It’s kind of you to offer me a 10-1 bet but I will decline. People acting responsibly rarely show off their adult behavior.
This comment ‘You say that because you are a kooky posse comitatus guy who has no earthly idea how the govt works. ‘ tells me you either don’t read past huffington post or are embedded deep in the liberal progressive agenda.
BLM is not the only agency that does not need an armed force. Neither does NOAA, IRS, EPA or any other non-sworn law enforcement agency. I will not attempt to educate you on why these quasi-cops and gear queers have proliferated. If you want to know, a little reading beyond your norm will serve you well.
As far BLM’s innocuous behavior; the many ranchers who have been forced out of ranching by the ruinous fees and regulations imposed arbitrarily by these non-elected agencies have not been silent, just not news-worthy. Look up Wayne Gage or many of the other ranchers who have had well documented and terrible experiences with these agencies.
The tortoise that was the ‘supposed’ reason for initially attacking Mr. Bundy’s ranch is not endangered by any measure. So much so that the BLM was killing them by the hundreds just last year.
The tortoise thrives where the cattle are because of a symbiotic relationship. The land thrives where cattle are because of brush removal and fertilization. All of these facts are easily discovered with minor searching, which you have demonstrated you are good at doing.
The amusing but painfully predictable result of a little investigative journalism showed that the real reason for the entire affair was that Mr. Bundy inconveniently was using land promised to Chinese investors by Sen. Reid. Bundy had to be removed. The Reid son was the go-between with the Chinese and a Reid staffer became the head of the BLM just weeks before the whole affair.
It all stinks to high heaven.
Your quite outrageous statement here ‘But sometimes that doesn’t work. Bundy lost in court numerous times so he called in the militia and threatened to kill BLM agents and their round-up contractor.’ requires a link to prove that Mr. Bundy A: called in the militia and B; any of those American citizens threatened to kill any BLM or other law enforcement officer in the stand off.
In fact it is well documented by a television reporter on the scene with a camera that it was the BLM and their contractors the provided the death threats and overt pointed weapons.
I saw one picture (from several angles making it look like more than one) of one person apparently aiming a rifle through a concrete bridge guard. There is no mention of who he was aiming at. It could have easily been from that position that person was a BLM contractor to shoot any woman or child in the protest group to spark the gunfight.
There is ample evidence that a gunfight was the expected and desired end result of the entire stand off. I am sure it was not desired by the many NV LE without body armor or long guns out in the heat. No doubt a few sacrifices had to be made.
The sheriff negotiated with the BLM to leave the area, no one told the agents guarding the cattle but the Bundy sons were told and they went to get their cattle.
This was probably the tensest moment of the entire affair. No doubt the protesters disappointed the government because all of them behaved with perfect decorum despite being told by the BLM agents that the BLM had authorization to fire on them.
Ben, get your head screwed on right and start reading up on these issues from more than one side. You will be a happier person for it.
You say that many ranchers are being forced out by "ruinous fees". They pay a $1.35 per month per unit. That is so cheap it probably doesn't cover the administrative costs, much less management costs.
Then you tell me I need to read up Wayne Gage. You don't even know the man's name but somehow you are an expert. I'll be glad to tell you, and point out that he did it right, and won, though he didn't win much. He didn't call in the militia. One element of the Hage case was that the courts ruled that the agency did have the authority to require Hage(or any other grazer including Bundy) to reduce their herd. The second element was that the agency could not trump Hage's water rights, and that is what he won on. Hage's prior appropriation water rights were in conflict with Federal Reserved water rights. Federal Reserved water rights had been established by SCOTUS in 1908 but the courts had been re-interpreting these rights late in the 20th century. Its possible another Hage type case could come up but not likely.
Cases like Hage and Bundy are few and far between. Of the over 13,000 grazers there very few conflicts and most everybody pays on time. Many conflicts center around one grazer's stock on another grazer's allotment. And conflicts over the wild horses are common. More importantly, the Nevada Cattlemans Assos doesn't support Bundy
It is a fact that the grazers face uncertainty and the land available to graze will continue to shrink. You can look at it as shrinkage during that period from the Taylor Grazing Act up until FPLMA in 1976 plus the shrinkage from FPLMA in 1976 up until today.
We know a lot about the post FLPMA changes because BLM has published this data. That data covers the time period of 1976 to 2000 and we can say that trends during that period continue on until today, 2014.
For a couple of examples.
In 1976 there were around 11,000 cataloged archeological sites covering about a million acres. By 2000 there were over 235,000 covering over 14 million acres.
During that same period coal production on these western federal lands increased 7 fold. There were grazing allotments converted to coal production. This happened because of the Clean Air Act. Who do you hate worse? The BLM administrating FLPMA or EPA administrating the Clean Air Act? Or could it be the Wild Horse and Burro Act. Or the Endangered Species Act.
You say the tortoise is not endangered. If you have done the science, you need to call Bundy and tell him to sue, and you can be his expert witness.