Cliven Bundy: Open Thread
I’m busy at work and know nothing about this situation, so let me turn over the mike to John Hinderaker:
First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument.
That being the case, why does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.
Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one. When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that?
Bundy appears to be arguing that he need not pay grazing fees because the state never gave the land to the federal government, or something like that. (Hinderaker says that an astonishing 80% of Nevada is federally owned.) Allahpundit’s post on this quotes the Nevada constitution on this point, and it seems to say otherwise:
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;
Indeed, the Nevada constitution seems fairly clear and obsequious regarding the point of federal supremacy:
Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. 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 existance [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.
I think Section 3 provides that the citizens of Nevada will pick up the feds’ dry cleaning whenever needed.
The Nevada constitution was ratified during the War Between the States, if that provides any context for the bowing and scraping evident in the passage above.
Anyway, consider this an open thread on this situation. Maybe commenters who have read about it can shed some light.
Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/15/2014 @ 7:37 amoff with their heads!
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 4/15/2014 @ 7:39 amI can’t confirm this but I read a comment on another site that said, “It was only after [the BLM] blocked his access to his water rights that he stopped paying.”
George (79f2d4) — 4/15/2014 @ 8:47 amFurthermore, John Hinderaker’s “Photo of the Year” (actually “Photos” [plural]) shows that, even if the Feds have strong legal status, their thuggery (snipers for a solar project!!!) and unconstitutional nonsense (e.g. “First Amendment Area”!!!) seem to once again show a government that is out of touch and overreaching. Any decent American would push back against this.
George (79f2d4) — 4/15/2014 @ 9:01 amhttp://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/standoff-at-bundy-ranch-ends-with-photo-of-the-year-so-far.php
and
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/why-you-should-be-sympathetic-toward-cliven-bundy.php
Yeah, the optics from the BLM are certainly bad with the bureau’s snipers training their weapons on members of the Bundy family and with the “free speech zone” and whatnot, but before our side makes the full leap into the Bundy camp we really do need to learn more about this. A commenter on Hinderaker’s post suggests that it is very likely that Bundy’s father was paying the county, state, or Feds a grazing fee as far back as the 1930s, so this might be a case where Mr. Bundy has unilaterally decided that he should no longer have to pay rather than a government agency suddenly imposing a hereto unknown fee. Either way, a more engaged press would probably be investigating this rather than just writing sensational articles about the mean militia members who are scaring those poor BLM militarized units.
It sounds like Governor Brian Sandoval is playing this one just about right. He is decrying the Federal Government’s show of overwhelming force without necessarily legitimizing the Bundy Family’s claims.
JVW (9946b6) — 4/15/2014 @ 9:07 amIt seems to me we’ve heard this story before starting with a certain British sheriff imposing some heavy-handed enforcement of the King’s tax laws. Supposedly,one of the King’s subjects, a fellow named Robin of Locksley,took exception to the rough treatment and put up a spirited defense that has echoed down the centuries. The upshot being that there’s a difference between what’s legal and what’s right. Sometimes ultra-legal means are the only way to fight beck.
PPs43 (6fdef4) — 4/15/2014 @ 9:14 amAs I understand it, Bundy has land adjacent to his ranch that his family had been using for over a hundred years, but he has spread his cattle well beyond the historical grazing area and also begun using entirely separate areas as well.
His position is that the United States is a nullity and that he has no duty to obey the directives of this false entity. His “country” is Nevada. Since Nevada, then, owns all this land, and since Nevada has never said he could not use it, it is all his to use.
Needless to say: Bulls**t.
If he had restricted himself to the historical acreage he might have a case (depending on the degree to which he can suggest a contract and the degree to which that contract can be modified by government regulation).
It is sad that a number of ranches and farms that are actually in the position that the lunatic Bundy falsely purports to be in, particularly Central Valley farms with federal water allotments granted when their natural water sources were dammed, are going to be tarred with this stuff.
And maybe that’s the real point here. Make them all look like Koresh.
Kevin M (b11279) — 4/15/2014 @ 9:16 amBreitbart’s sober assessment is truly informative.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch
Kevin M (b11279) — 4/15/2014 @ 9:19 amIt seems obvious that we are in a situation where the government is doing something it may have a slight legal right to – through the regulations made by bureaucrats that are based in law, as opposed to law itself – but that is clearly immoral and probably corrupt.
The moral agreement was that the Bundy’s had water and grazing rights and paid to improve them themsevles. They paid fees to the BLM and the BLM was supposed to handle other issues as the putative caretaker of the other rights to the land.
But they didn’t hold up their part of the bargain.
Instead, they never went about improving or caring for the land and instead put further and further restrictions on it, chasing the other ranchers out of business.
When it was convenient for them, the endangered desert tortoise was threatened by Bundy’s cattle so the Bundy’s cattle had to be removed.
When it was not convenient for them, for example for a solar installation that would put money in the pockets of Harry Reid and his son’s lobby efforts, the endangered desert tortoise is not a problem. It can be ‘mitigated.’ The lines of the engandered desert tortoise area can be altered. The tortoises can be moved into the Bundy’s area.
The ratchet only went one way. That’s not how rights and property are supposed to work.
luagha (5cbe06) — 4/15/2014 @ 9:22 amKevin – I haven’t seen anywhere else where he has expanded beyond the land he has historically had access to.
The part I find troubling is where the BLM was no longer “managing” the land with the ranchers fees, but using their money to buy them out. Being the last one standing, he is in an almost untenable position, where his access is increasingly restricted.
And then came cattle seizures, and snipers.
JD (f2dffb) — 4/15/2014 @ 9:23 amI think a lot of Americans see how selective the Obama Regime is about enforcing federal laws—whether it is the border, deportations, the daily changes to ObamaCare mandates, ad infinitum, and then they wonder why the Feds are going over-the-top in their prosecution of this cattle rancher who ultimately does not make very much money, but does provide food for Americans’ dinner tables.
Eric Holder basically told Congress last week that his Justice Dept doesn’t really have to cooperate with the Constitutional oversight and checks and balances.
It all begs the question, if the Obama Regime casually makes exceptions for all sorts of people, why not the Bundy Ranch ?
Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/15/2014 @ 9:25 amThere is an interesting backstory about Nevada being admitted into the Union that helps explain why the Federal Government has so much influence in that state. As Patterico mentions, Nevada became a state during the Civil War. This despite the fact that Nevada only had about one-sixth the population for a Congressional seat. President Lincoln and his allies thought that Nevada would be able to grow cotton, and after splitting West Virginia off from Virginia they were hoping to bring in a few more pro-Union states into the fold in order to ensure that their agenda for Reconstruction would pass. The fact that Nevada became a state for purely political reasons helps explain how we end up with the likes of Harry Reid today.
As a final coda, they were so pressed to get Nevada into the Union that the state constitution was wired to Washington via Western Union at a cost of over $3400, which would be $51,000 in today’s currency. So wasting Federal money to accomplish purely political aims has a long and noble history.
JVW (9946b6) — 4/15/2014 @ 9:27 amKevin M. commented above about central valley water.
I posted this link over the weekend on the other thread where we had a discussion going about Bundy and Reid. Don’t discount the much larger, sinister water angle here– a war over ground water and surface water. It’s not just the wind farms and “tortoises”.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/bundy_ranch_the_federal_government_and_the_nevada_water_tipping_point.html
elissa (5d7326) — 4/15/2014 @ 9:35 ami think it’s pretty clear your fascist keystone copwhore government has already spent more on persecuting cow guy than they would ever make on the grazing fees
America is such a sad little joke anymore
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/15/2014 @ 10:06 amWhy isn’t the government auctioning it’s Nevada land holdings? If it’s not using the land, why not sell it? All I can think of are underground cities where the dummies in Washington will live after they screw up the world beyond all repair. And incompetence. There’s always that.
East Bay Jay (a5dac7) — 4/15/2014 @ 10:19 amfeets–your math is correct. But it’s not about the grazing fees even though much of the media and the lefty blogs are all apoplectic that “Bundy owes us the taxpayers a MILLION DOLLARs!!!! He is disobeying court orders!!!!!”
elissa (5d7326) — 4/15/2014 @ 10:25 amIf Bundy would just tell the Feds that his cattle immigrated from Mexico and that they are here to work and have a better life, they might receive
Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/15/2014 @ 10:30 amfood stampsfree grazing rights and an ID card enabling them to vote.Or something.
10. I’m following JD on this one.
The ‘facts’ are open to dispute. The militias are ready and willing to take losses.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/15/2014 @ 11:23 amForget it Jake,it’s Chinatown, or soon will be.
SarahW (267b14) — 4/15/2014 @ 11:23 amI heard (on the Rush Limbaugh show today) that Congress passed an act (back in 1976? – I was on the road and not taking notes) that ordered BLM to return ‘federal’ land back to the states. They did this for one state and stopped. So, the suggestion is that BLM hasn’t owned the land since 1967?
TheHat (58d08b) — 4/15/2014 @ 11:29 amthe blm fascists get really touchy when you talk about decreasing the size of the fatherland cause of the lebensraum Mr. Hat
best to use your hubcap-stealin’ voice when you talk about such
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/15/2014 @ 11:40 amLincoln rushed statehood for Nevada in time for his 1864 re-election bid against Democrat Party nominee General George McCellen. Expectations were that if it was possible for Lincoln could win at all he’d need a few extra electoral votes. The prospects for a Lincoln victory were grim, the War Against Southern Independence was not going at all for well for Union forces and widespread anti-war sentiment was everywhere steadily growing stronger.
Although McCellen personally supported federal efforts to force the Confederate states back into the Union, he did not advocate the abolition of slavery. Problems arose with the Democrat Party (Copperhead) platform which demanded an immediate end of hostilities and a negotiated settlement. McClellan had no choice but to repudiate the Copperhead platform and try to lead a divided party to victory.
Still, McCellen would likely have won without the Union’s stunning success on September 2, 1864 when Atlanta fell to William T. Sherman followed by his much publicized March to the Sea. That victory alone not only doomed the Confederacy, it also doomed McCellen. Lincoln won the election in such a convincing landslide he didn’t need Nevada’s electoral votes and a movement to rescind the Silver State’s statehood was immediately organized. It failed.
ropelight (003101) — 4/15/2014 @ 11:50 amThree victims, NONE of them Jewish.
Hate Fail.
Icy (14327b) — 4/15/2014 @ 11:54 amI Still haven’t forgiven Roman Polanski for the rape. Good movie, though.
Even good movie makers should do prison time if they earn it.
Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/15/2014 @ 11:55 amWow. Wrong thread AND wrong site.
That’s what I get for having multiple windows open simultaneously! I denounce myself.
Icy (14327b) — 4/15/2014 @ 11:56 am{tongue in cheek} I think (to paraphrase the liberal elite) this is ‘settled grazing’. Bundy has been grazing here longer than the earth has been warming.
TheHat (58d08b) — 4/15/2014 @ 11:59 amThat’s an excellent reminder, ropelight, about how Nevada’s statehood was also tangled up in Abraham Lincoln’s reelection prospects. Even more proof that Nevada statehood was the creation of the federal bureaucracy, not of an authentic grassroots support for statehood among Nevadans.
JVW (6fc31e) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:17 pmTo those who argue that a historic claim should be dispotive (that because Grandpa or whoever was grazing before the BLM existed), let me ask you this:
LSD was made illegal in, I think, 1966. Should people producing it before then have been allowed to continue?
Yes, there are plenty of legal distinctions to draw; I’m making a moral point.
Snip (031824) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:18 pmhttp://www.vox.com/2014/4/15/5617084/obamacare-new-census-insurance
narciso (3fec35) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:22 pm#27, it also goes a long way toward understanding the obsequious tone and content of Nevada’s constitution.
ropelight (003101) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:22 pmThe water rights issue is also part of this. Harry Reid is the unindicted coconspirator in any Nevada scandal.
MikeK (cd7278) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:25 pmKevin – I haven’t seen anywhere else where he has expanded beyond the land he has historically had access to.
See the Breitbart link I gave above.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch
Kevin M (b11279) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:33 pmLSD was made illegal in, I think, 1966. Should people producing it before then have been allowed to continue?
If they had a valid agreement with the US government to do so? Probably, or at least they’d be due something for the “taking.”
Kevin M (b11279) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:37 pmand a movement to rescind the Silver State’s statehood was immediately organized. It failed.
Just think: California could be that much larger.
Kevin M (b11279) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:40 pmKevin – I haven’t seen anywhere else where he has expanded beyond the land he has historically had access to.
The way I read it, he has spread out to use land than other, failed, ranches had been using.
Kevin M (b11279) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:41 pmThanks, Kevin
I would also point out that it appears the only reason he has not been run out of business like EVERY other rancher, done intentionally, is that he refused to obey their restrictions on the size of his herd.
It also appears that there are multiple douchenozzles involved in this decades old dispute.
JD (3845bd) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:44 pmWhich reminds me: there is a way out here. If this land is so important to the government, they should simply declare eminent domain and by out the Bundy ranch entirely. Sure, it’s cheaper on paper to make him quit, but he seems to be intent on refuting that. Take it, give him $10 million, and call it a day.
Kevin M (b11279) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:44 pmThey weren’t failed ranches, Kevin. They were driven out by the Feds.
JD (3845bd) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:45 pm*
Kevin M (b11279) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:45 pmbybuy#38: Well, they failed because the feds made them unprofitable, but I doubt they used marshals and such. So, potayto, potahto.
Kevin M (b11279) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:47 pmSnip, you make a valid point. Water rights or grazing rights are artifacts of the gub’mint owning too much.
Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:49 pm#34, Kevin, for decades the fallback option for unsuccessful California Congressional candidates involved buying a house in Nevada, registering to vote, and giving away enough whiskey come the next election to secure a Senate or House seat.
ropelight (003101) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:51 pmNot like it matters, Kevin M, but for what public purpose?
(Yeah yeah, it is to laugh.)
luagha (5cbe06) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:51 pmJD–
This is an old tactic, and you can probably see it in every town in the country.
City wants to widen a street, but doesn’t want to pay for the land in the easement. So they stop issuing building permits on the affected properties unless the easement land is given to the city as compensation for the “externalities” generated by the permit.
Since this usually is a bad trade, no one takes the deal and the properties deteriorate and decline in value. Eventually either people give up, or new buyers take the deal and redevelop, or the city finally buys the land at a depressed price.
Happens all the time.
Kevin M (b11279) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:54 pmNot like it matters, Kevin M, but for what public purpose?
Saving the tortoises! Or whatever.
Kevin M (b11279) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:55 pmI think of it as Robert Towne’s screenplay, and credit Nicholson for spotting it.
SarahW (267b14) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:58 pmComment by Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/15/2014 @ 11:55 am
Because the government abuses citizens all the time doesn’t make it right.
JD (3845bd) — 4/15/2014 @ 1:02 pmBecause the government abuses citizens all the time doesn’t make it right.
Democrats would use the word “fair” here. Me, I’m just feeling cynical today and think Mr Bundy ought to cut himself a deal before the lawyers land on him.
Kevin M (b11279) — 4/15/2014 @ 1:06 pmInteresting how they seem to have telescoped the timeline for that film;
http://www.history.com/topics/los-angeles-aqueduct
narciso (3fec35) — 4/15/2014 @ 1:09 pmClearly the “Law” is not on Bundy’s side. The issue with the Rancher is more than that though. What grievances can a citizen air against the government if the government stacks the law against them? You don’t have standing for or have the presumption of guilt with respect to a regulation.
The issue around Bundy’s ranch I think for a lot of people is clearly about Federal Overreach. We have the government claiming he owes a million in fines. ($300,000 in 2007…$1.1 million by 2014)…then they spend probably in surplus of $1 million to harrass the rancher with federal agents. All over a desert tortoise that the same federal government killed last year for a $600,000 shortfall in a conservation facility budget.
And all this while we have illegal immigrants pouring over our border…the Feds claiming they are helpless to stop it, but I’ve never seen a similar show of force on the Southern Border…they just bring out the big guns for disobedient citizens.
DejectedHead (a094a6) — 4/15/2014 @ 2:22 pmI’m not sure of Bundy’s justification for his stand, and I’m glad someone had the sense to stand down (for now),
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/15/2014 @ 3:29 pmbut I am pretty suspicious there is something more behind this as to why it is being made an issue.
I heard comment today that perhaps mining for rare earth elements might be part of this, in one of several ways. Nearby was the site of a previous mine that some years ago went out of production. In the meantime, China now produces something like 90% of the world’s supply. But the company that wants to do a solar farm (and get mineral rights???) is from…what country?
Meanwhile, I hear that China has made it illegal for anyone in their country to export rare earths to…Japan.
h/t Setnakt
They told me if I voted GOP that stem cell research would end … and they were right. (stolen from Glenn)
SPQR (768505) — 4/15/2014 @ 3:39 pmSPQR – maybe that demented mental midget Nishi can come preach about the SCIENCE !!!
JD (3845bd) — 4/15/2014 @ 3:59 pmThe desert tortoise can’t eat the desert forage the cows feed on so it survives by eating the digested and wet cow patties. Removing the cows and their dung removes a main food/water source for the desert tortoise.
Bundy is a numbskull who doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. Unfortunately the law is on the side of the jack-booted brainless feds who are determined to repurpose the land for greater economic advantage – just like Kelo – what a great success that will be.
crazy (d60cb0) — 4/15/2014 @ 4:28 pmComment by JVW (9946b6) — 4/15/2014 @ 9:27 am
NV was rushed into the Union during the Civil War for one reason, and one reason only:
SILVER.
askeptic (8ecc78) — 4/15/2014 @ 4:40 pmThe Comstock Lode was discovered in 1859, and the Union needed that silver to help pay for the war.
I expect the turtle clause to be lifted, now that we know the shelled creatures could withstand an army of solarized chicoms.
mg (31009b) — 4/15/2014 @ 4:46 pmAn interesting parallel is the BLM’s war with Utah over wild horses.
askeptic (8ecc78) — 4/15/2014 @ 4:51 pmIt seems that the BLM is under court order, or Congressional Law, to reduce the size of the herds in Southern Utah, and that the horses are a danger to the tortoises there, but the BLM has for many years pleaded poverty in this endeavor.
So, they can spend millions to round-up Bundy’s cattle in NV, but don’t have a nickel to spend on horses in UT.
Confrontations such as this have more to do with Barrack Hussein Obama saying “I want you to argue with them and get in their face” than they do with the legal merits of the issue.
highpockets (d91456) — 4/15/2014 @ 5:06 pmWords not heard:
If you like your grazing fees, you can keep your grazing fees; Period!
askeptic (8ecc78) — 4/15/2014 @ 5:30 pmWhen will the Feds begin collecting “grazing fees” from the 12 million illegal immigrants ?
Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/15/2014 @ 6:03 pmYou people have no idea how pleased as punch I am to find out how I have the cash to cover the tax bill.
Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/15/2014 @ 6:06 pmThis situation — from a standpoint of the mixed emotions it can trigger — reminds me of the one involving Edward Snowden vs the NSA awhile back.
Then there’s the phrase: “Upholding the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law.” Or visa versa.
Then there’s the US government nowadays doing so many things based on the whims of a few people in high positions (hello IRS! hello all you anti-sequester Park Service folks!, hello all you wonderful ultra-liberals in the White House!), the US Constitution be damned.
Then there’s the US-Mexico border, which is treated by that same bureaucracy as no more than a minor nuisance, easily ignored if the moment calls for it.
Then there’s the US government giving wide latitude to a character like Nidal Hasan while imposing speech codes on US military chaplains.
At worse — and it not necessarily even being a case of moral equivalency — everyone’s hands are dirty, but some (ie, the feds) more than others (eg, the Bundy’s).
Mark (59e5be) — 4/15/2014 @ 7:28 pmIt doesn’t sound like the BLM are the men for the job.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/04/eyewitness-blm-scared-crapless-by.html
A lot of that Federal ammo stash is going to be captured I’d wager.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/15/2014 @ 7:49 pmCount on it. The media are going to other and demonize the Bundys and their supporters, as they did the Weavers and the Branch Davidians. Make them out to be fools and violence-prone assholes, and subhuman.
Richard Aubrey (0605ef) — 4/16/2014 @ 3:58 amThat way, when the feds kill them, there’ll be no more concern amongst the chattering classes than there was about the dead of Waco or Ruby Ridge.
Here’s a partial list: This is Obama’s army he wanted in his speech going for the White House. Billions of hollow point ammo tells us something.
The U.S. Department of Education
Jude O'Connor (28432a) — 4/16/2014 @ 6:00 amThe Bureau of Land Management (200 uniformed law enforcement rangers and 70 special agents)
The U.S. Department of the Interior
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service (with an armed uniformed division of 1.000)
The National Park Service (made up of NPS protection park rangers and U.S. Park Police officers that operate independently)
The Environmental Protection Agency (200 special agents)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (224 special agents)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
From all I’ve seen, the Feds have a small problem if you dig far enough back:
Back when the Bundys acquired the ranch, grazing rights were part of water rights. Congress converted these rights to leased allotments by statute in the 1930s, essentially seizing ownership of the water and grazing rights. No one complained at the time, because they didn’t have to compete for leases.
FYI, the Bundys stopped paying when the BLM decided to reduce the allowed number of cattle in mid-lease, without changing the price (they probably wrote in a clause allowing that, but I haven’t read the leases).
Ibidem (ff16b2) — 4/16/2014 @ 8:22 amNot that any of that means the Bundys are in the right; as far as I can tell, everyone is in the wrong.
This Obama person wants to redistribute arms and weapons. He believes the armed forces have too many.
Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/16/2014 @ 8:31 amFairness or something.
65. I’m pretty sure following the legal process within channels is what the Left wants.
Case in point the WI John Doe open ending fishing expedition versus Walker.
The resort to the militia is our future, not the courts and certainly not the ballot box.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/16/2014 @ 9:00 amFacts essential to the discussion:
http://www.libertyandlead.com/2014/04/13/why-cliven-bundy-is-not-wrong-from-a-fellow-rancher/
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/16/2014 @ 9:11 amVia Larwyn another Huntress.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26969150
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/16/2014 @ 9:24 amYou know gg that raptors never really love you back.
Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/16/2014 @ 9:36 amI see the girl hugging her eagle, and all I’m thinking is, that eagle will break your heart.
Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/16/2014 @ 9:40 amThe Rot runs very deep. Just when does this rise to the level of a continuing criminal enterprise?
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/16/breaking-new-emails-show-lois-lerner-contacted-doj-about-prosecuting-tax-exempt-groups-n1825292
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/16/2014 @ 9:42 am71. Kinda like a horse.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/16/2014 @ 9:42 amFrom trap to hunt. Training a Red Tail Hawk for Falconry.
I’m going to have to trust you about horses. I’ve always rented, never bought.
I have shovelled my share of stables, though, if that’s interesting to anyone. Being around horse dung doesn’t make me much of a rider.
Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/16/2014 @ 10:07 amI great appreciate your work, but I beg to differ with you and most of the comments on this issue. I teach environmental science and the reason for grazing fees and grazing permits is to prevent overgrazing. Federal lands are a common pool resource. If common pool resources are not managed, you end up with a zero sum game whereby those will cattle will graze as much as they can for free, with no incentive to make sure there is enough grass for everyone else. This is called the tragedy of the commons. Given that government grazing fees cost a fraction of what is charged by private landowners, the practice of grazing on public land is already being subsidized by the rest of us, even when they are paying to graze! If you think I am a leftist mole who is making this up, I suggest you look up this issue on the “taxpayers for common sense” website. I don’t care that they “changed the rules” insofar as grazing is concerned because a century ago, overgrazing was much less of an issue. Mr. Bundy needs to get over it and pay up.
I hold this website in high esteem, but this cause is not worth it. Better to concentrate on the real scandals like the IRS, Benghazi, and intimidation of reporters.
Tony (2a43e2) — 4/16/2014 @ 1:02 pm“I don’t care that they changed the rules”
Is there any evidence that there is not enough for everyone else? Hint. They already ran everyone else off. The BLM is not managing the resource, they are managing the ranchers out of existence.
JD (3845bd) — 4/16/2014 @ 1:08 pmhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/feds-accused-leaving-trail-wreckage-after-nevada-ranch-standoff/
narciso (3fec35) — 4/16/2014 @ 1:19 pmThanks for the advice Tony. We’re a pretty diverse group and overall a pretty intelligent group here. If you’ve looked at that Nevada scrub land and think there’s a problem with “overgrazing” when Bundy is the only rancher even left in the area then you have prolly not looked at all the angles like many here have. If you do teach “environmental science” (whatever that is) it is very surely not in the area of agriculture. That land is not and never was “grassland”. Just sayin’.
elissa (5d7326) — 4/16/2014 @ 2:21 pmUmm, no. The reason for paying a fee for grazing rights or water rights is to appropriate the resource for a private use.
If someone pays for grazing rights to a parcel of land, there is no grass for “everyone else.” It is no longer a common pool resource.
elissa is right; that was never grassland. It takes something over 300 acres of that land to support one cow. Which is another reason why there is not grass for “everyone else.” There was almost no grass to begin with.
Which, when you think about it, means that ranchers have a very good reason not to let their cattle overgraze. Because if they do, they’re eating the rancher out of business. It just doesn’t matter to BLM rangeland managers if there are no cattle or 10,000 cattle grazing on a particular piece of land. They’re not working on commission. Those managers will get regular paychecks regardless. It matters very much to a rancher who owns a couple of thousand acres on land that abuts BLM land. Because without the grazing rights to that neighboring BLM land, that ranch is not a going concern. It’s too small to make a living from. They need those grazing rights, and those grazing rights have to be worth something. Most even want to leave that ranch to their kids, and they hope their kids will work it. So they have more incentive to be better stewards of that land than BLM employees.
Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/16/2014 @ 4:40 pmThere are lots of good people who work for BLM, don’t get me wrong. A hunting buddy of mine is a cadastral surveyor for BLM in Alaska. Great guy.
He was conducting a survey one time for some people who had homesteaded some land. You can’t do that anymore, but if I recall the rules you had to live on the land you staked for five years and “improve” it. The most common improvement was to just grow hay. They didn’t use it for anything; they just grew it.
One of the guys had built his cabin five feet off to the property. My friend surveyed it from every angle to see if he could find a way this guy would get his land. He really wanted him to have it. The guy had been living for five years in the middle of nowhere, stuck it out, and he had earned it.
My friend just couldn’t make it work. So, the guy had not been living for five years on the land he staked. He had been living five feet away from it. So, no homestead for him.
But the moral of the story is that the best thing you can do with BLM land is convert it to private property.
Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/16/2014 @ 5:14 pm76. There are approximately 4000 institutions of higher education in this country. According to a Harvard Economics prof, that number is likely to be halved over the next several years.
Already whole departments are meeting the ax as schools can never have too many administrators and 60 percent of schools are not meeting their budgets and tenure is no impediment when abridging the school’s catalog.
If one’s discipline does not lead to jobs on the outside for your students it would be best to start looking now.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/16/2014 @ 6:08 pm12. Comment by JVW (9946b6) — 4/15/2014 @ 9:27 am
The fact that Nevada became a state for purely political reasons helps explain how we end up with the likes of Harry Reid today.
No, not really, because Nevada is no longer a pocket borough (although the fact that it once was, led to laws, that led, finally, to a population increase)
Nevada now has more people living in it than West Virginia.
It was definitely done with an eye to the 1864 election.
Sammy Finkelman (28600b) — 4/16/2014 @ 7:33 pmI know the Whigs among us think Chicken Little has to be right once in a Blood Moon.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-16/martin-armstrong-warns-american-civil-unrest-starting-right-schedule
Well there’s a string of them over the next 18 months.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/16/2014 @ 11:49 pmWhat is your point? Do you think I work in some ivory tower? For the record, I work part time teaching biology, chemistry, and environmental science in two colleges in the People’s Republic of MD. I was run out of my full-time job in a private school when some helicopter parents could not come to terms with their little darling’s mediocrity that was reflected in my grades. Now I am dealing with college students, 50% of which are wasting their money.
Grazing permits and grazing fees exist because overgrazing can be a problem. Whether or not it is grass or scrubland or they are paying for it , is besides the point. And given that grazing fees on public lands are about 10 fold higher (I am sure they understand the value better than our government), this is still a common pool resource whose use is being subsidized by the rest of us. While it is possible that they agents are being overzealous and that the ecological impact is insignificant (there is some evidence that certain kinds of commercial grazing benefits the environment), the basic premise that grazing on public lands must be regulated. Finally, they government often makes rules it cannot keep (like retirement at 65 years). This is how politicians buy votes. Nobody should ever believe they would be able to graze their cattle at no cost forever.
Tony (2a43e2) — 4/17/2014 @ 6:00 amTony said,”Grazing permits and grazing fees exist because overgrazing can be a problem.”
However, not so much in the instant case.
JD (3845bd) — 4/17/2014 @ 6:22 amCorrection: I was referring to the grazing fees on private property.
And here is the link on how grazing might benefit the environment. It did not work in the previous post because I did not do it right.
Tony (2a43e2) — 4/17/2014 @ 6:25 amTony also said,”the basic premise that grazing on public lands must be regulated. Finally, they government often makes rules it cannot keep (like retirement at 65 years). This is how politicians buy votes. Nobody should ever believe they would be able to graze their cattle at no cost forever.”
Let’s unpack that a little. Nobody here is saying it should not be regulated. We are pointing out that the BLM is intentionally regulating these ranchers out of business. Again, nobody is pushing the idea that he should be able to graze at no cost forever. Even he isn’t pushing that idea.
JD (3845bd) — 4/17/2014 @ 6:26 amthat seems a little ‘squirrel’ if I do say so, the whole idiocy goes back to Clinton’s Interior secretary, Bruce Babbitt,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 6:46 amAlleged environmentalism has not been adjudicated.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:54 amaccused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”
That’s a shocking comment, and a very revealing one too.
I at first had a bit of ambivalence about the Bundy’s, about whether they perhaps were going just a tad bit overboard in applying the role of martyrs to themselves. But this story is now starting to truly remind me of the one about George Zimmerman versus Trayvon Martin, where there was some ambiguity, but where there also was the specter of modern-day leftism rearing its corrupt, dishonest, manipulative, sickening head.
Mark (59e5be) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:08 am85. Environmental concerns will have to be re-litigated after the restoration.
Western Federal seizures will abrogated, delegated regulatory authority extended to bureaucrats will be rescinded, enforcement arms of those Federal departments that survive will be abolished and former employees will be prosecuted with extreme prejudice by militia courts.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:09 amNo, there was no ambiguity with Zimmerman, in addition, the administrative state has been treating Bundy like a kulak for 20 years,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:14 amPar for the course;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/17/decision-in-the-mannuva-case-a-blow-to-open-science/
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:15 amThe Federal government ‘owns’ 85% of Nevada.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18056-war-on-the-west-why-more-bundy-standoffs-are-coming
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:16 am==Judge Jones granted an injunction against the agencies and referred area BLM and Forest Service managers to the Justice Department for prosecution.==
That’s actually kind of cute. Is Judge Jones “new” or unfamiliar with the justice department’s politics?
elissa (4bccfc) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:21 amWe’ve become a government that has a nation, rather than the other way around.
Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:22 am96. Exactamente.
It’s past time for a RESET.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:30 amI’d have thought that would be a reason to keep it a territory, under direct fedewral control. How did making it a state improve the federal treasury’s access to its silver?
Milhouse (b95258) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:51 amRand Paul has chimed in, talking completely out of his ass.
Go through a court? Yeah, maybe they could have a 20 year legal battle, a court order, and a District Court upholding the court order. Oh wait, that’s what already happened.
Bundy hasn’t filed for a permit, and hasn’t paid his fees for 20 years. And he’s a big jerk. Find a new hero.
carlitos (e7c734) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:54 amI’d have thought that would be a reason to keep it a territory, under direct fedewral control. How did making it a state improve the federal treasury’s access to its silver?
Read Patterico’s excerpts from Nevada’s constitution in the posts. In
nk (dbc370) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:01 amRussiaLincoln’s Union, the people enslave themselves. Easier to buy a willing partner with the gift of statehood than to rule it with federal marshalls, would be my guess.100. “Find a new hero.”
May I respectfully submit you’re missing the point. A nation of Davids have no use for a hero.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:10 amYou miss the point, that they’ve driven every farmer, except Bundy, that was the goal,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:11 amDriven every farmer?
A nation of Davids that listens to Fox and Hannity canonizing this whack job have no need for a hero. Sure.
carlitos (e7c734) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:13 amAs opposed to NPR and MSNBC, they are alway right;
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:17 am104. Fox? Hannity? We are not responsible for everyone you heed or your allocation of your time.
The tail does not wag the dog.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:18 amhttp://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/04/17/bundy-and-the-rule-of-law/
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:22 am99. Obviously, that explanation about silver is wrong, and getting 3 extra Electoral votes in the Presidential election of 1864 was the reason, although the odds would be pretty small it would matter.
Also perhaps some people hoping it would help in passing legislation was more of a reason.
Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:30 amLinked elsewhere:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-16/brics-consider-creating-imf-alternative-us-loses-credibility
The end of the reign of the petrodollar, the loss of $100 Billion in Fed purchased US Debt plugged into the global economy, the collapse of the Baltic Dry Index, etc., all portend a 2015 tourniquet applied to our quality of life.
Trillions in paper assets are soon to be lost. Our way of life will be very different in a very few years.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:31 amJust to be clear, I’m not in favor of the way the feds went about this. They made a lot of mistakes; failing to remove his cattle when he first refused to pay his fees among them. But not paying for 20 years and calling out the freaking nutbar “militia” is not the way to go about fixing the problem.
I like how hotair.com flirts with the chinese solar farm conspiracy theory without actually saying chinese. That’s what they mean by dog-whistle, I guess. On the video of the “militia” confronting the feds, one of the nutbars actually shouted “go back to china” at the BLM guys.
carlitos (e7c734) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:39 amWho here said Bundy was a hero?
JD (3845bd) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:45 am“On the video of the “militia” confronting the feds, one of the nutbars actually shouted “go back to china” at the BLM guys.”
carlitos – Is that better or worse than being called a racist by one of the “rent a mob” members at a progressive protest who don’t know why they are there in the first place?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:45 amComment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:54 am
If the Bundy’s can show provenance to the land to the same degree that Hage did, they will have the BLM by the short and curly’s.
askeptic (8ecc78) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:46 amComment by Milhouse (b95258) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:51 am
There was the ever-present danger of NV interests (mine-owners) becoming aligned with the Confederacy.
askeptic (8ecc78) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:48 amStatehood was the roadblock to that.
“Bundy hasn’t filed for a permit, and hasn’t paid his fees for 20 years. And he’s a big jerk. Find a new hero.”
My heroes are the brainiacs who believe it makes sense to send snipers and have them train their rifles on American citizens over this BS.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:49 amlike Kulaks, ‘sticking to their guns, and their religion,’ only faith in the One, is acceptable,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:52 amBundy and family are no heroes, but this all has the taint of Hairy Reid and crew somehow profiting from a land grab.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:52 amComment by carlitos (e7c734) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:39 am
How did Bundy “call out the militia”, which under the Militia Acts, are volunteers?
askeptic (8ecc78) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:53 amThese were people who dropped what they were doing, travelling in some cases hundreds of miles on their own dimes, to help a “neighbor” being attacked by “thugs” who were destroying his property.
Why is this particular discussion pissing you off, Carlitos? I try to give you the benefit of the doubt because you’re a White Sox fan which shows you have a great deal of smarts. :). But your comments here about Bundy have a “because—shut up!” quality about them that is uncharacteristic of you. This is genuinely a complex story and a more than twenty year evolving situation that involves the scope and mangement of federal lands, obscene use of regulations, corrupt judges, corrupt political cronies, water rights, and ranchers being forced out through intimidation and losing their livelihoods.
Whack job or not, the Bundy family’s saga is bringing to the fore a bunch of issues that the government and BLM would prefer not to be brought to the fore.
elissa (4bccfc) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:54 amFair point.
Somewhere, a Paiute is giggling at this.
Does anyone else here find gary gulrud’s cheerleading for armed insurrection troubling?
carlitos (e7c734) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:55 amIf you wish to submit to Leviathan carlitos, you may;
askeptic (8ecc78) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:02 amsome of us take a different path and think that Leviathan needs to submit to its sovereign:
The People!
“My heroes are the brainiacs who believe it makes sense to send snipers and have them train their rifles on American citizens over this BS.”
Colonel – Unfortunately, if Obama has his way and we disarm our citizens, we would no longer have need for your sniper heroes. 🙁
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:03 amHey Daley,
Under Obama, we have concealed carry in about 20 more states than Bush and my handguns are no longer illegal in Chicago.
They told me that voting for McCain would improve 2nd amendment rights, and they were right. 🙂
carlitos (e7c734) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:09 amThat makes no sense. It’s not as if the territory was in rebellion, and needed to be bought off. It was a territory, under direct federal control; you’re claiming that giving away some of that control, and setting up a government with its own needs and priorities, would somehow cause more of the area’s silver to flow to the treasury. I just don’t see how that’s possible. No, it makes much more sense that they were after the 3 extra electoral votes.
Milhouse (b95258) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:10 amA hardscrabble ranch and a bunch of measly beef* are not worth getting anybody killed over, that’s for sure. I’ll split that baby.
*”measly beef” means something specific
nk (dbc370) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:12 amHow? It would seem to me that statehood would make that easier, not harder. States can, in principle, secede; territories can’t, even in principle. If you suspect your unofficial tenant is thinking of causing trouble for you, the last thing you should do is give him a lease!
Milhouse (b95258) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:13 amNo, it makes much more sense that they were after the 3 extra electoral votes.
No argument, it does sound more reasonable.
nk (dbc370) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:14 amQ. I think the Confedracy did take over Indian territory (later Oklahoma)
What was the situation in New Mexico territory (which then included Arizona) in the Civil War?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Mississippi_Theater_of_the_American_Civil_War
They never even got close to Nevada.
Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:14 amThank you for the kind words, and occasionally I do go a little knee-jerk on a subject. Bad hair day or something.
Yes, important issues are coming to the fore, but we also see folks reacting to those issues in predictable ways, with the Rand Pauls and Hannitys using it to “rally the base.” In this case, that almost led to bloodshed — partially due to the cluelessness and ineptitude of the feds, and partially due to the belligerence and ignorance of the Bundys and others. I’m genuinely concerned that this almost paranoid anti-Obama, anti-federal government sentiment is going to start claiming lives. Maybe I’m wrong, but at least one commenter here seems almost gleeful at the prospect.
What’s a more likely short-term result from this fervor — Nevada becoming less corrupt overnight, or some “sovereign citizen” committing violence?
As for the complexity of the issue, there is a good summary at WaPo here.
carlitos (e7c734) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:15 amMy Nebraskan neighbor claims Nevada’s silver mines were the reason for the Trans-Continental Railroad, though.
nk (dbc370) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:16 amMaybe Cliven Bundy should fight fire with fire.
That is:
Hire one of the Pigford lawyers.
With a contingency agreement, and before that hore some other lawyer to negiouate something so that the Pigford lawyer doesn’t get anything if he loses his ranch.
Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:17 amI’m not really serious.
Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:18 am“Under Obama, we have concealed carry in about 20 more states than Bush and my handguns are no longer illegal in Chicago.”
carlitos – Yes. That’s in reaction to Obama, not what Obama wants!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:22 amWell the EPA and Soros mean to prevent another goldrush,
http://enr.construction.com/infrastructure/environment/2014/0421-proposed-controversial-mine-loses-key-investor-rio-tinto.asp
the same strategems seem to apply with regards to fracking, frankly any productive enterprise,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:22 amInterestingly they also have contempt for Native hunters as well,
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059996272
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:27 amI know that, but results are results. Maybe we should elect an extreme liberal every generation or so, just so the states freak out and protect our rights.
carlitos (e7c734) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:29 amAs I see it, the core issue here is what the feds hold the land for. The traditional rancher view, expressed now by the Bundys, is that the feds held the land in trust for them, the local residents who were making use of it, and their job was to manage it as Tony explained, for the benefit of all the users.
The problem is that the BLM took a different view: that the land is rightly and properly the property of the federal government, and if it’s held in trust for anyone it’s for the general public of the USA, meaning primarily the 99.9% who don’t live near it and have no use for it at all.
The Bundys saw themselves as paying grazing fees for the purpose of maintaining resources that they were using, must like hunting fees go to maintaining the resources that hunters need, and fuel taxes go to maintaining the highways that fuel users need. So when the BLM started using those fees against the interests of the ranchers, and managing the land for the purpose of destroying them rather than helping them, as the Bundys saw things it had forfeited the right to those fees, or to manage the land.
This can be compared to the way the Bureau of Indian Affairs ran the Indian lands for generations, not for the Indians’ benefit but directly against it, and Judge Lamberth’s battle to right this wrong.
Or for a hypothetical example that would be closer to most people’s experience, imagine if the fuel taxes that are meant to be used for maintaining the highways for the benefit of the people who pay them, were instead used to tear up the highways and destroy the trucking business. It may be constitutional, but it violates the meta-constitution, the rules that give constitutions their authority in the first place. And sooner or later people start to notice.
PS: This is why I have a huge problem with extorting taxes from tobacco companies for the purpose of advertising against their products and driving them out of business. It’s making the convict’s family pay for the bullet to execute him, or making people dig their own graves before shooting them.
Milhouse (b95258) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:30 amyou’re a White Sox fan which shows you have a great deal of smarts.
Well, this is one Cubs fan who is not going to be shelling out any money to the Ricketts family any time soon. The Cubs and the Yankees have about the same attendance, but the Cubs payroll is $89 million and the Yankees is $204 million. And what sadist made the interleague schedule, anyway? The Cubs versus the Yankees? Really? And didn’t he know how rude the Yankees are to the Cubs, too? The Yankees never let the Cubs win at Yankee stadium even though the Cubs almost always let the Yankees win at Wrigley Field.
nk (dbc370) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:34 am==I’m genuinely concerned that this almost paranoid anti-Obama, anti-federal government sentiment is going to start claiming lives.==
Thanks for the response Carlitos. I’m not certain how familiar you are with Ruby Ridge and Waco. But those sieges preceded the Obama era, and the unspeakable violence in those cases was perpetrated by the US government against US citizens not the other way around. I think many of the people who rushed to the Bundy ranch were actually trying to prevent that type of thing from happening once again to another family–as opposed to ginning up more violence as you seem to imply.
elissa (4bccfc) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:35 amSo they want to take your guns, and they have done so in California and Conneticut, a little less successful in Colorado, they take your land both there and apparently in Nevada, if you’re a fired cop, who takes innocent life, there will be a mob who will cheer him on,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:36 am#OccupyNevada
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:39 amBTW, the reason guns are no longer illegal in Chicago is because of Otis McDonald who just passed away, may he rest in peace, five Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican Presidents who incorporated the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth, and a majority of Republican appointees on the Seventh Circuit who took McDonald v. City of Chicago and shoved concealed carry down the Illinois legislature’s throat. All the necessar and sufficient action came from Republican-appointed judiciary.
nk (dbc370) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:41 am“So they want to take your guns, and they have done so in California and Conneticut, a little less successful in Colorado”
narciso – A major registration deadline under New York’s new SAFE Act also just passed with major estimated noncompliance.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:42 amLOL, nk. We have finally and totally converted a friend, a baseball aficionado and lifelong Cubs fan, who this year has joined in our season ticket syndicate pool for White Sox games. After futilely writing impassioned personal letters to the Ricketts’ for over two years she finally issued the final divorce papers to the Cubs over the winter.
elissa (4bccfc) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:46 amYes, but I was speaking about legislative scams I mean protocols, the judge who upheld the law, still relied on Joyce foundation astroturf,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:49 amMaybe she ‘didn’t build that’ after all;
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/elizabeth-warren-i-wasnt-taking-credit-for-occupy-movement-when-i-took-credit-for-occupy-movement-video/
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:56 amCarlitos said,”What’s a more likely short-term result from this fervor — Nevada becoming less corrupt overnight, or some “sovereign citizen” committing violence?”
I think it is more likely that a citizen will have violence committed on them.
JD (3845bd) — 4/17/2014 @ 11:09 am“I think it is more likely that a citizen will have violence committed on them.”
JD – They already have.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2014 @ 11:18 amA lawyer for Bundy (who has so far had a fool for a client):
He should hire the Hage lawyer.
BTW, Milhouse @ #126, you are aware as to why the Civil War began aren’t you (and I’m not talking about America’s “other persons”)?
askeptic (8ecc78) — 4/17/2014 @ 2:19 pmThat may be the pretense for grazing permits and fees but a) that isn’t why ranchers pay them and b) it isn’t like the BLM does a very good job.
This is why many ranchers and many ranching/grazing associations hire their own range specialists to monitor the health of their allotments. Even if the BLM specialists aren’t actively trying to put the ranchers out of business, they’re spending their time in the office working on defending against lawsuits and they aren’t in the field. So ranchers have figured out they can help their own cause by doing their own monitoring, documenting everything, and taking lots of pictures of the condition of the range so they can demonstrate how they improved it by changing their management procedures based upon the information.
This helps if the BLM gets sued by anti-grazing interests, because if the BLM is fighting that lawsuit the ranchers can provide the information to the BLM (or Forest Service). It also helps the ranchers if they need to sue the government if it turns on them and tries to put them out of business.
In general private ownership means better management. Grazing rights, like water rights, are property. People can buy, sell, and inherit them. And the ranchers livelihood depends on the quality of the grazing.
Similarly, companies like Weyerheauser manage their forests to a higher standard than the USFS.
Weyerheauser uses third party accreditation programs to verify that they are managing the land well. In North America they use the Sustainable Forestry Initiative standard. And all their North American forests are in 100% compliance.
The USFS did a case study involving five national forests across the country. None of them could meet SFI or Forest Stewardship Council standards.
http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/forestcertification/full-report.pdf
Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/17/2014 @ 4:05 pmAlleged pedophile Harry Reid calls Bundy backers “domestic terrorists”.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/17/2014 @ 4:37 pmhttp://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/harry-reid-calls-cliven-bundy-supporters-domestic-terrorists-video/
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:00 pmA lot of this discussion has me in ‘anthropologist mode’, semi-spasticly Spocking an eyebrow … “Fascinating !”
I am especially fascinated by the patent unfamiliarity with the expression “Dog in the Manger” – as in being “Dog in the Manger” about something …
If the grazing rights (which had not been paid for) were being taken so that someone else who is willing to pay can use them, that could make sense …
Taking the grazing rights so that no-one can use them is classic “Dog in the Manger” … and taking the grazing rights so that access to the land can be sold to someone who wants to put up a solar farm should be at least fraud plus malfeasance (or whatever they call those things over here) …
Alastor (3fb884) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:09 pmwell it’s like ‘Cash for Clunker’s, there’s someone cashing in, down the line,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:14 pmDoes anyone else here find gary gulrud’s cheerleading for armed insurrection troubling?
Carlitos, then the most reasonable innate reaction therefore would be one of ambivalence, where a person has a sense of both sympathy and cynicism towards the BLM, the US federal government in general, and the Bundy’s.
Context in important too, and I admit my response to this controversy is colored by the USA in 2014, by all the liberal idiocy that’s pervading this society — and the Western World overall — from A to Z. So I might have perceived the Bundy’s and BLM differently in, say, the 1940s or 1950s, when among other things, the public sector wasn’t quite so overgrown, so Obama-Jeremiah-Wright-ized. But this is the 21st century. It’s not your (or my) father’s or grandfather’s America.
Mark (59e5be) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:32 pmUm, yes, I am. I don’t see quite how it’s relevant. Lincoln took the view that states had no right to secede. But whether they do or don’t, at least they can, and he was fighting a war against states that had done so, believing themslves to have the right. So if, as has been suggested here, he was worried about Nevadans’ loyalty, why on earth would he give them the ability to secede, or to cause him other trouble? As I said, if you anticipate trouble from an unofficial tenant, the last thing you should do is give him a lease!
Milhouse (b95258) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:35 pm120. Read the link at 45.
If I am cheerleading it is for the militia, not Bundy. This is a position consistent with my position over many months, that the ballot box is no solution at all.
Bundy stands accused of grazing his cattle on government property, which charge he flatly denies.
The BLM offered grazing and water rights on signature of a contract. Bundy, alone among his neighbors, did not sign.
Your assumption of his guilt merely on the basis of the BLM charge is precipitous and, may I say, credulous.
Take your meds, please. And don’t expect to drive by and be germane.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:38 pmGary, is one might say, a Clausewitzian, if conventional politics don’t yield the proper result, you try other tactics,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:39 pmThere’s no suggestion of that.
Milhouse (b95258) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:40 pmI don’t think you can take public lands by adverse possession, but otherwise Bundy has done all the right things: His possession is by claim of right; it is adverse to the owner; it is not permissive; and it has gone on for 20 years. Interesting.
nk (dbc370) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:44 pmYou’re not seriously suggesting that since he declined to sign the contract his cattle are not grazing on the land in question, are you? Not even he denies that they are!
Nor can you seriously be denying, as Bundy does, that as a matter of straight property law the land in question does belong to the federal government.
So in what way is it precipitous or credulous, or even an assumption at all?
Milhouse (b95258) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:58 pmYou can’t.
But for all those years the owner has been pursuing legal action against him, not simply letting it happen without protest. So I don’t see how adverse possession would apply even with a private owner.
Milhouse (b95258) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:02 pmThe litigation helps Bundy — that the possession is adverse and non-permissive. There’s actually a case I remember from the U.S (?) Supreme Court on this. More or less, landlord tries to evict black lady; she alleges racial discrimination; case drags on for statutory period; she owns the house.
nk (dbc370) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:12 pm“There’s no suggestion of that.”
Milhouse – There is a suggestion that a Chinese developer represented by Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, wants to develop a solar farm on a parcel of land 30 miles away, which would involve relocating “endangered” desert tortoises to the land where Bundy grazes his cattle, which is why the BLM tried to move them off.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:32 pm161. See you in court.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:28 pmThat’s ridiculous. Surely the whole point of adverse possession is that by allowing the infringement to go on for so long without protest, the owner effectively consented to the use, and demonstrated his lack of a valid claim. That’s why the use has to be adverse to the owner — if it’s not the owner can say that he didn’t object because he had no reason to.
Milhouse (b95258) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:27 pmThat’s a different story. That story has been suggested, though not all that plausibly; the one I quoted has not been suggested at all.
Milhouse (b95258) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:37 pm“That story has been suggested, though not all that plausibly”
Milhouse – What is not plausible about it?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2014 @ 12:48 amIt’s an urban myth; a conspiracy theory.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp
Or, if you like Breitbart better:
Nothing in there about “relocating turtles to the Bundy ranch.”
There is no link at 45.
So “cheerleading for armed insurrection” would be an accurate characterization of your position, yes?
He does not deny this. He says that he doesn’t recognize the Federal Government’s existence, which is loony-tunes. He knows damn well that his cattle are grazing on government land.
Correct. Based on a flawed legal argument of “my family have been ranching here for generations.” Ask a Paiute Indian or a Mexican how they regard this argument.
The BLM charge, and the court order, and the District Court’s upholding of the court order. Try to follow the details of the case if you’re going to argue it.
I missed them yesterday, but I’m back on today. :eyeroll:
I’ve been commenting at this site since “Oh, that liberal media” was current. Maybe 10 years?
Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:38 pm
carlitos (e7c734) — 4/18/2014 @ 5:56 am168. No offense, but shilling for this government has no upside friend. Get on the surviving side of history.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/18/2014 @ 6:28 am169. “There is no link at 45.”
Sorry, 69 then.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/18/2014 @ 6:30 amA couple of pertinent, non-entrenched links:
http://www.steynonline.com/6266/the-plains-of-bureaustan
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/why-you-should-be-sympathetic-toward-cliven-bundy.php
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/18/2014 @ 7:02 amThis controversy reminds me of the one involving Edward Snowden several months ago. There were arguments made against him — perfectly valid ones — and I couldn’t disagree one iota with them. But my heart, if you will, just wasn’t in it.
I guess it’s somewhat analogous to hearing about a guy who has shoplifted from a grocery store and then learning he stole in order to feed his family, compared with another case of theft where a guy stole to raise enough cash to buy a pair of the latest, trendiest Nikes.
Mark (59e5be) — 4/18/2014 @ 7:25 amcarlitos – The Powerline link which gary included in comment 171 has the info on the BLM mitigation plan for the “endangered” desert tortoises to relocate them to the area of the Bundy ranch. Yep, straight from a government document. Who knew?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2014 @ 10:44 am173. More:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/04/behind-bundy-ranch-takeover-attempt.html
Not ‘plausible’ but self-evident.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/18/2014 @ 11:09 amNice link gary
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2014 @ 11:59 amCarlitos said, “What’s a more likely short-term result from this fervor — Nevada becoming less corrupt overnight, or some “sovereign citizen” committing violence?”
– – – – –
I’d say it would be the option you DIDN’T put forth — namely that the alphabet-soup “enforcers”, with their snipers and helicopters and “First Amendment Areas” and “better have funeral arrangements”, would be the group more likely to, ahhh, “pull a Kent State” on the assembled civilian protesters.
Just my humble opinion; completely unprovable.
A_Nonny_Mouse (427132) — 4/18/2014 @ 2:54 pmi like turtles
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/18/2014 @ 3:48 pmIn soup, or grilled?
Milhouse (b95258) — 4/18/2014 @ 4:18 pm157. Ima gonna have to read that guy sometime.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/18/2014 @ 9:20 pmConcur. I look forward to hearing the answer. There is no doubt that there’s a blatant double standard.
Oil companies, and oil company executives have been criminally charged if a single migratory bird is killed in one of their reserve pits.
Meanwhile, the only legal way to kill protected birds is to run a “green energy company.”
http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/sourcefiles/avian-mortality-solar-energy-ivanpah-apr-2014.pdf
To cut to the chase, the threat these solar farms pose to birds including protected raptors includes trauma and “solar flux.” By solar flux they mean among other things if you burn of the primary flight feathers the bird can’t freakin’ fly. Which means its chances for survival in the desert is non-existent even if it withstands impact with the ground.
So, the critics are wrong. They used to say the only legal way to kill eagles was to build a wind farm. Ain’t true. You can legally kill eagles by building a solar farm, too.
Given the fact that oil companies will be charged with crimes for killing birds when “green” companies will never be charged with killing far more birds, how do you contend that the it’s not “plausible” that removing the Bundys’ cattle from habitat suitable for the Desert Tortoise isn’t part of some BS mitigation plan to allow the Feds to let the Rieds to enrich themselves?
Steve57 (0124e7) — 4/18/2014 @ 10:28 pmEvidently this Clausewitz guy gets around:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-lands-lawmakers-federal.html.csp
Looks like an idea whose time has arrived.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/19/2014 @ 8:14 pmMr. Bundy holds court, talking about the white man’s burden. I don’t suppose that Rand Paul or the National Review will be comparing him to Ghandi anymore.
carlitos (e7c734) — 4/24/2014 @ 1:18 pmAn old man’s ignorance and bigotry doesn’t change the fact that the federal government sent armed snipers and acted as thugs in a flagrant instance of overreach.
Colonel Haiku (b924f9) — 4/24/2014 @ 1:33 pmOr perhaps you agree with their actions, Carlitos?
Colonel Haiku (b924f9) — 4/24/2014 @ 1:34 pmWrong, Haiku. It’s now obvious that there was no other way to deal with these mouthbreathers.
nk (dbc370) — 4/24/2014 @ 1:39 pmmy grandpa was racist too
he died in a patch of dirty snow outside of his little house, gasping for breath on the plains of oklahoma
it was later that day that grandma found his already-stinking racist corpse
my dad was sad, cause grandpa never had a chance to repent and he knewed he won’t never see grandpa in heaven
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/24/2014 @ 1:42 pmMr. Bundy and the feds both had snipers. I disagree with both.
carlitos (e7c734) — 4/24/2014 @ 1:46 pm183. You’d expect him to talk about crime and violence, but he doesn’t, because he knows absolutely nothing about them.
And why is he comparing any situaiton, real or imaginary, to slavery? (and what he’s describing doesn’t sound worse than slavery. No gangs or shootings in his description)
What about the years 1865 to 1930, when neither this nor that was true anywhere?
There’s a little trace of sadism, there, combined with sheer, massive, ignorance.
Gandhi is spelled Gandhi, by the way.
Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be) — 4/24/2014 @ 1:47 pmBundy:
A subsidy causes abortion? Shouldn’t it be the other way around, and prevent abortion? How does this make sense?
(both not having to support children, and abortions may indeed be occuring with the same people, but it can’t be cause and effect.)
Bundy is in well over his head. Who encouraged him?
Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be) — 4/24/2014 @ 1:52 pmhttp://www.wnd.com/2014/04/mounting-government-tyranny-furthers-revolution/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375824/case-little-sedition-kevin-d-williamson
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2014/04/22/cliven-bundy-takes-nevada-ranch-rhetoric
carlitos (e7c734) — 4/24/2014 @ 2:05 pmDang… shot for holding abhorrent views. A lot of potential dead peeps if’n that’s the bar, nk.
Colonel Haiku (0dcd9c) — 4/24/2014 @ 2:09 pmMeanwhile, Obambi shanks another opportunity to look half way decisive and masculine… http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-new-russia-sanctions-are-teed-up-but-putin-can-change-course/
Colonel Haiku (0dcd9c) — 4/24/2014 @ 2:14 pmYes, the Weavers can relate,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/24/2014 @ 2:16 pmWhen they started shooting his prize bulls from helicopters, and running newborn calves till they dropped dead or nearly died, and tased and turned dogs on his son, is when any moral authority the government might have had in this civil matter was breached and lost as far as I am concerned. He may have opinions that range from the unpopular to the strange to the wretched. But nothing justifies what is being done to him and his family and his animals. He’s not a hero –but he is an American citizen and his extended family are American citizens and they all are legacy ranchers. Harry Reid and the BLM and their bird killing wind farm cronies and the media who so willingly do their dirty work for them should all ESAD.
elissa (9e7de1) — 4/24/2014 @ 2:37 pmthe american government is to moral authority what Cliven Bundy is to racial comity
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/24/2014 @ 2:43 pmWhy do we not trust the Ole Grey Lady, it saves time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UrGL0wtC1s
narciso (3fec35) — 4/24/2014 @ 2:44 pmI’m glad elissa’s on our team!
Colonel Haiku (01ad4d) — 4/24/2014 @ 2:48 pm