Nevada Rancher Standoff

[Tammi K]

Can someone explain this to me??? I feel like I came in after the picture started and I can't find the right articles that talk about what started it all. Anyone know the bigger picture?

 

[QueenCat]

I've been trying to figure it out too.............. can't seem to find any unbiased sources.

[dbmamaz]

What I saw was that the gov't has been trying to get him to stop letting his cattle graze on gov't land for a long time and he wont stop.  they went to court and said he had to pay per head, he refused to pay.  then then went to round up the cattle but he and a bunch of supporters were there with guns, so they decided to call it off in the name of public safety.  But that was something copies and pasted in to fb . .. i'm not entirely sure the source. 

[goldberry]

I'd like to know more also.  I read that two courts upheld the BLM's side and the rancher still won't move the cattle.  Apparently this has gone on over 10 years.  The rancher thinks since his family had cattle there in the past, he has a right to have his cattle there also without paying.  I get that's a bummer.  But he doesn't own the land.  It is BLM land. The courts ruled against him. 

 

So, what is the BLM supposed to do?  Let anyone who refuses to move just stay there?  I'm not really getting how this is some kind of rights infringement.

[dbmamaz]

CSM is a pretty reliable source (i trust it even tho i'm not christian, so) and their article says that Bundy refusing to pay the grazing fee seems to be the main issue.  http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0413/Nevada-range-fight-revives-Sagebrush-Rebellion 

[dbmamaz]

but I guess I saw some comments about the fact that . . . the federal land management agency, maybe, took over management of that land but Bundy insists he should be able to do what he's always done, which is graze his animals there without any fees or regulations.  

[liber]

I read that he feels the fees aught to be paid at a state level and not a federal level. Apparently the BLM leases out the land for fracking exploration and there might be oil where he currently grazes his cattle. Although the BLM claims they are trying to protect the desert tortoise. I think for some people it comes down to a lands right issue at a state, federal and personal level. My impression of the whole affair is that people feel that the Feds are over stepping into state jurisdiction to take away rights at personal level and that Joe Blow has had enough and are standing up. I imagine the truth is some where in the middle. Harry Reid's name also came up on the various articles I was reading.

[liber]

but I guess I saw some comments about the fact that . . . the federal land management agency, maybe, took over management of that land but Bundy insists he should be able to do what he's always done, which is graze his animals there without any fees or regulations.

Apparently he was paying his fees up until 20 years ago when this all started. He stopped paying when they (govt?) wanted him to stop grazing his cattle.

[goldberry]

This was from an interview the rancher did with Glenn Beck.  Still not too sure I get it.  If Nevada recognizes this as BLM land, who is he to tell Nevada it is not?

 

“I think this is very clarifying to people,†Beck said. “Your stance is, ‘I do not recognize these lands to be federal … I am staking out my claim that the United States government does not have any jurisdiction, and any rights to the land that [i am] now grazing on.’â€

 

“That’s right,†Bundy said. “It’s Nevada land.â€Bundy said he has “no contract with the United States government,†and the federal government has “no jurisdiction or authority†on his grazing rights, water rights, access rights, ranch improvement rights or anything else that “belongs to ‘we the people’ of Clark County.â€

 

The rancher took his argument back to the 19th century, when Nevada became a state. According to him, the federal government did, in fact, control the land when Nevada was a territory. But, he claimed, when the territory became a state, the government turned that land over to the sovereignty of the state of Nevada, and thus the federal government lacks the power to control it today.

 

“At the moment of statehood, what happened?†Bundy asked. “At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution, with equal footing to the original 13 states. They had boundaries allowing them a state line. And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were counties. Which I live in one of those counties, Clark County, Nevada.â€

 

“As a citizen of that county, I abide by all the state laws,†he concluded.

Though he has grazed his cattle on federal land for decades, Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees since 1993.

[kitten18]

I've been following it and that pretty much sums it up. The rancher's position is that his family has been on that land since the late 1800s and the cattle has always grazed on that land. Then about 20 years ago, they passed emergency law to protect the desert tortoise and changed his grazing laws. He had to pay per head to graze on BLM land. He didn't recognize the BLM's right to do that. He has been fighting them ever since and has racked up 1 million in fines. So the Feds came in to round up any cattle on BLM land to put towards his debts. He made a statement like he'll do whatever it takes which they took as a threat and brought in more feds. Once the story broke, militia and anti-gov folks came in and that's when everything started getting really intense. They released the cattle back to the rancher and cleared the area. The feds were spending more than a million dollars a day on this and it was starting to look like another Waco standoff. So not worth instigating something.

 

The militia and anti-government crowd saw it as Feds coming onto state land. To make matters worse, a few hours before the feds backed off there was a news article that said Senator Reid had struck a $5 billion deal for that land to be used for a Chinese Solar Plant. So they were seeing it as a land grab as well.

 

The environmentalists are upset because still nothing has been done to protect the turtle.

 

A sidenote: we live next to BLM land that had a desert tortoise preserve. They shut it down due to lack of funds and euthanized the turtles.

 

It's truly a convoluted mess. Bundy is on the wrong side of the law and has been for decades now. No one has come to his aid until the feds seized his cattle.

 

Thanks for the summary.

 

Sounds like a giant mess.

 

[Anne in CA]

I think it is funny as all get out that the federal gov, who didn't pay the states for the minerals they mined this year, with no excuses, is stealing land from someone who didn't pay them.  Nice.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think it is funny as all get out that the federal gov, who didn't pay the states for the minerals they mined this year, with no excuses, is stealing land from someone who didn't pay them.  Nice.

 

The federal government is not stealing any land - this has been public land since it was acquired from Mexico.

[Heather in Neverland]

In that interview above, Bundy keeps referencing the federal government and how he obeys state law.

 

What does the state of Nevada have to say about the land?

[ThisIsTheDay]

Who actually owns the land and why this is a big deal.

 

http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/#ixzz2ymLdGQqf

 

There have been accusations that this was initiated by Harry Reid, who has an interest in doing something with the land for the Chinese govt. (Leasing, perhaps?)

 

There are also many inside (BLM) anonymous reports that the govt is pretending to back down, that they will go in in a few days. (I believe it was today, Tuesday?)

 

"Public lands" do not give the federal govt the right to go in and do whatever they want.  Read the article.  Feds didn't back down in the "name of public safety." They backed down for other reasons, and as we keep hearing, it may be a ruse--unless other information comes out.

 

For heavens sake, this isn't about a bully group of ranchers.  For some reason, too many citizens back down just because the govt says to.  (Reference the thread about the French wanting to take DNA samples of every male at the school where an assault happened.)  Soldiers have fought for a couple of centuries now to PROTECT OUR FREEDOMS, people.  What do you think they've been doing that for?

 

But the sheeple mindset of so many in this country has baffled me for years.

[momto10blessings]

In that interview above, Bundy keeps referencing the federal government and how he obeys state law.

 

What does the state of Nevada have to say about the land?

That's what I've been wondering. I haven't seen anything about it

[Kathryn]

I heard the interview with Beck yesterday, and the guy said what was stated here: he does not recognize the federal goverent to have any right over the land, only the state of Nevada. And he emphasized that this went back to when Nevada became a state, not twenty years ago when something happened.

[saraha]

I

 

The environmentalists are upset because still nothing has been done to protect the turtle.

 

A sidenote: we live next to BLM land that had a desert tortoise preserve. They shut it down due to lack of funds and euthanized the turtles.

 

 

 

 

Not to derail the thread, but is this for real!?!  20 million dollars to protect the turtles, only to decide to kill them rather than set them free or farm them out to other facilities?

[Butter]

It's a mess, definitely.  So am I understanding correctly that he did at one time pay fees to the federal government for grazing his cattle on that land, but now he believes the land belongs to the state, not the federal government?  Shouldn't it be clear and easily provable who really owns the land?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's a mess, definitely.  So am I understanding correctly that he did at one time pay fees to the federal government for grazing his cattle on that land, but now he believes the land belongs to the state, not the federal government?  Shouldn't it be clear and easily provable who really owns the land?

 

It is well established that this is federal land.  Nevada has not made any claims otherwise.  In addition, Bundy has taken his position to court and lost. Twice.

[Butter]

It is well established that this is federal land.  Nevada has not made any claims otherwise.  In addition, Bundy has taken his position to court and lost. Twice.

 

Then why the heck is he making such a big deal about this?!?!  And since he used to pay... how does he explain stopping?  He obviously recognized the land as federal at some point.

[goldberry]

Who actually owns the land and why this is a big deal.

 

 

 

So, how is this different from people who say income tax is unconstitutional so I don't have to pay it?  Do we allow those people not to pay without any consequences?  This person and others may think this is an unconstitutional process.  However, the courts have upheld it, and the state of Nevada is not supporting the rancher's claim. 

 

Your article says this man's family "controlled" the property for 140 years.  Control doesn't equal ownership. Grazing your cattle on the land doesn't equal control.  If the government "stole" the land from anyone, the only argument that could be made is that it "stole" it from the state of Nevada, not from this man.  The state of Nevada should be making the claim if that was the case.  But the courts have upheld the federal claim.  If this man claims to obey the state of Nevada, then he should abide by the court rulings.

 

He disagrees with the outcome. That's fine.  But just because you disagree, doesn't mean you get to violate the law.

[liber]

I think I read somewhere that the Federal govt owns 70% of Nevada's land. That seems really high. Not sure if that is true or not.

 

I guess the argument comes down to who you think should have final say and control/power over the state. The Feds or the State?

[Butter]

I found several references to the rancher saying he doesn't recognize the federal government as existing.

 

I do wonder why the federal government looked the other way for 15 years.

 

He says he will follow Nevada law.  What does the state of NV say about the land and him grazing his cattle on it?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Who actually owns the land and why this is a big deal.

 

http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/#ixzz2ymLdGQqf

 

There have been accusations that this was initiated by Harry Reid, who has an interest in doing something with the land for the Chinese govt. (Leasing, perhaps?)

 

There are also many inside (BLM) anonymous reports that the govt is pretending to back down, that they will go in in a few days. (I believe it was today, Tuesday?)

 

"Public lands" do not give the federal govt the right to go in and do whatever they want.  Read the article.  Feds didn't back down in the "name of public safety." They backed down for other reasons, and as we keep hearing, it may be a ruse--unless other information comes out.

 

For heavens sake, this isn't about a bully group of ranchers.  For some reason, too many citizens back down just because the govt says to.  (Reference the thread about the French wanting to take DNA samples of every male at the school where an assault happened.)  Soldiers have fought for a couple of centuries now to PROTECT OUR FREEDOMS, people.  What do you think they've been doing that for?

 

But the sheeple mindset of so many in this country has baffled me for years.

 

The federal government owns the land and that is not in dispute by the state of Nevada.  I would also suggest you look into the "accusations" against Harry Reid.  The "Chinese land deal" involved a Chinese energy company (ENN, solar panels) and would have involved property 180 miles away from the land Bundy is using for grazing.  In addition, that deal was canceled in 2013. 

 

In reality, these public lands are owned and managed by the federal government, and they do get to dictate the rules/set the fees.  I understand that Bundy believes he gets special snowflake status for some reason, but that does not change that he is refusing to pay the appropriate fees to graze on his cattle on public lands, which means he is effectively stealing from all of us.

 

And yes, BLM has backed down at the moment for reasons of public safety, which was wise as there is a subset of crazies in this country who seem intent on finding an opportunity to live out their bizarre masturbatory fantasies of having their own Lexington/Concord moment against the federal government.  Letting those types wander back to their bunkers where they can listen to Alex Jones, eat MREs, and pretend that they are real patriots while reading the Turner Diaries is a reasonable way to diffuse the situation for now.  I do fully expect the BLM to find a way to enforce the court rulings in their favor at a later time.

 

[goldberry]

I think I read somewhere that the Federal govt owns 70% of Nevada's land. That seems really high. Not sure if that is true or not.

 

I guess the argument comes down to who you think should have final say and control/power over the state. The Feds or the State?

 

But the state is not supporting this man.  If the state says, ok, the feds manage this property and have control, then the state DOES have the power.  They used the power to let the BLM handle this.  The state has not made any claim up (at this point) that this is their land and not the feds.  If they really wanted that back, they would ask for it.  So they did and do have the final say.

 

I live in Colorado in a rural county.  We have wildfires.  We have lots of federal land.  When the wildfire goes onto federal land, we call in the feds.  And we are glad to do so!  We don't have the resources to fight fire on that land.  So did the feds "steal" that land from the state of Colorado?  Nope.  Colorado is who decided it was ok to let the feds manage that land.  "Manage that land" includes responsibility for it.  There are reasons for this, and it is not all about the federal government "stealing" land from the states.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Then why the heck is he making such a big deal about this?!?!  And since he used to pay... how does he explain stopping?  He obviously recognized the land as federal at some point.

 

An additional fee was levied in 1993 that he disagreed with which is when the ruckus started.  Bundy seems to believe that because his family has always grazed cattle on these lands that he somehow has an inherent right to them, even though it is well established that his family has never owned that property.

[goldberry]

 

I do wonder why the federal government looked the other way for 15 years.

 

 

They didn't look the other way.  They were pursuing the matter through the courts (which they won two judgments) and trying to get him to comply through the legal system. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So, how is this different from people who say income tax is unconstitutional so I don't have to pay it?  Do we allow those people not to pay without any consequences?  This person and others may think this is an unconstitutional process.  However, the courts have upheld it, and the state of Nevada is not supporting the rancher's claim. 

 

Your article says this man's family "controlled" the property for 140 years.  Control doesn't equal ownership. Grazing your cattle on the land doesn't equal control.  If the government "stole" the land from anyone, the only argument that could be made is that it "stole" it from the state of Nevada, not from this man.  The state of Nevada should be making the claim if that was the case.  But the courts have upheld the federal claim.  If this man claims to obey the state of Nevada, then he should abide by the court rulings.

 

He disagrees with the outcome. That's fine.  But just because you disagree, doesn't mean you get to violate the law.

 

You are correct, and the reason Nevada doesn't make that claim is because Nevada never had control of this land.  The land was acquired from Mexico via treaty and was controlled by the federal government as a territory.  When Nevada was formed, a portion of the land within the former territory was never given over to state control.

 

[Butter]

So, basically, he's a whackadoodle.  I can see being annoyed that land my family has grazed cattle on for many decades is now more expensive for whatever reason, but that's always a possibility if you are paying to use something.  Rent on a house or apartment goes up, you can choose to stay and pay more or move.  Seems the same as this situation to me.  He doesn't agree with the increased cost (whatever the additional fee was).  He can choose to stay and pay more, or move his cattle.

 

I think what makes him a whackadoodle is by going back to 1993, he was paying just fine, but he was opposed to the additional fee.  He recognized the true owner of the land until that fee was added.  Maybe I just don't get the nuances of the situation or something, but I see it as pretty straightforward that it is about money, but that's not really "sexy" so making his stand about who controls land and federal vs. states rights gets much more attention.

 

Does anyone know if he really truly said he doesn't recognize the federal government (at all, not just as the owner of these lands)?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No idea what his core beliefs are, but he was demanding that county sheriffs should disarm "federal bureaucrats" that enter their jurisdictions when he was recently interviewed on television.

 

 

[mamaraby]

But didn't he tale in federal subsidies, too? Seems to me you can't have it both ways.

[poppy]

I have zero sympathy for this man and I hope that the IRS is looking into his taxes given his stance that he doesn't have any obligation to follow federal law.

[Erin]

But didn't he tale in federal subsidies, too? Seems to me you can't have it both ways.

Not likely.  Unless you mean indirectly via cheap (free, in his case!) lease fees.   Ranchers don't have subsidies propping them up every year like farmers do.

 

 

Frankly, I just can not understand the brouhaha, here.  The guy lost his lease (because he didn't want to pay an increased fee and cut back on stocking rate, if I'm not mistaken).  

It happens.  

It's a huge PIA, as well as a financial set-back, because it usually means herd reduction, whether it was a government lease or private, until new grass is found.  But he lost his lease.  It's that simple.  Most folks that lease grass have had it happen once or twice.   :001_rolleyes: 

 

Just get out. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is the level of nuttery the BLM was facing in Nevada.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/15/former-sheriff-women-need-to-be-the-first-ones-shot-by-feds-in-bundy-ranch-standoff/

[Butter]

Thank to everyone who has so patiently explained this!  Everything I had read was super biased one way or the other and there are facts here and there in articles, but rarely do you find everything in one place.

 

What terrifies me about this whole thing is how quickly the people came out to support him in a way that could lead to very real fighting and deaths on both sides.  I suspect that if there were deaths among his supporters there would be others in other states who would act crazy as well.  My biggest question, and it's probably completely unanswerable by a rational person, is, in the face of losing court cases, proof that this is land owned by the federal government, and having paid before the extra fee was added, how can he still push his standoff and have all these people coming out to support him?

[poppy]

My biggest question, and it's probably completely unanswerable by a rational person, is, in the face of losing court cases, proof that this is land owned by the federal government, and having paid before the extra fee was added, how can he still push his standoff and have all these people coming out to support him?

 

To rile up supporters and anti-government activists.  Or to put it more simply, for publicity.

 

Just saw this story about the plans to put women on the front lines because having women get shot would be a bigger media story: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/14/former-arizona-sheriff-reveals-chilling-strategy-to-put-women-up-at-the-front-during-bundy-ranch-standoff/#  Stay classy Sherrif Mack.

[Amy in NH]

[sNIP]  My biggest question, and it's probably completely unanswerable by a rational person, is, in the face of losing court cases, proof that this is land owned by the federal government, and having paid before the extra fee was added, how can he still push his standoff and have all these people coming out to support him?

 

They are all irrational nuts.

 

[goldberry]

This is the level of nuttery the BLM was facing in Nevada.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/15/former-sheriff-women-need-to-be-the-first-ones-shot-by-feds-in-bundy-ranch-standoff/

 

 

:eek:  :eek:  :eek:

 

Yeah, this guy doesn't know who is messing with.  He is inviting these folk onto his side, but he may not like the result.

[LatteMama]

I think I read somewhere that the Federal govt owns 70% of Nevada's land. That seems really high. Not sure if that is true or not.

 

I guess the argument comes down to who you think should have final say and control/power over the state. The Feds or the State?

 

It is more like 84% of Nevada.  Here is a graphic showing how much of the country is federal public land.

[poppy]

I wondered why so I looked it up- Wikipedia says:

 

Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).

 

I am not a rancher or remotely close to one, but, sounds like ranchers own the land that is usable and only have to pay a grazing fee for the otherwise useless land- as opposed to owning the land and being responsible for taxes etc.  Is that about right?

 

I have driven through Nevada, once, it was a very very very very big area of nothing at all. Like 8 hours straight of driving and seeing nothing.

[Erin]

Ya know, the truly great irony in this is that Nevada is one of the few states left with a paramount-allegiance clause in their constitution.  Formed shortly after the Civil War, Nevada was full of Unionists who wanted to make sure it stayed that way.

Bundy claims he doesn't recognize the federal government, only the state of Nevada, but if he's actually read his state's constitution, that's BS, too.

 

 

 

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

Article 1, Section 2 http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html

[Ravin]

It is more like 84% of Nevada.  Here is a graphic showing how much of the country is federal public land.

 

That's not accurate. That map shows all federally-owned land, which includes land held in trust for Indian tribes--which land is NOT public land, it's tribal land.

 

The reality is that grazing on public land has from its inception been a huge subsidy to ranchers. Grazing leases are much cheaper than leasing or buying private land. Regulation is partly about there being multiple land uses (energy development, conservation, etc. in addition to grazing), and partly about ensuring grazing is done sustainably by not putting too many cattle out there at once. That was the main reason the BLM was formed in the first place--ranchers over-grazed public land and there was a serious ecological crash because of it. It's never been a very well funded agency.

 

 

A number of states periodically make noise about public land because they'd prefer state control of it--but unless and until Congress hands it over, it's in the public trust. This guy losing his cattle is no more than he deserves. he's been stealing from his fellow citizens by not paying his grazing fees.

[FaithManor]

That's not accurate. That map shows all federally-owned land, which includes land held in trust for Indian tribes--which land is NOT public land, it's tribal land.

 

The reality is that grazing on public land has from its inception been a huge subsidy to ranchers. Grazing leases are much cheaper than leasing or buying private land. Regulation is partly about there being multiple land uses (energy development, conservation, etc. in addition to grazing), and partly about ensuring grazing is done sustainably by not putting too many cattle out there at once. That was the main reason the BLM was formed in the first place--ranchers over-grazed public land and there was a serious ecological crash because of it. It's never been a very well funded agency.

 

 

A number of states periodically make noise about public land because they'd prefer state control of it--but unless and until Congress hands it over, it's in the public trust. This guy losing his cattle is no more than he deserves. he's been stealing from his fellow citizens by not paying his grazing fees.

I agree. His grazing fees were ridiculously low to begin with. In no way was he being fleeced by the tax payer. He stopped paying which caused him to lose his lease. Too bad. If you stop paying the lease on your apartment, you get evicted. Simple, not rocket science to understand. Take your cows and go buddy! You have defrauded the citizenry.