the feds. We never leased government land, my dad said the ranchers were going to get screwed at some point because they did not have deed to that land and any rancher that paid millions of dollars (which they did and still do) for a ranch that was basically worthless as a ranch without the government land was insane. My grandfather and dad never fell for the whole, treat it like you own it, include it in your ranch for all purposes way of ranching because they did not trust the feds.