Posted on 05/10/2014 10:21:14 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
This eye-blink of a town in the state’s scenic southeastern corner bills itself as the “Gateway to Adventure.” But this weekend it promises to be more like a launchpad for civil unrest.
A band of angry citizens plans to ride all-terrain vehicles onto closed-off, federally managed public land Saturday in protest against the federal Bureau of Land Management, which many say has unfairly closed off a prized area, cheating residents of outdoor recreation.
The ride, organized by San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman, is a gambit to assert county sovereignty over Recapture Canyon, known for its archaeological ruins, that BLM officials say has been jeopardized from overuse. The canyon was closed to motor vehicles in 2007, the agency said, after two men forged an illegal seven-mile trail. Hikers and those on horseback are still allowed there.
Lyman and his supporters want the BLM to act more quickly on a years-old request for a public right-of-way through the area. “You can’t just arbitrarily shut down a road in San Juan County,” he said. “If you can do that and get away with it, what else can you do?”
The revolt has received national attention, coming at the heels of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s successful standoff last month against the BLM that suggests a rising battle across the West over states’ rights on federally managed public lands...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I’m looking for the politician who will call for BLM to be disbanded and the lands they administer to be handed over to the states.
Aside from military bases and office buildings, the federal government should not own vast swaths of land. The land grab was a power grab and needs to be reversed.
For me the better answer would be to sell the land to US citizens, perhaps by lottery, with leaseholders having first shot at the land they lease. But BLM itself needs to go.
Under no circumstance should BLM arm itself beyond whatever right-to-bear-arms any other citizen has.
IIRC, the road was ‘temporarily closed’ in 2007 and has not been reopened. That is pretty typical of what has been a gradual closing off of access to motorized vehicles all over the west.
Are you my 5th grade teacher? Someone chewed gum, so no one goes out for recess?
There are laws to deal with the people who broke the law.
Your comment is perfect liberal speak; incrimination by association.
There is no logical connection to people having fun in a designated ATV area and what people will do in a sensitive area.
If people act badly then discuss that with them. To assume everyone will act badly just displays the likelihood that you act badly when you think no one is watching.
Since you are handy with search, look up the meaning of character. It may be enlightening.
People go to the outdoors for recreation. And there are many ways to recreate outdoors. Hiking, camping, horses, fishing, picnicking, etc. Whether to go to the desert, the mountains, the beach, or wherever, there is one thing that you will find that all these people doing all these different activities have in common: they all detest the people on the ATVs. Because the ATVers are loud, obnoxious, and could care less about other peoples activities.
It doesn't make any difference who's land it is. Feds, state, county, timber company, private pasture, or the church across the street from me, the ATVers will tear it up.
Same thing at the lake. Some are boating, skiing, fishing, camping, hiking, picnicking, etc. But everyone of them detest the obnoxious ass-hole on the waverunner/skidoo.
Well, we will agree to disagree for this reason; Your comment says by implication (and nearly outright) that ALL people who use ATV’s are obnoxious and could care less about other people.
I do believe (and know for a fact) that this is not true. I know responsible people who use ATV’s and who certainly care about other peoples experience wherever they are.
Are there obnoxious people? Of course.
I am a life-time motorcycle rider and know that the vast majority of motorcycle riders are not obnoxious, care-less people.
The one-size-fits-all approach to problems is the slippery slope causing many of the abysmal conditions in our country today.
You do not have to look far to see abject failure by our current government (assuming they actually want to help) in trying to use this kind of approach to ‘help’ build more jobs, healthcare, help the disadvantaged and we could go on for hours on this vein.
Instead of focusing on the behavior of some people try looking at the illegal and unconstitutional actions by the non-elected ‘agencies’ that have grown like mushrooms to effect the destruction of America.
"...the illegal and unconstitutional actions by the non-elected agencies that have grown like mushrooms to effect the destruction of America"
You say that because you are a kooky posse comitatus guy who has no earthly idea how the govt works.
Congress created the Grazing Division to manage the grazing lands and a few years later the name was changed to the US Grazing Service which would later be merged with the General Land Office to create the BLM. It all changed in 1976 when Congress enacted FPLMA and told BLM to manage the lands for multi-use.
Which means managed for ATV, horseback, hikers, campers boaters, hunters, target shooters, fishermen, cattle, sheep, wild horses, burros, oil and gas, coal, gold, silver, Indians, lands that Congress sets aside; parks, forests, monuments, endangered and threatened species, and the list goes on.
So are these ATVers getting their share of use of these lands? They were shut out of Recapture canyon for breaking the regs. But there are 2800 miles of ATV trails close by. And if you go to the ATV Utah website, you see that is a lot available for ATVers.
But the ATVers are gonna bitch, moan, complain, threaten to kill people, and have a revolution if the BLM doesn't give more land to tear up. Squeeky wheel gets the grease.
The grazers complain about the wild horses. The horse lovers complain about the grazers. The grazers complain about the tortoise and the enviros complain about the grazers. Everybody complains.
In your ignorance, you complain about BLM, but Congress enacted FLPMA and the endangered species act, and the Wild Horse Act
If you don't like the way BLM is doing it, or think that someone is getting more use of the land than you are you can get congress to amend the act. And if that doesn't work you can go to court and get the judges to change it.
But sometimes that doesn't work. Bundy lost in court numerous times so he called in the militia and threatened to kill BLM agents and their round-up contractor.
It’s kind of you to offer me a 10-1 bet but I will decline. People acting responsibly rarely show off their adult behavior.
This comment ‘You say that because you are a kooky posse comitatus guy who has no earthly idea how the govt works. ‘ tells me you either don’t read past huffington post or are embedded deep in the liberal progressive agenda.
BLM is not the only agency that does not need an armed force. Neither does NOAA, IRS, EPA or any other non-sworn law enforcement agency. I will not attempt to educate you on why these quasi-cops and gear queers have proliferated. If you want to know, a little reading beyond your norm will serve you well.
As far BLM’s innocuous behavior; the many ranchers who have been forced out of ranching by the ruinous fees and regulations imposed arbitrarily by these non-elected agencies have not been silent, just not news-worthy. Look up Wayne Gage or many of the other ranchers who have had well documented and terrible experiences with these agencies.
The tortoise that was the ‘supposed’ reason for initially attacking Mr. Bundy’s ranch is not endangered by any measure. So much so that the BLM was killing them by the hundreds just last year.
The tortoise thrives where the cattle are because of a symbiotic relationship. The land thrives where cattle are because of brush removal and fertilization. All of these facts are easily discovered with minor searching, which you have demonstrated you are good at doing.
The amusing but painfully predictable result of a little investigative journalism showed that the real reason for the entire affair was that Mr. Bundy inconveniently was using land promised to Chinese investors by Sen. Reid. Bundy had to be removed. The Reid son was the go-between with the Chinese and a Reid staffer became the head of the BLM just weeks before the whole affair.
It all stinks to high heaven.
Your quite outrageous statement here ‘But sometimes that doesn’t work. Bundy lost in court numerous times so he called in the militia and threatened to kill BLM agents and their round-up contractor.’ requires a link to prove that Mr. Bundy A: called in the militia and B; any of those American citizens threatened to kill any BLM or other law enforcement officer in the stand off.
In fact it is well documented by a television reporter on the scene with a camera that it was the BLM and their contractors the provided the death threats and overt pointed weapons.
I saw one picture (from several angles making it look like more than one) of one person apparently aiming a rifle through a concrete bridge guard. There is no mention of who he was aiming at. It could have easily been from that position that person was a BLM contractor to shoot any woman or child in the protest group to spark the gunfight.
There is ample evidence that a gunfight was the expected and desired end result of the entire stand off. I am sure it was not desired by the many NV LE without body armor or long guns out in the heat. No doubt a few sacrifices had to be made.
The sheriff negotiated with the BLM to leave the area, no one told the agents guarding the cattle but the Bundy sons were told and they went to get their cattle.
This was probably the tensest moment of the entire affair. No doubt the protesters disappointed the government because all of them behaved with perfect decorum despite being told by the BLM agents that the BLM had authorization to fire on them.
Ben, get your head screwed on right and start reading up on these issues from more than one side. You will be a happier person for it.
I disagree. It is time to vigorously stir the pot. Bring it to a boil. Inevitable confrontations are less dangerous sooner than later. The longer the people wait to stand up against federal despotism, the less likely they will succeed and more likely have it turn into a violent disaster.
You say that many ranchers are being forced out by "ruinous fees". They pay a $1.35 per month per unit. That is so cheap it probably doesn't cover the administrative costs, much less management costs.
Then you tell me I need to read up Wayne Gage. You don't even know the man's name but somehow you are an expert. I'll be glad to tell you, and point out that he did it right, and won, though he didn't win much. He didn't call in the militia. One element of the Hage case was that the courts ruled that the agency did have the authority to require Hage(or any other grazer including Bundy) to reduce their herd. The second element was that the agency could not trump Hage's water rights, and that is what he won on. Hage's prior appropriation water rights were in conflict with Federal Reserved water rights. Federal Reserved water rights had been established by SCOTUS in 1908 but the courts had been re-interpreting these rights late in the 20th century. Its possible another Hage type case could come up but not likely.
Cases like Hage and Bundy are few and far between. Of the over 13,000 grazers there very few conflicts and most everybody pays on time. Many conflicts center around one grazer's stock on another grazer's allotment. And conflicts over the wild horses are common. More importantly, the Nevada Cattlemans Assos doesn't support Bundy
It is a fact that the grazers face uncertainty and the land available to graze will continue to shrink. You can look at it as shrinkage during that period from the Taylor Grazing Act up until FPLMA in 1976 plus the shrinkage from FPLMA in 1976 up until today.
We know a lot about the post FLPMA changes because BLM has published this data. That data covers the time period of 1976 to 2000 and we can say that trends during that period continue on until today, 2014.
For a couple of examples.
In 1976 there were around 11,000 cataloged archeological sites covering about a million acres. By 2000 there were over 235,000 covering over 14 million acres.
During that same period coal production on these western federal lands increased 7 fold. There were grazing allotments converted to coal production. This happened because of the Clean Air Act. Who do you hate worse? The BLM administrating FLPMA or EPA administrating the Clean Air Act? Or could it be the Wild Horse and Burro Act. Or the Endangered Species Act.
You say the tortoise is not endangered. If you have done the science, you need to call Bundy and tell him to sue, and you can be his expert witness.
“I disagree. It is time to vigorously stir the pot. Bring it to a boil.”
Whether or not I agree with you, seems a good context to make a point to many:
For most, the decision of “when?” will be made by someone else with whom you may deeply disagree. Be ready for the consequences.
I don't disagree with that.
We can never really be prepared for the consequences, things like this take on their own life and never play out as we expect.
But, unless we are willing to descend into a full fledged, high tech police state like something only imagined in a movie, the pot will have to boil over. It's way too far along. Assuming I am correct on that point, I believe that the severity of the (unforeseen) consequences will be worse the longer it takes for the "societal correction" to occur.
It is very scary to contemplate. But I believe it is scarier to contemplate (at least) 5 generations of complete serfdom in this country.
There are no good scenarios in our future.
One interesting tidbit about Bundy I found interesting if it in fact is true.
Bundy, based upon info I’ve seen published owns less than 160 acres of land.
The rest is gov’t land he was running his cattle on and not paying the grazing
fees for many years now. If his land acreage is correct then Bundy is
essentially a tenent rancher using someone else’s land. Based upon the
contractual arrangement to use the land Bundy depends upon someone else
to establish the rules.
It is true and what most people don't realize, is that Congress set it up that way.
In earlier times I read history books on the west, and settling the west.
Congress had an aversion to dispersing these lands in large tracts. That wasn't a problem back to the east in the wet zone, because settlers could make a living off of small tracts. But in the west, it was a problem.
So an individual could get the land, often by homesteading, and could then graze out onto the federal lands. And Bundy claimed that his family homesteaded/owned that 160 acres and grazed those federal lands since the 19th century and because of that, he owned not just the 160 acres but also those grazing lands.
But then it came to light that Bundy's claims about this land is not true.
The TV station KTLA 8 has done a great job of reporting on the Bundy issue. One of their reporters went to the courthouse to research the deed and found out that Bundy's parents bought that 160 acres in 1948 and didn't begin grazing that federal land until 1954.
Channel 8 also did those extensive interviews with Metro police officers who were on the scene. These interviews took place after the FBI interviewed the officers.
Gilespie insisted that the officers wear no protective gear or carry long guns because he didn't want to agitate the militia. All these officers were talking how threatening the militia was. But they negotiated the deal between Bundy's son and the BLM on releasing the cattle, but before they could do that, Bundy gave the order to the militia to move on the corral. The officers all fled the scene and the BLM was in the corral and that is where the shooting almost occurred.
Channel 8 also covered that story about the militia making the bomb threats to the Holiday Inn in Mesquite because the BLM was staying there.
KTLA 8
Is that a Nevada or CA station? I can’t find it on the web. Thanks
Thanks for the links. I was looking for KLTA 8 and kept getting a Los Angeles station.
I was using the wrong call letters in my search.
I was looking for KLTA 8.....
Correction:
I was looking for KTLA 8 and not KLAS 8
Interesting links and info....... Again thanks..
We won the last time they tried that.
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.