Bundy Ranch - Your thoughts

[CVslots]

Just wondering what you guys thought of the whole Bundy Ranch thing?

[br549autosales]

I'm happy with the results, unfortunately this is not over, they will be back.

[CVslots]

Yep...when have the Feds ever "lost" and just gave up?!?!? They don't...

[Neonkiss]

I haven't really followed it, but who's land is it?
Does it belong to the rancher? or just open land owned by ??

[UNIMAN]

This is right out my back door! And this a very touchy issue!!!

The short version as I know it.
The Bundy family has been using that land since the 1800's. 1877 I believe. Bundy was paying lease rights to graze his cattle until 1992 when the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) limited him to less than 200 head so as to not affect the endangered desert tortoise. At that time he quit paying and continued to graze much more than 200 head. Years of court decisions decided each time he was not legally entitled. BLM told him several times to get the cattle out. Over 20 years later the BLM said they were removing them themselves. Milita types from all over came to support Bundy. Armed with guns they confronted the armed BLM folks. Local sheriff talked BLM into releasing the cows and leaving the area.
A lot of folks feel the BLM handled it wrong by creating "1st Amendment areas" for protests. And by having armed guards surround the private cowboys hired to roundup the cattle. But I do not. They knew they were in a touchy situation as Bundy said he would do whatever it takes to stop them. The governor of Nevada criticized the "areas" and IMO, inflamed the situation.

My thoughts; It's a very complicated issue. Nevada is over 80% federal land. Why, I really don't know. Several stories like Nevada didn't want the responsibility of desert scrubland back when they became a state. Most western states are mostly federal lands. The feds are unwilling to give up the land. So this guy feels Washington is stepping on him. I understand that.
But there are other ranchers out here paying the fees and following the rules. Most are disgusted Bundy is getting away with not paying for so long and nothing gets done.
The Nevada Ranchers Assoc. did not support Mr. Bundy.
I feel for Mr. Bundy, but he has made bad decisions the last twenty years, IMO, that will hurt him and family for years to come. To flat out ignore the BLM and the courts rulings gets one nowhere. This armed standoff will have negative reactions as no reasonable AMERICAN wants anarchy.

[UNIMAN]

Let me add this.
I respect others opinnions and understand if you may disagree. It is a real complicated issue.


The whole tortoise issue I do have trouble with. There was recently a federal supported tortoise sanctuary that had to close and they were going to kill all the saved tortoises until people screamed. I've seen a few tortoises out here in the wild and really wonder just how endangered they really are.

[Neonkiss]

Thanks Uniman for filling in the blanks.
Now I would have to agree with you. I'm sure his cattle ranching is a business and feeding his family. Every business has expenses. You have to pay to play we have all herd (pun intended) this.
 
One has to remember this is 2014 and times have changed. Remember when a handshake was a mans word? Well I can tell stories about deals made with a handshake and when I arrived with trucks to pickup up my machines the price had doubled. If you want to be a rancher than I guess you need to buy some land or pay the grazing fees like everyone else. Hell ever since the 60's you couldn't hitch a ride for free. It was Gas, Grass or A$$ 
Even NLG has changed. 

[TheAirBalancer]

Edit;
 I must read more about this before I comment, due to new info.
 

[CVslots]

My family has owned cattle ranches for my entire life (and then some), and with the proximity to us, I started following the story.


BLM has apparently not played completely fair with these ranchers. By limiting the amount of head they can run to 150-200, when many were running 1000+, this substantially limited their income....in time, it has folded dozens of ranches (approx 50 ranches, if I'm not mistaken). While Mr. Bundy may not have been 100% correct in NOT paying BLM, it is said that he continued to write checks to the State of NV (who, in his eyes, is who he holds the land lease agreement with, since the agreement was in place when BLM was formed in 1946).


Now, what's interesting to me, is how BLM came in strapped for war, without the assistance of the State of NV, which is how the laws are written. BLM, or any Fed agency, whenever executing a seizure of property, is required to work with the State, ontain a writ of execution and have it perfected by the local Sheriff. In this case, since the property is livestock, they are required to have the State Brandmaster or Dept of Ag appointee on sight to verify the cattle seized are the correct property/cattle. The cattle are then to be transported to the State designated detainment facility or sale/auction yard, depending on the decision of the State.


Having worked at cattle sales (auction yards) for 15 years, I have seen many State seizure cattle sold. NEVER have I seen cattle sold where the proceeds went to BLM. Being in CA, I know BLM land is not as plentiful as in NV, but still...I think BLM might have cut a few corners when they heard supporters were at the Bundy Ranch.

[Magicslots]

The problem here is simply the piss poor way the Federal government handled the situation.  There was absolutely no need for "military" or "swat" type response. According to the Constitution, The duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county. He has law enforcement powers that exceed that of any other state or federal official. This is settled case law that most people are not aware of.  He should have ordered the Feds to stand down as soon as they started this crap.  Intimidation seems to be the standard response from this administration.  They want to pick and choose which laws they will/wont enforce. 
This could have been resolved in a reasonable fashion!!!

[UNIMAN]

CV Slots, thanks for the extra info on cooperating with the states, didn't know that.
What I do know is the local sheriff said he had no jurisdiction on federal property and was staying out of it. Then when the standoff happened he showed up.
                                 correction below
Magicslots, I disagree. Bundy BLM had been ordered by a federal court to remove the cattle. The cattle owner threatened them. They hired a private Utah cattle firm to remove the cattle. They pledged or agreed to protect the cowboys rounding up the cattle. They knew it was going to be trouble so they brought in several armed federal agents in a show of force. I would have done the same. The armed agents watched over the cowboys, not Bundy.
Several days into the roundup all the folks from out of state showed up, joined Bundy and his group and then approached the roundup camp in an armed standoff.
The local county sheriff stayed out of it until the standoff, said he had no jurisdiction. The State governor said the BLM had no right to set up protest areas. Harry Reid has said the armed group were thugs. County Commissioner Tom Collins told a Utah official that the inbreds from Utah better have funeral plans if they come down to fight for Bundy. So the state and local politicians get some blame too! Idiots.

Also, the cattle were to be shipped to a Utah auction house. Utah stopped them at the border and said they were feral cattle and could not enter the state. I wonder how many times Bundy shipped his cattle to Utah without a problem. Hmmm

The thing I blame the BLM is letting this go on and on for 20 freaking years! And I'm thinking the State of Nevada was well aware and stayed out just like the sheriff.

There's even more to this story. A big part of the area Bundy has cattle is called Gold Butte. Never been there, but I'm told it has ancient Indian petroglyphs. It's also an area where ATV'ers frequent. So you have environmentalists sueing the BLM to remove the cattle because of the tortoise, other groups who want Gold Butte access controlled by creating a national park or whatever. So this thing has several angles. And, Harry Reid has said we need to give back more land to the local Indian tribe. So that theory is going around too.

The land, as I see it, is hot, nasty desert! Can't see how cows could even survive. And I have no problem with cows out there. The real issue is why does the federal govt own so much land and why don't the western states lobby to get control of the lands?
Right now the BLM owns the land and can decide how many cattle can roam their land. It's their land, it's their right. Life ain't fair.

[UNIMAN]

I need to make a correction. The BLM was not ordered to remove the cattle. Bundy was ordered to remove the cattle and then ordered not to interfer with the BLM.
The Washington Post has a nice timeline article; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

[CVslots]

Thanks to the state of Utan, the cattle were not allowed in!!! WHY?? Because they did not have any papers from State of NV Brand Inspectors or BrandMaster! Did Bundy send cattle to Utah? he'll yah, whenever he wanted, because he had proof of ownership (brand on cattle matched, or sale transfer papers for cattle without his brand)!


What we are forgetting to cover here is WHY WOULD THE FEDS WANT THIS LAND??? Apparently, Harry Reid and his son have already struck a deal with the major energy supplier in CHINA to acquire, and operate a solar farm on the land....check it out if you don't think it's true, but there is plenty of info to back it up. Reid's previous employee was somehow "miraculously" appointed to head of BLM a couple years ago...hmmm.....think there may be some divided interest here??? It AINt about the tortoises...that we know! So WHY would the Feds SUDDENLY feel the need to kick off a rancher after 140 yrs??? The Bundy's have MORE than enough $$$ to pay that piddly $1.1M in grazing fees. Point is, Clive Bindy knows once he makes a payment to BLM for the grazing rights, he is acknowledging the agreement, and is now under a legal bound contract....


This is not about wether some guy pays his grazing fees or not! It's about Feds overstepping onto State soil without permission. If we allow this, what's next, State Parks are no longer State Parks, but are not Fed Parks? When and where did the states lose the power that was appointed to them in the Constitution???

[UNIMAN]

This is not about wether some guy pays his grazing fees or not! It's about Feds overstepping onto State soil without permission. If we allow this, what's next, State Parks are no longer State Parks, but are not Fed Parks? When and where did the states lose the power that was appointed to them in the Constitution???

When they gave up the land in their state constitution.
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/04/16/ask-rgj-released-nevadas-public-lands/7794823/

[777sizzler]

Well,  This all good and I have been following it.  Across the street pract. from our area is aprox. 5+ square miles of land which was allocated and applied for a Nascar track, Approved BUT cattle and live stock had to be on it for 7-years.  Over the years the cows (and some good looking ones) got loose and came into our area.  Wife said That will fill the freezeer for some time to come,  I said no and helped corral them back up to owners.  To this day she just wants one of those cows----   True story folks.  Also why livestock on land for nascar--?  The seven years is about up.  -Not trying to get of topic but it pertained to livestock etc. so don't--- me!.

[CVslots]

Nice to know some of your thoughts on this topic! Very interesting...

[StatFreak]

Thanks for all the different information and perspectives, everyone. I've learned a few things reading this thread. 
I'll have to do some digging regarding some of the points of law mentioned.

Stat




...The only Bundy I ever had any interest in was Christina Applegate. 

[UNIMAN]

Yeah, we kept it pretty civil. It's an emotional topic. Lots of information out there, hard to decide what info is credible and what is BS.

I'm sure the BLM has blundered many an operation in the past and they made mistakes here too. 
The BLM had killed six animals while rounding up. Two bulls that were considered dangerous, and four others. Think three or four were branded.
My supervisor ran into a bull out here once and it chased him back into his truck. I saw one once responding to an alarm at 2 in the morning. It didn't bother me. My worksite is surrounded by BLM land.

The news last night reported Bundy's family bought that farm in 1946 and records show Bundy cattle on BLM land starting in 1954, not the 1800's as Bundy stated. So here again more info contradicting previous info.

Guess it all depends what your personal history is when taking sides.
I was raised the son of a police officer. Was taught being an American means obeying the law even when you disagree. There are legal ways to change laws, court rulings, and that is what makes this country great! Peaceful protests are also a means. Armed protests are not.
I remember when Martin Luther King was killed and the riots that followed. My father was working twelve hour shifts always in groups for safety. My mother, sisters, and I never felt so much fear for my fathers life. It was a sad time for the United States of America and I think this was too.

[CVslots]

Here's a little tidbit on WHY CLIVEN Bundy did not pay the grazing fees to the Feds...this was a comment taken from the Bundy Ranch FB page.





A statement from Kena Lytle Gloeckner- a fellow rancher from Nevada.


'There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.'

[Neonkiss]

Shit, I should have taken the same stand.
5 generations of my family have fished the Atlantic Ocean. Now I need a fishing permit. They tell me how many fish and what type I can have. They tell me when I can fish and when lobster season is closed.
I knew I should have brought the AK47 with me when FWC pulled me over in the boat. Hell get caught with short lobsters or out of season and not only will they revoke your license, but they confiscate your boat. If you launched that boat from a public boat ramp and have the trailer attached to a truck they take those too.