Skip to comments.BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues
Posted on 04/12/2014 11:09:47 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
BUNKERVILLE (KSNV MyNews3.com) -- The gathering of rancher Cliven Bundy's cattle in northeast Clark County has been stopped by the director of the Bureau of Land Management.
The BLM announcement came as Bundy was meeting with Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie about the week-long dispute.
The BLM had been using contract cowboys to round up Bundy's 900 head of cattle that have been grazing over 600,000 square acres in northeast Clark County for more than 20 years without his payment of grazing fees.
As of Friday they had secure 389 cattle from the Gold Butte area, nearly 90 percent of them marked with the Bundy Ranch brand.
New BLM Director Neil Kornze made the following statement this morning:
"As we have said from the beginning of the gather to remove illegal cattle from federal land consistent with court orders, a safe and peaceful operation is our number one priority. After one week, we have made progress in enforcing two recent court orders to remove the trespass cattle from public lands that belong to all Americans.
"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.
"We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner.
Ranching has always been an important part of our nations heritage and continues throughout the West on public lands that belong to all Americans. This is a matter of fairness and equity, and we remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public lands ranchers do every year. After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially."
Gov. Brian Sandoval reacted to the BLM decision with a statement.
"The safety of all individuals involved in this matter has been my highest priority," the email said. "Given the circumstances, today's outcome is the best we could have hoped for. I appreciate that the Department of the Interior and the BLM were willing to listen to the concerns of the people of Nevada."
Great news! Don’t see on Drudge yet.
Does this translate to “BLM will be back when crowds have been dispersed”?
If they belong to all Americans, I’m fine with him grazing there. Heck, he can drill for oil and gas. I’m okay with that too.
The Godfather of the Arizona Mafia, Harry Reid, made it go away before the National media was forced to report on how his son and Big Chinese Energy needed that land for their billion dollar solar investment.
It’s not even “public land” in the sense that it belongs to the entire USA.
It is NEVADA land that is a Sovereign State within the boundaries of the other sovereign United States of America.
The federal government is not the owner of the land, and any fees should be paid to Nevada.
BLM will probably fly over with drones and gas them.
There aren’t enough children for the federal goons to murder. Janet Reno showed them how it’s done. They will be back. The federal government’s power must NEVER be challenged and if it is, you will pay.
You bet they’ll be back! How many of the man’s cattle have already died due to heat exhaustion and having calves taken from their mothers? Where is the Humane Society and everyone else who gets buzzed up when animals are abused? This ticks me off!
Oh, and Nevada, your governor is a spineless wussy.
Cattle rustling’s still a hanging offense isn’t it. Hope there is enough rope for all of them.
Harry Reid called off this Hit after he was outed as the mastermind behind the takeover.
That criminal and his evil son Rory wanted there Chinese investors to get the land quietly !
But thanks to some posters here .
Pinky ‘Mob bagman’ Reid was outed.
You know the definition of a cult? It’s any religious group that is so small that the government can blow it up with impunity.
Me too, I love prime rib.
Don’t trust the Government. They never back down from citizens. They’ll probably attack when the smoke has died down.
The calm before the storm? I hope the Patriots out there don’t let their guard down. This government is capable of anything.
"This is BS, they left because they were outnumbered. If you could not see it, the armed feds were all around the hills, then the wimp@$$ Sheriff Gillispie brought their message to Mr. Bundy, who gave them one hour to disarm, bring cattle back, remove all fed structures and leave his land. The feds looked like they were moving down the hills and armed militias on horseback appeared on top of the hills, behind the feds, had them surrounded. They stopped in their tracks knowing they had just lost. They have not disarmed yet, nor complied with Mr. Bundy's demands as yet. They have left the area of protest, but are still there. This is not over yet!!"
With one phone call they could have gotten their story straight. Instead they complied with the gov line and lied their way through the article. Bundy never owed rent. The fees were for BLM staff who were to provide support for his ranching. when they ceased helping and became enemies of his ranch he stopped paying them. Those are the so called fees.
You are incorrect. The title to the land is held by the Federal Government as is the vast majority of land in Nevada. Clark County has been assigned the administrative authority to the grazing rights on that Federal land, grazing rights that were once controlled by Bundy.
As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.
In the West, grazing rights and water rights are much more important than ownership of real estate.
Nevada says it’s federal
Nevada is a sovereign state. Everything within its boundaries is Nevada.
The courts also say that killing babies is OK.
I’m guessing the IRS will hound him until the day he dies.
> BLM will probably fly over with drones and gas them.
Scorpions will creep into their beds at night and sting them Arrival style.
No, the land does not belong to Nevada. The US government retains the title they have held for over 160 years. Nevada was required by Congress IN 1864 to “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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States”. It was a condition for statehood that Nevada accepted.
Court cases going back at least as far as 1840 reject your belief that the federal government cannot own property, or that Congress, IAW the explicit direction of the Constitution, cannot make rules to manage that land.
Pretending otherwise is dishonest.
Washington Claims must all of the land in Nevada leaving very little for the people of Nevada or their ranchers.
The claim that this is Federal land itself should bring up that response that it is entirely unfair that Nevada should see so much of its land horded by Washington.
This is an opportunity for the people of Nevada and their State to get Washington to let them uses more of their land.
I can see that you know little about land in the West. You need to educate yourself. Unlike the states in the East where the federal government either sold or transferred as grants most of the public lands that came into the Union, they did not do this in the West. Most of these were admitted to the Union on condition that they renounce their title to public lands and the Federal Government elected to retain title, largely because the demand was low and later because government decided to keep it.
You might want to read this:
Not a smidgen
If it is "federal" land, then it belongs to we the people. Since we pay the fedgov with our taxes, they work for us. The majority of people seem to understand that what this honest rancher is doing is not harming the land in the slightest, and is something his family has been doing for generations. Suddenly however since he has refused to pay for fedgov services not rendered for years they have determined that he is defying them and their "authority" and must be brought down.
As one of we the people mentioned previously, I take exception to this attitude in general and this action in particular. My tithe to the crown (taxes) is being squandered so that the fedgov can pay legalized cattle rustlers to steal a man's livelihood and sell the booty in order to bring in their precious revenue.
And they have the gall to call this a justified legal action?
(note: not a rant against you, centurian. )
If Such an agreement were made as a precondition toward statehood it would be null & void upon obtaining statehood because All States must have an EQUAL footing.
Not having the same legal rights over your own domain as every other state has over it’s domain is most certainly NOT an equal footing.
Additionally the very idea that Washington has a legitimate right to own and retain title to land is itself a very much dubious.
HELLO...this is all about bad press before the midterm elections!
Commie and Thief Owebama ordered them to back off due to bad press.
I guess the one question I have is: can I, today, file for, pay the fees for, and be granted rights to graze cattle on that land? Or would it be rejected due to the presence of some 'protected species' which seems to have survived the existing cattle grazing for the past hundred or so years?
Or would it be far more likely that I'd be granted use of that land for some massive solar plant that would 'accommodate' the protected species living in little pens in between my massive solar panel arrays?
If the answer to the first is no, or the second yes, then this has nothing to do with grazing fees and everything to do with power over the land. And the worst part of it is; had the federal government just stepped up and said 'hey, we've decided to use this land for a solar power plant and the cattle are in the way and thus have to move' that most people would have nodded their heads and supported the federal move. Instead, the story is about some 20 years of grazing fees that were never paid (and likely wouldn't have been approved.)
Nevada really needs to uses the conflict to highlight the fact that Washington Currently hordes 85% of Nevada’s land more than any other state.
That is Not fair to the people of Nevada just as this is not just treatment for this rancher. Nevada should demand from Washington a “more equal footing” with the other states.
Indeed If i were Governor of Nevada I would make a jab at the president’s “equality” crisis with this.
Governor Brian Sandoval should challenge Obama to make good on his supposes concern about Equality and “give” Nevada a more “fair share” of its own land.
Unless you're Russia.
Federal land policy is broken and corrupt. It has long been a tool of the politically powerful and connected. Bundy is just one of a long string of little people beaten into submission. In Bundy’s case they are using the Endangered Species Act to rid themselves of troublesome citizens. The irony is that Bundy’s use of the land actually enhances the habitat of the endangered Desert Tortoise, but that little critter is being used as the excuse to destroy this man’s livlihood.
The range wars of legend continue on fueled by government and greed.
Yeah, the safety of their personal bacon.
Wonder how the desert tortoises are faring?
And are the “Cattle Crossing” signs back up on the roadways yet?
And that story from the BLM doesn't support a multi-million dollar effort to round up cattle. Any remedy for money owed would logically be an attempt to obtain money, not spend more money. The federal government could have obtained a judgment for the money and levied against the Bundy family or its cattle. Did they? It doesn't look like they did, but instead decided to launch a hugely expensive cattle roundup.
Rounding up all the cattle in an area spanning hundreds of square miles is not economically viable, particularly when some of the cattle don't belong to the Bundys and those cattle have to be sorted out. What do the BLM folks plan to do with the wild cattle? And what is the real reason for the whole affair? That's what needs to be publicized.
“If Such an agreement were made as a precondition toward statehood it would be null & void upon obtaining statehood because All States must have an EQUAL footing.”
“The meaning of the Equal Footing Doctrine is discussed in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the shores of and land beneath navigable waters were reserved to the states, and were not granted by the Constitution to the federal government. Id. 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 229. New states, the Court reasoned, have the same “rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction” over the shores of and land beneath navigable waters as do the original states. Id.4
However, the Supreme Court has declined to extend the Equal Footing Doctrine to lands other than those underneath navigable waters or waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tides. In Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229, 244, 33 S.Ct. 242, 244, 57 L.Ed. 490 (1913), the Supreme Court held that title to an island within a stream did not pass to the state of Idaho, but instead was retained by the United States. The Court stated that because the island “was not part of the bed of the stream or land under the water ... its ownership did not pass to the State or come within the disposing influence of its laws.” Id. The Court went on to note that the island was “fast dry land, and therefore remained the property of the United States and subject to disposal under its laws....” Id. Sixty years later, the Supreme Court characterized its decision in Scott as holding that the rule in Pollard’s Lessee “does not reach islands or fast lands located within such waters. Title to islands remains in the United States, unless expressly granted along with the stream bed or otherwise.” Texas v. Louisiana, 410 U.S. 702, 713, 93 S.Ct. 1215, 1221, 35 L.Ed.2d 646 (1973). The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, does not operate to reserve title to fast dry lands to individual states.
Moreover, Supreme Court has long held that the Equal Footing Doctrine refers to “those attributes essential to [a state’s] equality in dignity and power with other States.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 568, 31 S.Ct. 688, 690, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911). The Court has noted that a new state enters the Union “in full equality with all the others,” and that this equality may forbid a compact between a new state and the United States “limiting or qualifying political rights and obligations.” Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U.S. 223, 245, 21 S.Ct. 73, 81, 45 L.Ed. 162 (1900). However, “a mere agreement in reference to property involves no question of equality of status.” Id. The Court has observed that “[s]ome States when they entered the Union had within their boundaries tracts of land belonging to the Federal Government; others were sovereigns of their soil.” United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 716, 70 S.Ct. 918, 922, 94 L.Ed. 1221 (1950). While these disparities may cause economic differences between the states, the purpose of the Equal Footing Doctrine is not to eradicate all diversity among states but rather to establish equality among the states with regards to political standing and sovereignty. Id.
The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, applies to political rights and sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics of the states. Moreover, the Equal Footing Doctrine applies primarily to the shores of and lands beneath navigable waters, not to fast dry lands. Therefore, the Equal Footing Doctrine would not operate, as Gardners argue, to give Nevada title to the public lands within its boundaries.”
The 1845 case actually went further than the 9th Circuit said it did, writing:
“There can be no distinction between those states which acquired their independence by force of arms and those which acquired it by the peaceful consent of older states. The Constitution says, the latter must be admitted into the union on an equal footing with the rest. The dissenting opinion of Judge Thompson (page 419) is not inconsistent with this.
If these positions are right, the United States had nothing below high water-mark. They might have reserved it in the compact with the state. The third article of the treaty with Spain (1 Land Laws, 57,) contains such a reservation. But as it is, the United States have nothing in Alabama but proprietary rights. They cannot put their foot in a state to claim jurisdiction without its consent. No principle is more familiar than this, that whilst a state has granted a portion of its sovereign power to the United States, it remains in the enjoyment of all the sovereignty which it has not voluntarily parted with.”
IOW, the 1845 case said it is acceptable for Congress to put conditions on a prospective state than wants to join the union. They ruled as they did in part because Alabama had no restriction placed on it that would involve the dispute.
You may not like the reasoning. I do not. But it HAS been the reasoning since 1845. I see no indication that the current US Supreme Court will reverse precedent and declare all us lands in the west to belong to the states. Do you?
My experience is that yes you can and the government officials will happily accept your tithes for as long as possible.
Then will come the EPA, the Water Management Authority, the Greens, the Illegals claiming it is THEIR land historically, the Native Americans with the same claims, some rich private company that needs it for their own special project, or the government itself that has discovered either something on your property that they now need or that it is simply in the way of.
Then your property, your house(s), your livestock, your water and mineral rights, and any improvements you made will all be made as nothing. You will be given little if anything for what you owned and whatever taxes, fees, and fines you paid will forever be not even a historical footnote. I think that in the past from a few cases I have read about, compensation was mandatory and precidence (sp?) usually determined it to be one Federal Reserve Note in the amount of one dollar.
Get Harry Reid and his cronies out of the picture and much of the turmoil would be cut to a manageable situation. As a sideline thought aren’t these government people the same ones who bought up those thousands of rounds of ammo? People were mussing then what for and now USA citizens have good cause to suspect. I often wonder how these so called USA citizens can with deep felt USA Constitutional conscience can carry out such government activities. I guess it is the money with most along with a control personality with others. I hope there are enough good photos take of these turncoats that public exposure can be given and some old fashion shunning done.
Is a State a State?.. or are States wards of the federal givernment.?..
Time is long passed when the federal givernment WAS a ward of the States..
The federal givernment is indeed THE SPOILED CHILD of the States..
Throwing tantrums in the public marketplace.. kicking and demanding STUFF..
The federal givernment REALLY NEEDS A SPANKING...
AND the republican party NEEDS to be SLAPPED.. and kicked in the keyster..
This had me laughing harder than I've laughed in a month :) I bet it was a sight to see!
Forgive me if I’m reading this wrong but the 1845 Federal employee Edict said nothing of the subject which was in regard to the legitimacy of the Federal precondition to statehood in regard to sovereign claim over their own state.
That would in fact violate the 1911 Federal Employee Edict as sovereign claim over your own domain is THE essential and defining attribute of any state State, in regard to other states.
The real issue however is not the Opinion of the Federal Employees in Black robes but the political opinion of the people and opportunity for the People of Nevada To uses this issue and Obama’s supposed cam pain for more “equality” to squore a more “fair” share of her own land.
We should write the Governor and Legislators of Nevada and urge them to get on the ball to try and turn this issue into one about the fact that Washington Currently horde 85% of Nevada’s land and resources more than any other state!
Ask Obama and the people if this is a “Fair” or “Equal footing”. Then ask Washington for a “more fair” share of their land & resources.
Once again the fascism of the left decides you own NOTHING.
President Hussein himself says YOU didn’t build that.
Well Hussein, Unfortunately we did BUILD you.
America has had enough.
Probably the connection between the chinese solar company and the nevada senator made the situation too hot for the feds.