As I understand it, the old deal is what Bundy is pointing to. He has a history on the land, and when the new deal with BLM came to pass, he took a pass. Is that supportable? I remember when military retirees took the government to court over promises about lifetime healthcare that were made to them long ago. They were able to produce a few old recruiting brochures that verified the promises were made, and up to that year group was permitted to continue operating under those older promises. That seemed fair to me.
I also recall reading someplace that one received 10 year deals with BLM but they were renewable except in extremity. As I understand it, BLM acknowledged that, but used the desert tortoise as their “extreme” reason for not renewing.
So, Bundy’s case appears to be based on old promises. His case also is based on his family’s presence on that land back into the 1880’s, iirc.
In my mind, any time someone permits you to work without interference, they are acknowledging your right to be there. I remember a story once about some kids shoveling snow off neighbor driveways. One old man watched them shovel but refused to pay saying he hadn’t agreed to it. They said he had. He had to pay because he was both aware and permitting of their completing his driveway. Now, that isn’t western rangeland, but it is a principle that says with awareness goes responsibility.
Now, this is ALL mitigated at this point by Sen Reid’s shenanigans regarding this very land. I read one of the documents yesterday about impediments to development of this area that Reid wants.
This has become a classic Louis L’Amour western. The big bad landowner/politician is using brute power to rid himself of smaller ranchers. We need William Tell Sackett to ride into town.
” His case also is based on his family’s presence on that land back into the 1880’s, iirc.”
Here is another point that is often missing. I usually quote the 1998 case, because it spells out in detail why Bundy stopped paying. However, the land his cattle are being seized from are the “New Trespass Lands” in the 2013 case. These are lands Bundy’s cattle were not grazing on until AFTER the 1998 decision.
Bundy is claiming he has been grazing there since the 1800s. But he was NOT grazing there at least from 1954-1998. It was only after 1998 that he STARTED using that land for grazing. Had he used that land from grazing prior to 1998, it would have been part of the 1998 case.
“In an order dated November 3, 1998, this court permanently enjoined Bundy from grazing his livestock within a different area, the Bunkerville Allotment, and ordered Bundy to remove his livestock from the Allotment before November 30, 1998. U.S. v. Bundy, No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998). The court also ordered that the [*2] United States was entitled to trespass damages from Bundy for livestock left on the Bunkerville Allotment after such date.
In its [new] complaint, the United States alleges that, not only has Bundy failed to comply with the court’s orders that he remove his cattle from the Bunkerville Allotment and pay the financial penalties, but that Bundy’s cattle have moved beyond the boundaries of the Bunkerville Allotment and are now trespassing on a broad swath of additional federal land (the “New Trespass Lands”), including public lands within the Gold Butte area that are administered by the BLM, and National Park System land within the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
The United States seeks an order enjoining Bundy’s unauthorized grazing on the New Trespass Lands...
...Bundy principally opposes the United States’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public lands in question. As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States...
...Moreover, Bundy is incorrect in claiming...that the Property Clause of the United States Constitution applied only to federal lands outside the borders of states...[and] that the United States is basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass...
...The United States has submitted Bundy’s deposition excerpts indicating that Bundy has grazed livestock on the New Trespass Lands and further evidence of the trespass of Bundy’s cattle in those areas.”
These lands were not part of the grazing Bundy did from 1954 thru 1998. He has been grazing there, illegally, from no earlier than 1998.
(((the new deal with BLM)))
But my understanding is that the BLM ‘changed the rules’ without meeting with the ranchers, which apparently was done before...
I think this guy just got fed up with being pushed to the bring with no say along the way once the Gov. began laying down conditions etc...and BLM began working with EPA...which we all know is the Governments hired thugs!
It's only relevance is as backstory and history. I enjoy backstory and history, but I'm now much more concerned with the current situation.
You've said two seemingly contradictory things: (a) Bundy took a pass; and (b) BLM did not renew.
BLM did not offer renewal on the same terms and Bundy took a pass.
According to federal law, BLM grazing permits and leases are "generally renewable if the BLM determines that the terms and conditions of the expiring permit or lease are being met." However, the law provides that the amount of grazing on the permit or lease may be changed by the BLM in a new contract for different reasons, which is what the BLM did in 1993. I haven't found that regulation, but the descriptions I've found in various legal summaries and articles appear to indicate that the presence of an Endangered Wildlife Habitat is one of the valid reasons.
As far as the Bundy's prescriptive rights to graze from the late 1880s, the answer would be complicated. The Bundys only grazed on open range for about 45 years. When the law required a grazing permit and grazing fees, the Bundys began paying it and did so for 59 years. In most cases, if you sit on a claim (e.g., prescriptive rights to property) for 59 years, the claim may be subject to an equitable, affirmative legal defense call 'laches." Laches is an unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim in a way that prejudices the opposing party." The doctrine of laches would only apply if the federal government had been prejudiced by the delay.
In addition, paying grazing fees for 59 years can be argued as evidence the family did not believe it owned prescriptive rights.
Wouldn't your snow story be more analogous if the boys were shoveling snow for their own benefit, and if the owner of the land had ordered the boys off the property, and the owner of the land had gone to federal court on three occasions for a court order that the boys were not allowed on the land.