Posted on 04/11/2014 11:23:53 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s decades-long battle against the federal government over grazing rights has heated to the point where militia groups have joined in and taken up spots against the feds who’ve circled his land — and talk is, they’re not afraid to open fire.
A spokesman for the one of the militia groups said as much to local 8 News Now: I’m not “afraid to shoot,” he said.
Margaret Houston, Mr. Bundy’s sister and a cancer survivor, said at a town hall gathering this week that the situation “was like a war zone” and that she felt “like I was not in the United States,” The Daily Mail reported. The Las Vegas Review-Journal described it this way: “Serious bloodshed was narrowly avoided,” in a story about how dogs were unleashed on a woman who was pregnant while the rancher’s son was hit with a taser.
On Tuesday, armed Bureau of Land Management agents stormed Mr. Bundy’s property, escalating a court dispute that’s wound for two decades over the rancher’s refusal to pay for grazing fees.
~~snip~~
Now militia groups are on the scene, promising to help the Bundys keep up the fight.
“This is what we do, we provide armed response,” Jim Lordy, with Operation Mutual Aid, told the local broadcast station. “They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.”
Mr. Lordy also said “many more” militia groups are coming to the site to join in the Bundy family defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
see #205.
Sarge, you need to reevaluate this whole thing. The Harry Reid connection to this particular region and the solar panel China deal is real.
If I need to vote HiTech. You have my support for any Meow.
A friend has a ranch in Oregon and runs on BLM land. Years ago he had to keep his cattle away from the creeks. And BLM cleaned up all of the “crap” in the creeks. Fallen timber, big boulders, etc. The rancher was trying to explain to them that the trout liked that “crap”. And having the cows in the creek stirs up the bottom and keeps it from getting silted in.
10 years later the BLM was back in after the trout numbers had dropped. I imagine they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on studies. They put all of the “crap” back into the creeks and let him run cattle again. The trout bounced back.
Excellent writing and organizing. Thanks, DaxtonBrown.
Nice, aint it? FedGov never needs to follow the same rules the peasants have to. The FedGov also agrees that the "commerce clause" means the FedGov can disregard the limited and enumerated powers of the Constitution too! And Jim Crow is the law of the land, lest negros be allowed to carry guns wherever they go.
Sheep are not allowed on that BLM either, so don't go there.
From the founding of the Bundy Ranch in 1876 until 1946, the Bundy cattle grazed around the ranch in the desert, because no one else lived there or cared, or did not want to spend the capital to acquire cattle and manage them as the Bundy’s were doing. Ranching is hard work.
In 1946, the BLM was founded. Sometime between its founding and 1993 they started to charge ranchers rent per cow on land that belonged to the USA. Now, back then, say in the late 19th Century Early 20th Century, desert land was considered worthless, unless there were minerals on it, or had a stream/creek/river that could be dammed. But that area around Bundy’s land was pretty worthless then.
In 1993, the BLM told the Bundy family that they could NOT freely graze as many cattle on “their” land as they used to (and paid the privilege for), but rather the BLM would allow NO MORE than 150 cattle to graze that land. Bundy, seeing how this would ruin him, objected. And the rest has been an ongoing legal matter since, with him refusing to “only” keep 150 cows on it, and the BLM racking up fines on him for doing so.
What was the reason for BLM’s decision back in 1993, to limit the Bundy Ranch to only 150 cows? The Desert Tortoise, who the environmentalists declared endangered by the cattle. Even that is a lie. The problem with these environmental laws is you cannot win against them. Judges ALWAYS rule for the government/greenies/environmentalists.
So you might see a kook who is trespassing, but I see an American, who, by the Grace of God go you or I, being ruined financially over some bureaucratic pencil pusher enamored by romantic save the whales types.
And one more thing. YOU call it trespass, yet the Bundy Ranch was there from 1876. Sure it was US land (as all the West was then), but we admired and encouraged settlers then. Now we kick them to the curb, because they're so-called despoilers of Mother Nature. And the kick of the government is deadly and powerful. Conservatives SHOULD support him.
>>....(recall hearing that the BATFE and FBI have sent agents and SWAT teams to take control of the situation from the BLM)....
If that is the case this will not end well for the ranchers. Wouldn’t Obama have to be informed and ok this as well?<<—
Or for the FBI/BATFE either for that matter.
If what I heard was right Mr. Bundy said they owned about 150 acres, the rest was leased from the Feds.
“Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. “
False. He has applied from grazing from the BLM since the 1950s. It was not something new. He once tried to pay Clark County, and Clark County returned his check with a note explaining they were not the right people.
“Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch.”
Actually:
“The decision from the BLM does not inform [*8] Bundy he can no longer graze livestock due to the protection of the Desert Tortoise, but instead reminds Bundy that his grazing permit would end at the end of the next month, February 1993, and the new permit application was attached to the decision. The decision informed Bundy the BLM would issue him a new ten-year federal grazing permit for the Bunkerville Allotment. Mot. Dism. (#4), Exh. E. The terms and conditions for the new federal grazing permit allowed for livestock grazing with some restrictions to be determined by the BLM.”
“Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM.”
Again, false. My rancher friend has also bought a grazing permit for $100,000, only to have the BLM reduce it to almost nothing a couple of years later - as the grazing permit allowed them to do. You do not buy an amount of grazing set in stone.
In Bundy’s case, he bought a right to graze with an “ephemeral permit”. “Regions classed as ephemeral do not consistently produce forage, but periodically provide annual vegetation suitable for livestock grazing. 33 FED. REG. 18245. Before grazing on an ephemeral range, a person must submit an application to the BLM. The BLM will determine if adequate forage is available and that the use is consistent with all of the terms and conditions of the permit.”
And yes, ranchers routinely build improvements to the land, but that does not give them ownership. My friend spent $20,000 in one year improving one of his allotments. The BLM wanted him to cut his grazing the following year by 90%. After going out and viewing the land with a BLM supervisor, the allotment was cut 50%, not 90%. That is how you deal with the BLM -you TALK to them and explain.
Sometimes that does no good. There are evil people in the BLM, just as the USFS is now infested with them. Friends who worked in the state wildlife agencies tell me horror stories about what the BLM & USFS have turned in to. Both agencies have been infested with enviro-wackos. There is a reason for my tagline!
However, when a rancher makes improvements to an allotment, he knows in advance that does NOT give him any right to continue grazing there. It is part of the contract he has. If he doesn’t like the contract, he can buy an allotment from a private person or from a government agency in a different location. It is common in the west to transport your animals between allotments hundreds of miles apart. A prudent rancher reviews the transportation costs and pays for an allotment accordingly.
Bundy’s claims are not backed up by the paperwork he filled out. He stopped paying because he decided the US government didn’t own any land and because he is a citizen of Nevada. Try that with the IRS and see how long you stay out of prison...
City kids get government jobs working in the country. Their G-man authority rots their brains completely. Listening to property owners is forbidden in their manuals on page 1.
Whether it’s nice or not is not the issue. I am not a supporter of government regulation, by far. I also detest the lawlessness of this administration in particular and past administrations in general. The fed has abused the commerce clause for decades as a catch-all for not being able to apply other clauses. I get it. Ok, for sake of debate on this thread, let’s just forget about any of the current laws, and simply blab about how we’d like it, how it should be, and how it will likely never be again. To hell with anything else. We have both types on this thread and all the other threads on this topic. It’s actually quite fruitless and tiring to debate such wish-it-were or what’s-wrong people.
Bundy told the BLM he would not pay them because they had no authority since the feds didn’t own the land. That comes from Bundy’s sworn response in court. Bundy first started working with the BLM in 1954. He refused to pay after Feb 1993.
The federal government is right and the rancher is wrong?
FReepers should neither support nor sympathize with the rancher? Or what? Or else?
Spit it out, clarify your meaning for us.
I have read the following repeatedly on this and other threads. How did the BLM use his fees against him? How is this manifested to Bundy? Anybody?
TO ARMS..! TO ARMS... THE BLM IS COMMING...!!
I say we trash the place and start over....
In any case, it is clear, the FedGov is off the leash.
Anyone outside of DC that can't see that are idiots.
5.56mm
I do not reject that the govey is out of control. It has never been more out of control. The act of bringing in the armed LEO the way the BLM did is infuriating to me, and there is no excuse for doing so. But we should at least attempt to vet Bundy of any wrongdoing before blindly standing with him. He does not appear to have “clean hands”. There still is so much information missing.
“I live in SW Utah. I grew up on a ranch less than 100 miles from the Bundy’s ranch. My father knows Cliven Bundy. I know Cliven’s son Ryan. This is not a hoax, it is an action of force by the BLM.
The BLM was going to sell the cattle at one of the smallest cattle markets in Utah. No cattle markets in Nevada would take the cattle without a properly signed brand inspection (which the BLM cannot obtain without Cliven Bundy’s signature). The BLM paid the owner of the Utah cattle market $300,000 to do the sale (’R’ Livestock Connection in Monroe, Utah, owned by one Scott G. Robbins, according to the Utah Business Entity Search). Utah Governor Herbert stepped in and forbid them from bringing the cattle into Utah without the legally required health and brand inspections (which again, require Bundy’s signature) and that no feral cattle are allowed to be imported at all (per Utah statute). Because Bundy claims ownership over maybe 350-500 head of branded cattle, the other 500-700 estimated head of cattle would all be considered feral. BLM officially backed off, but we suspect they are still secretly shipping them through Utah without any permission to do so, to “private” buyers in Colorado. The contract cowboys that the BLM hired to do the roundup are from Sampson Livestock in Meadow, Utah (traitors one and all).
From what I understand, Cliven Bundy owns both the Water Rights and Grazing Rights to all of the land where his cattle run. If Bundy failed to use them, the Grazing Rights would revert to the BLM and would be retired, while the Water Rights would revert to the State of Nevada, likely to be sold to the highest bidder (which would probably be a bidding war between mineral companies that are behind this action with the BLM and the City of Las Vegas which is thirsty for water and has had multiple attempts to buy water—through eminent domain from Utah farmers and ranchers—from Utah, which were all blocked by the Utah Legislature and Utah Governor Herbert). Chances are, the BLM has already filed a claim on the water rights so that they can sell to the highest bidder (instead of the state) and are trying to get the cattle off to show that Bundy cannot use the water beneficially (much like what the US Forest Service and BLM both tried to do to Wayne Hage).
Now, for Cliven Bundy, he’s not fighting this for his cattle or his own livelihood. He recognizes that he will probably die before this fight is over. He has said multiple times that he is fighting this to wake people up about the tyranny of the Federal Government and also to help wake up the western states about getting the rights to their own land back from the federal government, which has repeatedly shut down ranchers and closed off land. (MO = 1st, get all the ranchers, farmers, Native Americans, and foresters that use the land for positive, sustainable production off of the land; 2nd, grab up all the resources; 3rd, close off the lands to public access including camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, boating, shooting, etc; 4th, sell off the resources to the highest bidder regardless of what that will do to the land, the local environment, or the economy; 5th, collect royalties on the resources in perpetuity; 6th, reduce and eliminate all SLS and PILT payments to the states, impoverishing them beyond belief.)
Anyway, thanks for posting about this. It is important for us to be able to raise the appropriate resistance.”
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.