Nevadan Farmer not allowed to use public land for his grazing cattle

[FoolKiller]

Civil disobedience keeping federal agents from enforcing the law, that's pretty serious in my book.
It challenges the rule of law and is a step in the direction of mob rule.

Kind of like sitting at lunch counters, sitting in the front of the bus, and the Underground Railroad?

Don't forget that civil disobedience stops government from performing legally-protected injustices as well.

I think the BLM has painted itself into a corner here and they need to come up with a solution, quickly.

Either the land grab conspiracy theories are true and they are covering their butts, or the clash on Wednesday looked horrible and a call was made from very high up.

Either way, its a Senate election year with a presidential election in two years. Democrats don't need a Waco incident hanging over their heads with upcoming elections.

 

[Grayfox]

Yes, allowing animals to roam freely, live as they did before farming, produce better and healthier product for market, and not make nearly as much money as industrial-style farming is so selfish.

It would be better if he just did it like this:

So would you want someones cows on your land and destroying it in the process.

If you want freerange cattle get more land so they can be free range on your "private" land not "public" land

 

[FoolKiller]

So would you want someones cows on your land and destroying it in the process.

900 cows on 935sq miles won't destroy it.

My land? I'd negotiate a price, but being private land there would be no argument about the justness of the action.

Public land that the state grants homestead rights to, but the Feds claim control over (with questionable constitutionality) is a different situation. This not the first or fifth time someone is well within the local and state legal requirements to use land and the Feds come in after it's being done and try to shut it down.

If you want freerange cattle get more land so they can be free range on your "private" land not "public" land

Unless your state allows it, of course.

 

[Vegard]

Kind of like sitting at lunch counters, sitting in the front of the bus, and the Underground Railroad?

Don't forget that civil disobedience stops government from performing legally-protected injustices as well.

That's a bit of a stretch, the BLM were enforcing a court order.

After doing some more reading on the case I've come to realise that I've misunderstood the situation:
I though the court had reached a final verdict, but that's not the case; the BLM were there to enforce an injunction.

This information makes a slight change in the overall tone of the situation and makes the excessive reaction by the federal government seem even stranger.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's a bit of a stretch, the BLM were enforcing a court order.

Just pointing out civil disobedience has a legitimate purpose.

See Connecticut's new gun registry law, where an estimated 300,000 "assault weapons" are still not registered, four months after the deadline.

One reason for civil disobedience is to draw attention to your plight and turn public and political opinion in your favor. I would say that was a success here. The BLM could have avoided that, but showed up looking for a fight.

Another purpose of civil disobedience is to be found in violation of a law. Then you have grounds to sue to claim the law violates your rights. If the law has not affected you then your lawsuit will get thrown out, so civil disobedience is the only way to defend your rights without armed response to law enforcement.

 

[Grayfox]

900 cows on 935sq miles won't destroy it.

My land? I'd negotiate a price, but being private land there would be no argument about the justness of the action.

Public land that the state grants homestead rights to, but the Feds claim control over (with questionable constitutionality) is a different situation. This not the first or fifth time someone is well within the local and state legal requirements to use land and the Feds come in after it's being done and try to shut it down.


Unless your state allows it, of course.

Thing is he doesn't want to pay to use public land for his profit.
Which is pretty much why this happened.

 

[FoolKiller]

Thing is he doesn't want to pay to use public land for his profit.
Which is pretty much why this happened.

If it is Nevada's land then he has homestead rights, by Nevada law, and owes no fees. That is his argument.

You are assuming Federal is right, without question. The US Constitution draws a distinct line between State and Federal, going so far as to say anything not prohibited to the states or named as federal jurisdiction belongs to the states. The only mention of Federal obtaining land rights is a maximum 10 sq miles, for the use of constructions buildings, if the states sell it to them. Gold Butte is 935 sq miles.

 

[Zenith]

As I understand it, the Bureau of Land Management is made up of unelected officials and has little oversight as to what laws it makes regarding the vast amounts of land it controls.

I don't know what reasons the BLM had to impose the new fees and regulations that Bundy refused to pay, but it seems that he does not agree with how these regulations were made.

So I guess the question is how do we determine if the BLM is making fair regulations to this land?

 

[Keef]

Protesters may express their disatisfaction, but to prevent Federal employees from performing their duties under law is a crime.

What are their duties? How do you know when they're performing their duties? What if they're performing more than their duties? What if they're not performing their duties so you confront them but they tell you they're performing their duties and to get back in line or you'll be arrested? What if the correct duties they're performing are actually unlawful but the case hasn't made it through the courts yet? I don't know about the Phillipines, but here in the States the cops aren't always right.

 

[niky]

What are their duties? How do you know when they're performing their duties? What if they're performing more than their duties? What if they're not performing their duties so you confront them but they tell you they're performing their duties and to get back in line or you'll be arrested? What if the correct duties they're performing are actually unlawful but the case hasn't made it through the courts yet? I don't know about the Phillipines, but here in the States the cops aren't always right.

The duty of the federal personnel on the scene would have been to prevent Bundy from using the grazing lands, pending the resolution of the court case.

As for local cops? They're right here even less of the time. And corruption here is often worse. The massacre of over four dozen media personnel and civilians here from a few years ago was executed in part by the military and police... though the officers involve are standing trial for it, the process has been long and excruciating.

Since they have guns and a license to use them, as well as the authority to arrest you if you interfere with a police operation (I know this is Federal)... you take video (as shown) of what they're doing and complain to the media and/or the government.

Passive resistance I can dig (and as I have said, I've participated in such in the past), but physical confrontation, not so wise. Unless the whole point is to force a physical confrontation for extra media exposure. (Which is again, part of the radical left rulebook... as seen in every WTO protest ever...)

 

[Keef]

The duty of the federal personnel on the scene would have been to prevent Bundy from using the grazing lands, pending the resolution of the court case.

And my other questions?

As for local cops?

I wasn't talking about local cops, I was talking about law enforcement officers in general.

Passive resistance I can dig (and as I have said, I've participated in such in the past), but physical confrontation, not so wise. Unless the whole point is to force a physical confrontation for extra media exposure. (Which is again, part of the radical left rulebook... as seen in every WTO protest ever...)

I don't see the people at the ranch instigating physical contact with cops. I didn't suggest they do that, either.

However, I'm not prepared to say there's not a time and a place for it because I think there definitely is.

 

[niky]

And my other questions?

What are their duties? - To enforce the law.

How do you know when they're performing their duties? - If they have a warrant or a court order. In this case, they do.

What if they're performing more than their duties? - If they're doing something illegal, under law, or not covered by their current warrant, court order or mission order, then you have a right to call them out.

What if they're not performing their duties so you confront them but they tell you they're performing their duties and to get back in line or you'll be arrested? - Video. Complain. Appeal to a higher court.

What if the correct duties they're performing are actually unlawful but the case hasn't made it through the courts yet? - in this case, whether or not the barring of Bundy from the land in question is legal or not (and apparently, an earlier case upheld that the Federal government and the National Park Service did have the rights to the land in question), he had the option to feed his cattle commercially bought fodder instead of continuing the tresspass. In the case of how the feds removed his cattle from the land, that's more difficult, and would depend on what rights the cattle are granted when they are trespassing... rights which I am not familiar with. I'd say outright confiscation is overstepping, removal and the charging of a fee for tresspassing would be more correct, though I don't know the SOP in cases like this.

I don't see the people at the ranch instigating physical contact with cops. I didn't suggest they do that, either.

However, I'm not prepared to say there's not a time and a place for it because I think there definitely is.

If the Feds are telling the truth and Bundy's son did hit a Federal vehicle with an ATV, that would be instigating physical contact. Which would warrant an arrest, or charges being filed against him... though not a tasering, unless he was resisting arrest.. and as @FoolKiller rightly points out, they arrest him or anyone else...

I also think there is a time and place for physical resistance, but in the end, Bundy was in defiance of multiple court orders dating back to the last century, tresspassing on Federal land and instigating public unrest for personal gain.

Whether the treatment of the cattle and protesters was right (and I'm inclined to agree it wasn't), Bundy himself received more leash than you'd expect most people to get. About sixteen years' worth. And it's not like he wasn't given chances.

Here's some more background on the issue at hand:

http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/in-nevada-delicate-20-year-standoff-with-blm-ends-in-a-tense-roundup

Over the years, the Department of Justice has more than once canceled BLM plans to round up the trespass cattle after blatant threats of violence from Bundy and his supporters, says Alan O’Neill, retired superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area adjacent to the allotment. The sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco that fueled the ‘90s anti-government militia movement were fresh, he explains. “We were trying everything we could to resolve the issue peacefully. But he got more and more recalcitrant.”

-----

It was the tortoise that kicked off the saga in 1993, when the BLM modified the terms of Bundy’s Bunkerville grazing allotment to protect the animal after it was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Bundy refused to comply with the new terms, so the BLM cancelled his permit to no effect. In 1997, Clark County purchased all active grazing permits in the area in accordance with the new federal Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan and the county’s own Desert Conservation Program, offering Bundy compensation for water rights and range improvements on his former allotment. Bundy rejected the offer. In 1999, the Nevada District Court permanently banned Bundy from grazing cattle in the area, ordering him to remove them or face a $200 penalty per cow per day. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction.

I don't know what this victory achieves, though, except perhaps forcing the BLM to dedicate money and people to keeping Bundy off the disputed land.

I've been reading more into the issue. I think the contention at this point is whether continued grazing is bad for the area in question or not, as the Bundy family has performed improvements to the property that could help ensure the tortoise's survival rather than hinder it. So the pro-turtle argument is thus weakened. And if they do have enough turtles that they're suffering an overpopulation problem in Vegas... well...

The question, also, of possible opening of the area to energy contracts with the Chinese would be difficult for the BLM to pull off, because the moment any such contract is granted, they open themselves up to a lawsuit over conflict of interest...

Again: the BLM's backing off signifies... something. What that is, we're not quite sure yet.

 

[FoolKiller]

What are their duties? - To enforce the law.

How do you know when they're performing their duties? - If they have a warrant or a court order. In this case, they do.

As I pointed out before, as the woman at the town hall meeting explained, and as can be see in the video the BLM were using dump trucks and bucket loaders (construction/demolition equipment). The court order was to remove cattle.

Now I may just be a rural farming community boy who knows little about these things...oh wait. I have raised cattle in my lifetime. We did it when I was a kid. Multiple family members have had large cattle farms, one uncle raised hogs, and an in-law owns a horse farm, where he breeds thoroughbred race horses. I have also toured a buffalo farm, rabbit farm, and emu farm.

Not one of those farms used a dump truck or bucket loader in the herding of livestock. You use it to landscape or tear down old buildings. But the only time those come into contact with livestock is if there are multiple dead animals.

There was nothing in the court order that necessitated using that kind of equipment, and that was the equipment protestors attempted to stop and search.

 

[niky]

There was nothing in the court order that necessitated using that kind of equipment, and that was the equipment protestors attempted to stop and search.

Which explains why the BLM is so gung ho to limit media exposure and filming.

Apparently, the new head of BLM is a protege of Senator Reid, the one mentioned in the Infowars piece. With or without that piece, it's apparent that Reid is not likely to enjoy the media spotlight, and it seems he might have influenced the BLM's backing down.

Even with them backing down, now that the spotlight is there, it seems likely an investigation into the operation will be soon to follow.

 

[GTsail]

My uncle raised milk cows for nearly 30 years and he had a tractor with a bucket on the front, and it was sometimes used to gently herd the recalcitrant cows when they got out of their assigned fields. Two dogs were also used along with a lot of arm waving and yelling. During a couple of my summer visits, I got to drive said tractor, and while its handling could have been better and it didn't have a very high top-speed, its size certainly made me feel more comfortable when we had to encourage a couple of cows back into their proper fields. You didn't want to scare the cows, because that would be bad for the milk, but you did want to encourage them to head back in the correct direction.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

My uncle raised milk cows for nearly 30 years and he had a tractor with a bucket on the front, and it was sometimes used to gently herd the recalcitrant cows when they got out of their assigned fields.

Was the bucket used specifically for herding or was it a multipurpose tractor? In this instance, the BLM had one goal and they brought specialized equipment that was unrelated. And when they did stop the truck it contained the watering system for the cattle, effectively denying them their main source of water to force them to use natural watering holes.

And all the farms I've been on here in KY use ATVs for herding. The modern-day horse. [/quote]

 

[GTsail]

Was the bucket used specifically for herding or was it a multipurpose tractor?

Multi-purpose tractor. It was also used for plowing small fields and other general purpose duties.

I would consider it a medium sized tractor, but for a large farm, it would be considered a small tractor.

The main purpose for the tractor was for other farm duties, but in a pinch, like when the cows got out of their primary field, the tractor was used to drive out after the cows and gently help bring them in. I think that the two dogs were actually more important because the cows seemed to understand why the dogs were barking and chasing after them.

My uncle also had a large tractor (with an air-conditioned cab) that was used for plowing because it could pull various types of seeding/threshing/plowing implements. I also got to drive this large tractor and once plowed an entire field with it, which took me about 3 hours. Great fun! It had lots of power! By the end, I was entirely covered with dust!

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Keef]

This article covers the Constitutional conflict very plainly.

Basically, the oft-misinterpreted Property Clause of the Constitution allows the Federal government to control land which are already Federal.

But how does land become Federal? Either a State must formally cede it to the Feds and Congress must approve, or the Feds must buy it from the State. In either case, what the Feds can do with the land is also clearly defined the Constitution.

Pretty interesting. I don't think I've ever read these parts before so I didn't understand what was really going on here.

 

[niky]

Interesting read.

And more:
http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2013/chapter-321/statute-321.596

I think, in the end, that is the one legal question here (as it's clear Bundy doesn't own the land): who has claim to the land, the Federal government or the State?

 

[FoolKiller]

And here is Bundy personally explaining that the State vs Feds owning the land point is what he is standing up for.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ncher-refuses-to-recognize-federal-authority/

Cliven Bundy, the last remaining rancher in Clark County, Nev., stands at the center of what has become a national controversy over the private use of federal land. He is focused on one big issue, he said in a radio interview with Glenn Beck on Monday: He doesn’t believe the land belongs to the federal government.

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

“That’s right,” Bundy said. “It’s Nevada land.”


Embattled Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy, left, and his son Dave Bundy talk to a reporter on the corner of North Las Vegas Boulevard and East Stewart Avenue in downtown Las Vegas Monday, April 7, 2014. (AP/Las Vegas Review-Journal, K.M. Cannon)

Bundy said he has “no contract with the United States government,” and the federal government has “no jurisdiction or authority” on his grazing rights, water rights, access rights, ranch improvement rights or anything else that “belongs to ‘we the people’ of Clark County.”

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

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

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

Though he has grazed his cattle on federal land for decades, Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees since 1993. Last week, the conflict sharply escalated after federal agents arrived in an attempt to round up Bundy’s “trespass cattle,” only to be met by protesters.

The story has taken many turns — including whether Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is involved (it appears he isn’t), and whether the confrontation could escalate to a situation like Ruby Ridge in 1992.

On Saturday, Neil Kornze, the director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, started returning Bundy’s cattle due to the “serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.” Bundy confirmed on Monday the cattle have been returned. But it is unlikely that the controversy will go away quietly, since Bundy is remaining defiant in his position and doesn’t seem eager to pay the decades of grazing fees he still owes.

 

[FoolKiller]

I apologize for the double post, but here is an interview with Sheriff Mack. He agrees with Bundy and claims that sources at BLM and Las Vegas Metro say the Feds are planning a raid on the Bundy home, which he is positive will result in bloodshed. He also addresses comments that came out on Fox News yesterday about protestors using women as human shields.

 

[Omnis]

Yay, someone wrote an good article so that I don't have to express an opinion: https://medium.com/p/6f82943a8839

Invoking Hoppe = laying waste to all questions of ownership. It's Bundy's land, or it belongs to all of the area ranchers incorporated. They work the land, they homestead it.

 

[Vegard]

article...

...is a paradigm shifter. Thanks for sharing. 👍

 

[BobK]

Yay, someone wrote an good article so that I don't have to express an opinion: https://medium.com/p/6f82943a8839

Invoking Hoppe = laying waste to all questions of ownership. It's Bundy's land, or it belongs to all of the area ranchers incorporated. They work the land, they homestead it.

Seems to me that all that article is saying is that since the Federal government shouldn't own any property whatsoever, it should automatically go to Bundy until and unless an American Indian or group of Indians comes forward to establish that the land was taken from their ancestors.

 

[Omnis]

There was no passage of ownership to the government. Bundy has the right to homestead the land his ranch uses, since no one else is or has ever been using it. BLM is actually doing a worse job protecting the government's only conceivable interest: tortoise conservation.

If the land is shared by all the ranchers driven out of operation by the federal extortionists, then it ought to belong to the ranchers incorporated. Then they can do what they want with their ownership of it. (sell it to bundy, the highest bidder, &c.)

 

[Imari]

What happens to stuff like national parks under this "government can't own land" scheme? First to get there with mining equipment wins?

 

[Brett]

Seems to me that all that article is saying is that since the Federal government shouldn't own any property whatsoever, it should automatically go to Bundy until and unless an American Indian or group of Indians comes forward to establish that the land was taken from their ancestors.

What happens to stuff like national parks under this "government can't own land" scheme? First to get there with mining equipment wins?

I am going to go ahead and claim both for myself. I have enough American Indian in me to be on the rolls. However, my claim might be a little shaky. Not sure the tribe I am part of has ever had a claim in Neveda. National parks, possibly. Either way, I want to claim both.

This is how it works? Right?

 

[Keef]

There was no passage of ownership to the government. Bundy has the right to homestead the land his ranch uses, since no one else is or has ever been using it. BLM is actually doing a worse job protecting the government's only conceivable interest: tortoise conservation.

If the land is shared by all the ranchers driven out of operation by the federal extortionists, then it ought to belong to the ranchers incorporated. Then they can do what they want with their ownership of it. (sell it to bundy, the highest bidder, &c.)

According to the article I shared, citing the rules in the Constitution, and without getting too awful complicated and ideological, the land is (or was) clearly Nevada's. It was Federal when the land was a territory. When the State was formed, the land reverted to State jurisdiction. At some point it was homesteaded, so the land is Bundy's now. He got it from the State. As far as I know, the State never ceded the land to the Feds, nor did it sell to the Feds, so the Feds actually have no jurisdiction there.

What happens to stuff like national parks under this "government can't own land" scheme? First to get there with mining equipment wins?

According to the Constitution, the Feds can own land and there are two methods of acquiring it from a State - either the State formally cedes it and it's approved by Congress, or the State sells it. Most of the national parks were formally donated by States which is a constitutional method of transferring it.

As for Hoppe's Indian argument, I've got one for him. Homesteaders generally had proof of their land ownership. Surveys or fences or measurements, and of course deeds if it was a State deal. Native Americans had none of that. They owned the land they directly worked and lived on but had no proof of anything else. Frankly, Native Americans' concept of property rights was severely lacking and ended up costing them virtually everything.

 

[Thematic]

I feel that if your family has been farming the land for 140 years that they should be allowed to continue

Never a justification for anything.

 

[GTsail]

According to the article I shared, citing the rules in the Constitution, and without getting too awful complicated and ideological, the land is (or was) clearly Nevada's. It was Federal when the land was a territory. When the State was formed, the land reverted to State jurisdiction. At some point it was homesteaded, so the land is Bundy's now. He got it from the State. As far as I know, the State never ceded the land to the Feds, nor did it sell to the Feds, so the Feds actually have no jurisdiction there.

After reading thru all the posted links, it seems to me that the land in question currently belongs to the Federal Government. Not to Nevada, nor to rancher Bundy.

According to the Nevada Constitution:
"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".

So the land was Federal when the Nevada land was a territory (Treaty of Hidalgo of 1848), then Nevada became a state in 1864 and passed the Nevada Constitution which declared that all unappropriated public lands lying within the territory remained the property of the Federal Government. Therefore, the bulk of the public land in Nevada is the property of the Federal Government.

Nevada seems to be trying to amend their Constitution, but currently the land seems to be Federal land, and has been so since 1848.

If the Federal Government wants to charge grazing rights on their own property, they have every right to do so.

If the Federal Government wants to sell or grant this land to the State of Nevada or to Bundy, I think that they have every right to do so.

That being said, I'm not sure why the Federal Government needs to retain ownership of so much land in Nevada. I know that some of the land is radioactive so I'm not sure if anyone really wants that part, but still. Its my understanding that the Fed's own about 85% of Nevada. Its my understanding that this high percentage was due to Nevada's lack of water. Early settlers in Nevada didn't use the homestead act provisions to acquire farms from the Federal Government or from the State, because there wasn't enough water to make very many farms viable.

Now since Bundy's cattle have been getting fat while grazing on land owned by the Federal Government, this must mean that we all (all US citizens) now own a portion of the cattle. Time to turn on the barbie! Anyone for some steak? Yum!

Respectfully,
GTsail