BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

BUNKERVILLE (KSNV MyNews3.com) -- The gathering of rancher Cliven Bundy's cattle in northeast Clark County has been stopped by the director of the Bureau of Land Management.

The BLM announcement came as Bundy was meeting with Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie about the week-long dispute.

The BLM had been using contract cowboys to round up Bundy's 900 head of cattle that have been grazing over 600,000 square acres in northeast Clark County for more than 20 years without his payment of grazing fees.

As of Friday they had secure 389 cattle from the Gold Butte area, nearly 90 percent of them marked with the Bundy Ranch brand.

"As we have said from the beginning of the gather to remove illegal cattle from federal land consistent with court orders, a safe and peaceful operation is our number one priority. After one week, we have made progress in enforcing two recent court orders to remove the trespass cattle from public lands that belong to all Americans.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.

"We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner.

Ranching has always been an important part of our nation’s heritage and continues throughout the West on public lands that belong to all Americans. This is a matter of fairness and equity, and we remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public lands ranchers do every year. After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially."

"The safety of all individuals involved in this matter has been my highest priority," the email said. "Given the circumstances, today's outcome is the best we could have hoped for. I appreciate that the Department of the Interior and the BLM were willing to listen to the concerns of the people of Nevada."

“If Such an agreement were made as a precondition toward statehood it would be null & void upon obtaining statehood because All States must have an EQUAL footing.”

“The meaning of the Equal Footing Doctrine is discussed in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the shores of and land beneath navigable waters were reserved to the states, and were not granted by the Constitution to the federal government. Id. 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 229. New states, the Court reasoned, have the same “rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction” over the shores of and land beneath navigable waters as do the original states. Id.4
21

However, the Supreme Court has declined to extend the Equal Footing Doctrine to lands other than those underneath navigable waters or waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tides. In Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229, 244, 33 S.Ct. 242, 244, 57 L.Ed. 490 (1913), the Supreme Court held that title to an island within a stream did not pass to the state of Idaho, but instead was retained by the United States. The Court stated that because the island “was not part of the bed of the stream or land under the water ... its ownership did not pass to the State or come within the disposing influence of its laws.” Id. The Court went on to note that the island was “fast dry land, and therefore remained the property of the United States and subject to disposal under its laws....” Id. Sixty years later, the Supreme Court characterized its decision in Scott as holding that the rule in Pollard’s Lessee “does not reach islands or fast lands located within such waters. Title to islands remains in the United States, unless expressly granted along with the stream bed or otherwise.” Texas v. Louisiana, 410 U.S. 702, 713, 93 S.Ct. 1215, 1221, 35 L.Ed.2d 646 (1973). The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, does not operate to reserve title to fast dry lands to individual states.

Moreover, Supreme Court has long held that the Equal Footing Doctrine refers to “those attributes essential to [a state’s] equality in dignity and power with other States.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 568, 31 S.Ct. 688, 690, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911). The Court has noted that a new state enters the Union “in full equality with all the others,” and that this equality may forbid a compact between a new state and the United States “limiting or qualifying political rights and obligations.” Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U.S. 223, 245, 21 S.Ct. 73, 81, 45 L.Ed. 162 (1900). However, “a mere agreement in reference to property involves no question of equality of status.” Id. The Court has observed that “[s]ome States when they entered the Union had within their boundaries tracts of land belonging to the Federal Government; others were sovereigns of their soil.” United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 716, 70 S.Ct. 918, 922, 94 L.Ed. 1221 (1950). While these disparities may cause economic differences between the states, the purpose of the Equal Footing Doctrine is not to eradicate all diversity among states but rather to establish equality among the states with regards to political standing and sovereignty. Id.
23

The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, applies to political rights and sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics of the states. Moreover, the Equal Footing Doctrine applies primarily to the shores of and lands beneath navigable waters, not to fast dry lands. Therefore, the Equal Footing Doctrine would not operate, as Gardners argue, to give Nevada title to the public lands within its boundaries.”

http://openjurist.org/107/f3d/1314/united-states-v-gardner

The 1845 case actually went further than the 9th Circuit said it did, writing:

“There can be no distinction between those states which acquired their independence by force of arms and those which acquired it by the peaceful consent of older states. The Constitution says, the latter must be admitted into the union on an equal footing with the rest. The dissenting opinion of Judge Thompson (page 419) is not inconsistent with this.

If these positions are right, the United States had nothing below high water-mark. They might have reserved it in the compact with the state. The third article of the treaty with Spain (1 Land Laws, 57,) contains such a reservation. But as it is, the United States have nothing in Alabama but proprietary rights. They cannot put their foot in a state to claim jurisdiction without its consent. No principle is more familiar than this, that whilst a state has granted a portion of its sovereign power to the United States, it remains in the enjoyment of all the sovereignty which it has not voluntarily parted with.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=44&page=212

IOW, the 1845 case said it is acceptable for Congress to put conditions on a prospective state than wants to join the union. They ruled as they did in part because Alabama had no restriction placed on it that would involve the dispute.

You may not like the reasoning. I do not. But it HAS been the reasoning since 1845. I see no indication that the current US Supreme Court will reverse precedent and declare all us lands in the west to belong to the states. Do you?

I guess the one question I have is: can I, today, file for, pay the fees for, and be granted rights to graze cattle on that land?

My experience is that yes you can and the government officials will happily accept your tithes for as long as possible.

Then will come the EPA, the Water Management Authority, the Greens, the Illegals claiming it is THEIR land historically, the Native Americans with the same claims, some rich private company that needs it for their own special project, or the government itself that has discovered either something on your property that they now need or that it is simply in the way of.

Then your property, your house(s), your livestock, your water and mineral rights, and any improvements you made will all be made as nothing. You will be given little if anything for what you owned and whatever taxes, fees, and fines you paid will forever be not even a historical footnote. I think that in the past from a few cases I have read about, compensation was mandatory and precidence (sp?) usually determined it to be one Federal Reserve Note in the amount of one dollar.

Forgive me if I’m reading this wrong but the 1845 Federal employee Edict said nothing of the subject which was in regard to the legitimacy of the Federal precondition to statehood in regard to sovereign claim over their own state.

That would in fact violate the 1911 Federal Employee Edict as sovereign claim over your own domain is THE essential and defining attribute of any state State, in regard to other states.

The real issue however is not the Opinion of the Federal Employees in Black robes but the political opinion of the people and opportunity for the People of Nevada To uses this issue and Obama’s supposed cam pain for more “equality” to squore a more “fair” share of her own land.

http://www.ecowest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Slide12.png

We should write the Governor and Legislators of Nevada and urge them to get on the ball to try and turn this issue into one about the fact that Washington Currently horde 85% of Nevada’s land and resources more than any other state!

Ask Obama and the people if this is a “Fair” or “Equal footing”. Then ask Washington for a “more fair” share of their land & resources.

My experience is that yes you can and the government officials will happily accept your tithes for as long as possible.

Well, if that is true, then the obvious solution is for the 5,000 or so patriots who are in place should each pay a few pennies to the Bundies, buy the cattle, and pay for the grazing fee for their cattle that is on BLM land. And then turn over ownership of that cattle to the Bundies in return for managing the cattle.

I'm going to bet however that the BLM will not issue a grazing permit to anyone, hence why the paid rustlers are not paying the slightest attention to branding on the cattle and all cattle they come across are being rounded up. That no one is permitted to graze on that public land, that the excuse is a protected turtle or moth or rodent which somehow has managed to survive with cattle grazing on that land.

That the entire issue revolves around BLM land managers who have spent decades trying to get all cattle off that land, or to demand mitigation measures that are utterly unreasonable and unfeasible, and this is why the Bundies stopped paying for grazing rights.

But it would be very very good for people to actually test these theories, and demonstrate clearly for all to see that BLM, much as they claim this is all about unpaid fees, have no interest at all in collecting those fees from anyone, and simply wish to close this land off for other uses.

In the 1845 case, the US had not retained ownership as part of Alabama entering the union. The decision noted, “They might have reserved it in the compact with the state. The third article of the treaty with Spain (1 Land Laws, 57,) contains such a reservation. But as it is, the United States have nothing in Alabama but proprietary rights.”

“The real issue however is not the Opinion of the Federal Employees in Black robes but the political opinion of the people and opportunity for the People of Nevada”

It is simple - convince Congress to agree to cede title to the land to Nevada. Good luck! And I’m sincere in wishing you that, since I’d like to see all BLM & USFS land in Arizona get turned over to the state of Arizona. However, I hope you will forgive me if I do not hold my breath while waiting for Congress....

It might be more productive to pressure the GOP House to hold oversight hearings, and pressure the BLM & USFS to be less anti-grazing...perhaps set goals for each state to allow X amount of grazing each year. But I honestly think the GOP is just the right wing of the DC Buzzard, and I don’t think we can even get something like that passed in the House, let alone the Senate.

I would also be glad if Congress would just eliminate the “Wilderness land” designation. It has been dishonest from the start. They also need to revise the Endangered Species Act to make it agree with reality - that being that some species need to go extinct.

But again, I will not hold my breath. I see no sign that anyone in Congress will touch those with a 10 foot pole. I’m certain both of my US Senators, John McCain and Jeff McFlake, Republicans from Arizona, would strongly condemn such action...but then, I voted against McCain in the last election, and I will never cast a vote for either of them again in my life.

I guess this is my real bitterness. I see no sign either party gives a rat’s rear about anything I believe in. I’m not sure how a monarchy is any less representative than our current state.

Obviously, I disagree with you, Mr Rogers. I think the Constitution limits what the Fed can own in terms of land. I think that the Federal government stewards the boundaries of the USA on behalf of the States and People and that any addition of land was an addition to their stewardship and not to their ownership.

First, we find the limitations of what the nation is authorized to own:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

Next, we run across this odd provision that, by your interpretation, would seem to say that the Congress could sell it's "property" in Nevada to Pennsylvania:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;

So, if they own 80% of Nevada, then they can sell 80% of Nevada. By my way of thinking, they would not be able to do that because they are not property owners.

As always, you have been a principled, logical FRiend in our discussions, and I appreciate it. If we all agreed all the time on some partyline, then we might as well be liberals.

Perhaps not in your life time, but we can make an issue and raise awareness of the inequality of Nevada’s land and resource position in respect to all other states.

This issue right here in regard to grassing rights is an opportunity the people of Nevada and their State should jump upon to push forward the issue that Nevada needs a “more fair share” of her own land to live upon.

Expecting Congressional actions on this matter before political action to raise awareness of Eastern hypocritical regarding very real and measurable land & resource inequality in the West is naive.

Look at this map: http://www.ecowest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Slide12.png

This is not fair, the Feds Hording 85% of Nevada while retaining only 1% of New York is not fair. Why not hold the so called “99%’s” to their word?

Why not challenge Obama to confront this inequity as the source of this conflict?

Once again this is a great opportunity for Nevada and All Western States. Our leaders need to step up and see what they can reclaim for us.

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.