Ok lets open the Cliven Bundy can of worms

Rabbit Talk  Forum

Help Support Rabbit Talk Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

ckcs

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
913
Reaction score
3
Location
Gloucester, Virginia
The Cliven Bundy - Federal Government dispute is being widely talked about by the media. Curious to know where others stand on this issue. I'm irritated that Mr. Bundy is being made to look like some sort of hero. IMO based on a lot of reading he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He is gave and is giving the finger to the government and people are surprised the government is fighting back. Couple of points that I'll make.
1) the Feds owned the land prior to Mr. Bundy's family setting up in Nevada. This has been clearly demonstrated in the Court system, when Mr. Bundy challenged it. He may not like it but it's not his land and he has to play by the rules. Yes we the people own this country but we are not free to do whatever we like on government land. We have to abide by restrictions.
2) Mr Bundy has paid grazing fees in the past. He made a decision to stop paying them when the laws changed. As such he has incurred a tons of fines, fees and interest over the past 20 years. I'll get to why he stopped next.
3) In 1993 the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) change the grazing permits. Due to the Desert Tortoise being an endangered species (later they changed it to threaten), you now could only graze 150 animal units on the land. A unit is a cow and it's calf, a cow without a calf, a horse, 5 sheep or goats and so on. Since we are talking about cattle, Bundy would be allowed a max of 300 cattle (if each cow had a calf). Bundy found this unacceptable and "fired" the BLM. He stopped paying the fees and ignored the new limits. As such the fines rapidly built up, which can be as high as $200 a day per head. At one point Bundy tried to pay the County the grazing fees but they declined it because he owes the money to the Federal Government. From a personal standpoint I don't give a hoot about the Tortoise. While I agree the 150 unit limit created financial hardship for ranchers but the rules are the rules. Fight to change the rules but abide by them until you can change them otherwise you will pay the price.
4) The grazing fee are incredibly cheap and there is no reason for Mr Bundy to not have paid them. $1.35 per animal unit per month. I pay over $2 a month to feed my small rabbits and he can feed a freaking cow for less. That is an incredible deal if you ask me.
5) Mr Bundy has been warned multiple times over the years that he cattle are in violation and they will be removed. Why the Feds waited so long I do not know. I suspect it was the costs. People are up in arms because the Feds showed up in force and were well armed. Even at a local level people show up with weapons when they seize animals. Case in point when AC shows up with the sheriffs department. Also worth noting the BLM offices have been bombed on multiple occasions. BLM officers go out in pairs and are in constant radio contact with their offices. Agents have been refused service in local businesses and many have received threats against themselves and their families. Mr Bundy and his supporters have eluded to the possibility of violence in their statements. Why people are surprised that the Fed showed up well armed is beyond me. To have not done that would have been idiotic imo.

I'm in total agreement that grazing rights should be larger and the tortoise should have to suck it up. Maybe instead of fighting the feds the ranchers should have taken out the tortoise lol. Then they would be changed from threatened to extinct. However Mr Bundy is in the wrong.
 
Cattle ranchers seem to think they have more rights than anyone else and everything that could lessen their cattle production should be extinct whether there's proof or not. I'm not sure we should be trying to save every little species that is endangered by more adaptable species including ourselves but one group of people should not be given the rights to kill off and take over whatever animals and land they want. I think the government was right to take all the cattle he had on that land. Personally I'd have him thrown in jail for awhile because of his response and refusal to follow laws or pay fees. They are kind of stuck though unless they want to start a mini civil war with the cattle ranchers.
 
If he wants to graze his cattle make him BUY a few 1000 acres.

He's got some gaul to complain about the piddly "rental fees" the BLM charges.

I do agree that the changes in the 90's were too drastic and it was completely unreasonable to expect farmers to suddenly loose 90% of allowed rangeland but that was 20 years ago and Bundy should have cut back his cattle operation, moved or found another way to make a living by now.

Of course if the farmers hadn't been abusing the land and over crowding it with cattle that grazed it down to the dust then the BLM woundn't have had to make such a big cut in the number of livestock allowed - but why should the rancher care since its not their property getting ruined :shrug:
 
I don't know anything about this issue, but I do think that many citizens in this country forget what a privilege it is that we have so many things available to us. In this case, it sounds like this man lost sight of the fact that being able to pay a cheap lease vs. buying the land is a privilege, not a right. I also agree, if you don't like a law, fight to change it. Subverting the system isn't something that will be allowed to go on forever, but I'm not surprised that our largely ineffective government took so long to step in.

For showing up well armed - yes, they would have been complete idiots to show up unarmed. Imagine the laughingstock they would have been had they shown up unarmed and were met with force from that man. Another black eye that the government would have to deal with, at a time when we already have so many weaknesses showing to the rest of the world. People would have lost their jobs had they showed up unarmed. Plus, as a gun owner myself, I can appreciate the desire to ensure your own personal protection!
 
Dood":4s7dapq9 said:
If he wants to graze his cattle make him BUY a few 1000 acres.

He's got some gaul to complain about the piddly "rental fees" the BLM charges.

Don't disagree with this at all ...

I do agree that the changes in the 90's were too drastic and it was completely unreasonable to expect farmers to suddenly loose 90% of allowed rangeland but that was 20 years ago and Bundy should have cut back his cattle operation, moved or found another way to make a living by now.


What do you expect when you get a bunch of ARA's and bureaucrat pencil pushers behind an agenda but a complete over reaction.

He loses his range land & the price of beef goes up for the consumer ...

Easy for us to say find a new way to make a living .... when your skills are limited within a specific field and that field is limited. Finding a job is tough enough as it is in this craphole of an economy , how many people with college degree's do you know that are unemployed ?!

I agree with the bottom line , he should have paid his fee's and fought to change the laws that affected his operation but in todays society , I don't think he stood much chance of accomplishing that goal .... ARA's have such a loud voice and plenty of other people's money to spend in keeping the fight going. Just think about how much crap people take for keeping meat rabbits caged ....


Of course if the farmers hadn't been abusing the land and over crowding it with cattle that grazed it down to the dust then the BLM woundn't have had to make such a big cut in the number of livestock allowed - but why should the rancher care since its not their property getting ruined :shrug:

I think that's a bit of an assumption , he's grazed cattle on that land for how many years (generations?) , obviously it hasn't been grazed to dust if its being used continuously , year over year for that purpose. He likely takes great care to ensure the resource is in good condition for his future use.

Rather , I think its the encroachment of society on the territory of that endangered critter , roads , cars , people - loss of habitat that caused its drop in numbers which caused action be taken to save them.


I don't much care for the way either side handled the situation. The gubmint and its use of force , they sure could have worked towards a peaceful solution .... Bundy and his ignoring the laws and sense of entitlement.



Here's an interesting article - The United States of SWAT?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... john-fund#!


Dozens of federal agencies now have Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams to further an expanding definition of their missions. It’s not controversial that the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons have them. But what about the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?


We just get to pay for it all .... or charge it to the future.
 
Zass":3nmpoz5b said:
We just get to pay for it all .... or charge it to the future.

A quick peek at the current national debt suggests that we haven't actually paid for anything in a LONG time.


Well , I did say .... or charge it to the future.
mutley.gif
 
I can't speak to some of these agencies, but my husband works for the Department of Agriculture, and when we lived in California he had to go out into the field all the time. He was always at risk of running into a marijuana grow and running into someone with a gun. In certain areas, if he needed to work an area of a stream or river (he's a fisheries biologist), there was a contact person in the drug world that he would call and tell him what dates he would be out there and specifically in what area. It gave them time to move their grows, and made it less likely he'd run into someone with a gun. When there was a fire on the forest, there were times that the call couldn't be made, and a few times shots were fired at firefighters and at law enforcement. It's a changing world, that's all I can say.
 
I'm not saying he is in the right...heck I'd have paid the fees ~shrug~ but saying they are doing any of it for the tortoises isn't exactly true...since they have been killing them o_O the tortoise stuff just makes it sound better in the news I guess? The land will probably turn to full desert after all this anyway :/ land is probably partially dependent on the cattle after all this time so either way it will end up badly in time.
 
Letting him graze for free hasn't help the price of beef lol. In 1996 I could get hamburger on sale for 99 cents a lb. Calculated for inflation that would be $1.49 per lb now. I can't even come close to that on sale and regular price here is at least twice that amount.
 
ckcs":1fvif3he said:
Letting him graze for free hasn't help the price of beef lol. In 1996 I could get hamburger on sale for 99 cents a lb. Calculated for inflation that would be $1.49 per lb now. I can't even come close to that on sale and regular price here is at least twice that amount.


Its ~$5.00 a lb here in Texas .... where all we have is cows and cowboys.
 
Ramjet":1d6b1rp7 said:
Its ~$5.00 a lb here in Texas .... where all we have is cows and cowboys.

My lord, that is ridiculous. Another thing that irritates me is that we export almost 70,000 metric tons of beef every month. Send the jobs overseas, send the timber, send the steel, send the beef. Arrggghhhhhh I'm ok with trading with our North American friends but the US needs to start takening care of itself.
 
ckcs":32ha0ewm said:
Ramjet":32ha0ewm said:
Its ~$5.00 a lb here in Texas .... where all we have is cows and cowboys.

My lord, that is ridiculous. Another thing that irritates me is that we export almost 70,000 metric tons of beef every month. Send the jobs overseas, send the timber, send the steel, send the beef. Arrggghhhhhh I'm ok with trading with our North American friends but the US needs to start takening care of itself.


Beef is much like oil & gas .... They will charge every penny that the market will bear.
 
Sinnfox":27dvvnpe said:
I'm not saying he is in the right...heck I'd have paid the fees ~shrug~ but saying they are doing any of it for the tortoises isn't exactly true...since they have been killing them o_O the tortoise stuff just makes it sound better in the news I guess? The land will probably turn to full desert after all this anyway :/ land is probably partially dependent on the cattle after all this time so either way it will end up badly in time.
The land was ravaged by several fires - mostly human made ones - and the livestock was nipping off the new growth of the tasty plants leaving the nasty ones to thrive for the wildlife AND future grazing livestock :/

The plan was to give the land a chance to get back to normal for everyone's sake - not just an endangered tortoise - but that headline makes good PR for the pro Bundy camp and to rally those who think conservation has gone too far.

Livestock grazing was, and is, still permitted - just in numbers the land can support - which ranchers like Bundy obviously didn't give a crud about.

The only reason Bundy cattle aren't starving is because all his neighbours obeyed the law and cut back on their livestock or grazed them elsewhere. If everyone grazing on that land had thumbed their nose at the BLM then it would be full of noxious weeds that nothing can eat.
 
This is what I have gleaned from following the Bundy situation, not taking into account the Shoshone situation:

[*] Prior usage rights are a serious thing in the inland West, and aren't well understood in other parts of the country. Prior usage rights mean that, even though these have been Federal lands all this time, since the Federal government allowed them to graze there for all this time, they have the right to graze there. As for the grazing fees that were eventually implemented, he did pay them, until he realized that the fees were no longer being used to manage the land, but rather to increase regulation to the point at which many ranchers in the area were having to shut down. When he saw that the fees were being used to his and others' harm, he stopped paying them.

[*] Yes, the Federal government owned the land prior to the formation of Nevada, but it was written into the "charter" or whatever it's called that formed Nevada and several other western states that once the state was formed, the Federal government would turn over or sell the land it owned. So it seems they aren't even supposed to own land in Nevada. Unfortunately, the new government of the state gave up their rights to the land -- 85% of the state -- in their own state constitution.

[*] Open range laws are also a serious thing in the region. They mean that if you don't want other people's livestock grazing on your land, you are responsible for fencing them out. Bundy shouldn't be responsible, therefore, for fencing his cattle out of Federal land; it is the BLM's responsibility to fence the land.

[*] The BLM says that the land was being set apart as a preserve for some desert tortoises. Why, then, did they recently close another nearby preserve for the species for lack of funds? If the tortoise was so endangered, why did they euthanize hundreds and hundreds of them? If they had no funds to run the preserve, why did they spend huge amounts of money (which could have gone to keep the other preserve open) to eject the Bundys from this other land, so they could have another preserve?

[*] Allowing grazing on the land, if they were really about protecting the desert tortoise, would actually have been the right decision. Desert tortoises eat dung as their main source of food. The more cattle, the more dung. The more dung, the more tortoises. Excluding cattle from other lands has previously led to a severe reduction in desert tortoise populations. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... 0776/10049 In fact, quite a few small vertebrates fare better on moderately to heavily grazed desert land than they do in more dense vegetation in the same desert area. Other small vertebrates are favored by denser vegetation. It seems that the denser vegetation primarily consists of non-native invasive plants, which are better controlled when moderate to heavy grazing is allowed, resulting in better populations of the animals who are suited to sparse desert vegetation. http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/Li ... fornia.pdf

[*] A former Harry Reid (Senator from Nevada) aide, Neil Kornze, recently rose to the position of Director of the BLM. He was confirmed by the Senate right about the same time his bureau converged on Bundy's property.

[*] If I set aside the idea that the BLM did not belong doing what they did, and just focus on the fact that they did it, I can understand them bringing along some weapons. But Bundy doesn't appear to have his own well-armed private army on hand. Why, then, did the BLM feel it necessary to build a temporary compound? Or, according to Michele Fiore, a local Assemblywoman who spent a lot of time at the Bundy ranch during the whole thing, "dozens of our finest SWAT members from Metro, Metro black & white cars, EMT, fire rescue trucks, detention buses (a.k.a. Paddy wagons), over 50 Ranger and BLM vehicles, numerous highway patrol vehicles, and a Black Hawk Helicopter on the Moapa airfield, just to name a few." (emphasis mine) And snipers.

[*] Bundy is not blameless. He finally stated that he does not recognize the government of the United States. Also, I have read that besides the Federal land that he had historically been allowed to graze on, he began grazing on some other Federal property that was strictly off-limits to private activity. He also built corrals and water and feeding troughs on this property. Still, if the BLM didn't want it grazed, according to open range laws, they should have fenced it. Except, of course, that the government is above the law. Bundy did engage in several instances of inflammatory rhetoric.

[*] The bit about Harry and Rory Reid looking to secure land for a Chinese solar array is true. It is not, however, the same land. It concerns some nearby land. The Chinese backed out of the deal in 2013.

[*] The BLM created a "free speech zone", in an attempt to keep Bundy's supporters away from the area where they were operating and away from travelers who might see them and sympathize. As many people stated, "The whole country is a free speech zone!"

[*] There were reports that the cell towers in the area were shut down. If true, this would be an attempt to control the press, as well as cutting off Bundy's ability to communicate by cell or cell-based internet.

[*] Members of the BLM did the following, when confronted by Bundy family members and supporters who were unarmed, save for cell cameras: lifted and body-slammed Bundy's sister, an elderly cancer survivor; released a dog on Bundy's son, who, when he tried to kick the dog away, was tazed twice (he had pointed... I guess that was evil or something); beat up and arrested another Bundy family member, confiscating his IPad which contained video of the attack, confiscated other items from his car, transported him to town and held him there before releasing him into the street.

[*] Civilian militia groups and non-militia came armed to support Bundy, but never fired a shot. Comparisons between the Bundy situation and Waco and Ruby Ridge may seem inflammatory to some, but the military-like show of force was all too similar. Couple that with the militarization of many police forces and the overuse of SWAT teams for tasks that would be relatively routine for average police, and it can be understood why a large percentage of the citizenry is freaked out and not willing to stand by and watch while something like the two incidents mentioned above happens again.

[*] During the course of the operation, BLM machinery destroyed water lines and cisterns, fences, and all sorts of other stuff. One letter says it was on Bundy's property, but I am not sure if it was or not. But when the BLM left, they left a huge mess.

[*] The seizure was conducting during calving season. Quoting Michele Fiore again, "In this mess, newborn calves were separated from their mothers; some were trampled in their holding pens and left for dead. A helicopter acted as a cowboy to herd the cows, causing a few to have heart attacks and die. The conditions of the holding pens where they kept the cows for days were heartless and cruel." I read elsewhere that two prize bulls were killed. Also, many of the cattle were in very poor condition when they were returned. The family is trying to save them, but some, especially calves I'm sure, might not make it.

[*] We finally heard from Reid, who appears to be one of the few Nevadans to support the actions of the BLM. He called Bundy's supporters "nothing more than domestic terrorists". Really? We're going to compare a bunch of people who come armed, but never harm a flea, to the Oklahoma City bomber? Who's being inflammatory now? The word "terrorism" has previously been reserved for a) surprise violence wrought upon innocent, unsuspecting groups of people, or b) continued, repeated provocation of fear in a person. I have never heard it used of people who show up armed in hope of preventing violence. When the supporters began wearing tags that said "domestic terrorist", Reid restated his assessment of them.
 
So far I have stayed out of this because I have not had the opportunity to read or watch anything to do with this. I only have the opportunity to go to certain sites on the web and NOT be charged a huge amount.

However it is to my personal knowledge that Nevada is "open range land" and yes that does mean that if YOU do NOT want someone's cattle and horses, or the wild horses out here to be on YOUR land then YOU have to fence that land to keep them out. True even for BLM. We spent my entire childhood fixing OUR fences to keep out the mustangs from our yard. With the fire season of '07 and '08 we had several ranchers cattle and many herds of mustangs in our front yards eating our grass and trees. BLM said we had to fence them out if we didn't want to deal with them, and no THEY wouldn't fix the fences torn down by said animals.
 
Good post, Miss M!

But there is a bigger issue here than that of Cliven Bundy himself, and that is the disparity between lands held by the Federal Government on the West Coast versus the East Coast, and the legality of them holding those lands at all. When territories achieved statehood, all Federally held lands were to be turned over to the newly created state(s).

This is part of the reason that the militia groups such as the OathKeepers were there in support of the Bundy family.

Land-Map-with-out-banner.jpg


The text below is copied from http://americanlandscouncil.org/

For nearly 200 years, Congress recognized its duty to disposed of the public lands. It wasn’t until 1976 that Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) unilaterally declaring that it was their new “policy to retain these lands in federal ownership.”

However, in 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that Congress doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change “the uniquely sovereign character” of a state’s admission into the Union, particularly “where virtually all of a state’s public lands are a stake.” Hawaii v. OHA.


Many states have in fact been working to wrest control of their lands from the Feds.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/131148- ... eral-land/

http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/04/21/big ... eral-land/
 
Yes, I saw that map in some of the articles I read, and I've seen it a couple of times over the years. It's disgusting. It's worst in Nevada... Bundy and the other ranchers would have to move a long way away in order to find enough land to buy and own themselves.
 
While it is very disproportionate, and the legality of it definitely needs to be addressed, I'm glad of one side effect of the government holding so much land on my side of the USA. If it was private, it would quickly be filled with gaudy houses built by rich Californians buying cheap land and building McMansions on it that they only use once a year because they are afraid of snow. This is what happened to where I grew up, miles and miles of beautiful views, sagebrush, and cattle. Now there is a cluster of ugly, cheap, poorly maintained "summer mansions" on every hill top (and they'd all like to tap into your well and your phone and power lines, free of charge, please, thanks).
 
Back
Top