Skip to comments.Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing
Posted on 04/08/2014 4:07:26 PM PDT by sergeantdave
For 20 years, a tough-as-leather Nevada rancher and the federal government have been locked in a bitter range war over cattle grazing rights.
This weekend the confrontation got worse, when the feds hired contract cowboys to start seizing Cliven Bundy's cattle, which have been grazing on public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The government officials brought a show of force that included dozens of armed agents in SUVs and helicopters.
Bundy, 67, who has been a rancher all his life, accuses BLM of stampeding over on his rights.
This is a lot bigger deal than just my cows, Bundy told FoxNews.com. Its a statement for freedom and liberty and the Constitution.
The fight involves a 600,000-acre area under BLM control called Gold Butte, near the Utah border. The vast and rugged land is the habitat of the protected desert tortoise, and the land has been off-limits for cattle since 1998. Five years before that, when grazing was legal, Bundy stopped paying federal fees for the right.
For more than two decades, cattle have been grazed illegally on public lands in northeast Clark County, the BLM said in a statement. BLM and (the National Park Service) have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially. Impoundment of cattle illegally grazing on public lands is an option of last resort.
But Bundy said he has grazed cattle on the land for decades, and his father and father's father did long before his 1,000 cattle roamed the area. He has long defied orders from bureaucrats he says are bent on running him out of business.
Just before the round-up began this weekend, Bundy said federal agents surrounded his 150-acre ranch. His son was arrested on Sunday in an incident involving the agents....
More at link.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Another victory lap for zer0’s minions? And higher prices for everyone!
Those who rely upon the public teat for their sustenance shouldn’t be surprised when it’s plucked away.
is thia “Bull Crapping” arrest??
They are not relying on the public teat, since grazing ‘rights’ are paid for by the rancher. In this case, however, it seems the rancher stopped paying...so yeah, his cattle probably needed to be seized.
“The trouble started when Bundy stopped paying grazing fees in 1993. He said he didn’t have to because his Mormon ancestors worked the land since the 1880s, giving him rights to the land.
We own this land, he said, not the feds.”
The guy is a nut.
:: He has long defied orders from bureaucrats he says are bent on running him out of business. ::
No. He is defying a government that wants to prove to him who owns him, his land, his family and his cattle.
You vill comply! Papers, bitte!
The “fee” for federal grazing rights never reflects the economic value of the land. The government has no more business picking the winners and losers in the cattle business than it does in any other industry.
I love it when fascist bureaucrats call themselves and their hired thugs pretend to be "the american people".
His family having relied upon the largess of the taxpayer for 150 years doesn’t make it any more virtuous.
Is he a nut? Or is he invoking the right of adverse posession? (AKA “Squatter’s Rights).
The losers and winners were already picked when people acquired deed to water access land. Without it, no access to water, all the grazing land on the planet doesn’t mean squat. For extra credit, look up how much of Nevada is Federal Land. I think you will be surprised.
You know what? My steaks and hamburger come from my own cattle...which I raise and fatten on my own land. If this fella can’t make it in the marketplace applying his own talents and risking his own capital, then he should fail.
December 19, 2011
"Documents obtained by Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show then Clinton Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder authorized members of the FBI to provide explosives to Oklahoma City bombing criminals Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols immediately prior to the April, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building.
Holder had authorized the FBI to provide the explosives to McVeigh and Nichols in conjunction with a Clinton Administration undercover operation named PATCON, an acronym for Patriot Conspiracy. As Jesse Trentadue describes it, PATCON was designed to infiltrate and incite militia[s] and evangelical Christians to violence so that the Department of Justice could crush them."
Both Waco and Ruby Ridge are now known to have been PATCON inspired, Department of Justice plots.
Shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, Holder instructed FBI agents to recover from Terry Nichols any remainder of the explosives the Bureau had provided him and McVeigh. To the chagrin of Eric Holder, the explosives were later discovered by another agency, complete with the fingerprints of Nichols, McVeigh and 2 FBI agents. Holder had reportedly offered Nichols respite from the death penalty for his cooperation in recovering the explosives. Obviously the Deputy Attorney General considered covering up his criminal complicity in the bombing eminently worth sparing Nichols just punishment for the murders of 168 innocent Americans.
Jesse Trentadue accidentally came across PATCON while investigating the murder of his brother Kenneth at the hands of the Clinton Department of Justice. An FBI informant familiar with the Oklahoma City bombing story, Kenneth was found hanged in his cell after having been jailed by the FBI. Though an official FBI report had listed Kenneth as a suicide, it was obvious that he had been severely beaten and his throat cut.
Upon Jesse taking the federal government to court, a federal judge ruled that the FBI had not only lied about Kenneth Trentadues death, the Bureau was also found guilty of having destroyed evidence concerning the case. In 2001 the Trentadue family was awarded $1.1 million, $250,000 of which remains a reward for information leading to the conviction of Kenneth Trentadues killers. In late November, Newsweek magazine was to run a story revealing the history of PATCON, the Oklahoma City bombing complete with the part played by Eric Holder, the FBI initiated killings at Waco and Ruby Ridge and the subsequent murder of Kenneth Trentadue. But as Mike Vanderboegh, owner of the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog reports, Newsweek senior editor Tina Brown was convinced by members of the Clinton and Obama Administrations to remove certain information from the lengthy R M Schneiderman article. So although originally approved for publication by Newsweek editor John Solomon, the article which finally appeared in the magazine had been cut to pieces, undoubtedly providing great relief to Holder, Clinton, Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno and many other current and former members of the Department of Justice.
It hardly needs pointed out that this and other extraordinary stories of corruption and facilitation of murder by the Clinton and Obama Administrations stink to high heaven. A number of links for further reading have been provided below. Rest assured that we at Coach is Right will continue to pursue the stories of PATCON, Fast and Furious and any other examples of executive branch corruption. Its doubtful we will want for material."
Aren’t cattle rustlers supposed to be hung?
Except in a few very limited cases, it should be forbidden for land to be “owned” by federal or state governments.
Only individuals or small groups should own land.
All that BLM land should be opened up for homestead.
Also, I'm not trying to be mean to Mr. Bundy's parents, but the reason that he has been probably needlessly fighting the federal government all these years is because his parents probably did not make sure that he was taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
The government doesn’t pick winners and losers. It sells stuff to buyers willing to pay. And yes, it DOES reflect the value of the land, since it competes with private land.
So, as long as a government program competes with private landowners, it's OK? Seriously?
150 years? Keep convincing yourself.
The government does not drive prices down by ‘competing’ with private landowners. Public property is used to generate funds that pay for services without taxes, which is a good thing.
Most ranchers would prefer to use private land, but look at how much of Utah & Nevada & Arizona are public land. The land is usually lower quality and less accessible, and the contracts written in terms less favorable to the rancher, so the rancher will normally pay more to use private land if it is available. It often is not.
Nor do I want to see all public land go away, because like a lot of the public, I like using it for hiking, riding, motorcycles, etc.
Thanks everyone for the replies. Allow me to call in a couple of experts on land use in the West to add some perspective...
Thank you for informing me as to what “most” Utah, Nevada and Arizona ranchers would prefer to do. Those competing with these ranchers would prefer that they get off the public teat.
Hmm. My knee-jerk is to support this guy, but when I stop and think ... it’s not his land. Why on Earth does he think he is entitled to it? Seems to me he has that “entitlement” thing down pat. But in the end, what he was doing was illegal. I don’t care who owns the land, if it’s not your, you don’t get to use it.
The feds own 84.5% of Nevada. Shore are a lot of them public teats there.
I should have added that, of course, the government drives down prices by competing with private operators. The price of cattle at any stage of life is a function of supply and demand. By keeping a rancher in business who could not otherwise make it on his own, the government is artificially increasing the cow-calf herd, driving down the price of live cattle.
Contrary to popular belief, they’re not that well-endowed on average.
Unless of course you meant hanged?
isn’t this a case where the court ORDERED the feds to issue the permits and the government played stalling games.
The song - This land is your land This land is my land
From California to the New York island;
From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and Me.
Come to mind. /s
The Kings Forrest.
Illegal aliens have NO RIGHTS to “use” our land, yet they do it every day and in more and more numbers . . . . holder & company pick & choose what laws they want to uphold , violating the oath he/they took. If “they” are above the law - so am I.
So close to civil war now. So close.
“Those competing with these ranchers would prefer that they get off the public teat.”
What public teat?
What is the federal government “giving” freely to these businesses? Hmmm? In what sense is the federal government giving anything special to the ranchers?
“By keeping a rancher in business who could not otherwise make it on his own...”
You really ARE clueless, aren’t you! The feds own 63% of Utah land. They charge less for grazing, but they provide far less. Still, it is often the ONLY option open to a rancher.
what largess did you supply his family?
There is a good review of public land - how it was acquired and how it is used - here:
“The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Tratado de Guadalupe Hidalgo in Spanish), officially entitled the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits and Settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic, is the peace treaty signed in 1848 in Guadalupe Hidalgo between the U.S. and Mexico that ended the MexicanAmerican War (184648). With the defeat of its army and the fall of the capital, Mexico entered into negotiations to end the war. The treaty called for the United States to pay $15 million to Mexico and pay off the claims of American citizens against Mexico up to $3.25 million. It gave the United States the Rio Grande boundary for Texas, and gave the U.S. ownership of California, and a large area comprising New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado. Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of relocating to Mexico or receiving American citizenship with full civil rights; over 90% remained.”
“All land in Utah became part of the public domain when the United States signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in February 1848. This land came into the possession of the United States government with a clear and undisputed title. No state contested title, and no private rights had been established previously. Therefore every original land title in Utah can be traced to a patent or other document transferring that land from the federal government. Prior to 1848, Congress had already established laws governing the transfer of land from federal to private ownership.”
Thanks for posting this.
Break out the Navy SEAL wannabes on the BLM “SWAT” team.
How can you have a total of 150 acres, and call it a cattle ranch?
I plan on winning the lotto, and while gathering information on how much land I would need to own to buffer myself from neighbors and feds, I found out that most farmers couldn't turn a profit on less than 300 acres.
Ranchers need thousands of acres, not mere several hundreds.
I sort of understand leased acreage unimproved property rights.
But whether the owner(s) of the leased property are government or private citizens,the lease terms will always change when the previous contract is up for renewal, and before a new legal lease begins.
I don't need to be a cattle ranch expert to know that 150 acres is not large enough to qualify as more than a subsistence level cattle ranch.
Am I missing something?
Mea Culpa. Since this is public land, Mr. Bundy has some real problems.
The obvious downsides are you have to bring in the cattle well before slaughter to switch them to a different feed. The other downside is that you have losses of cattle. Plenty of cow carcasses littering the landscape in Nevada.
From reading the article it looks like his ranch is 150 acres but the land is 6,000 acres that the cattle graze on.
In the west, it is fairly common for a rancher to have a few hundred acres. They rent pasture from private owners or buy grazing ‘rights’ from the government. Those grazing rights can cost hundreds of thousands, and the government reserves the right to reduce or end them without warning.
Nevada is around 85-90% owned by the government. Thus most ranchers there have to deal with the feds for grazing.
A friend of mine has a couple thousand sheep and several hundred head of cattle. He juggles grazing times and amounts all the time. He leases land in 3 states and uses grazing on BLM land as well. He grows hay on his land to feed his animals for brief periods between his rentals.
The Bureau of Land Management spends about $1 Billion a year administering public lands. It spends about three times as much administering an acre of grazing land as it charges in rent.
You just can’t have American cows eating the Chinese Premiere’s grass.
We have to pay our creditors somehow...we will be selling off “public” lands.
So it is a usual and typical business expense for ranchers to “pay a fee for grazing rights”.
For some reason, this rancher decided he was extra special, and didn’t have to pay for his cattle to feed on land he does not own....
It seems the feds were extraordinarily patient with him, and his free ride is now, finally over.
I am known to dislike the feds, but as to this case....I equally dislike civilian theives...
Frankly I see the media focus on this ranch now, as a distraction against the recent media focus on another rancher in a different state, who is REALLY being abused by the feds.