Posted on 04/12/2014 10:50:43 AM PDT by Red Steel
A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.
Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally.
Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a "range war" against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.
"I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."
The federal government had countered that Bundy "owes the American people in excess of $1 million " in unpaid grazing fees and "refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so."
However, today the BLM said it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle and was pulling out of the area.
"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," BLM Director Neil Kornze said.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
BTTT!
Firstly I don’t think we all live on stolen land so your mystical insight into my mindset needs some work.
I believe an honest man pays for what he uses whether its in his best interest or not. Apparently you and Mr Bundy don’t agree.
I understand that argument about changing the terms of a twenty-year lease after five years. Do you hold the same opinion about changing the terms of a new ten-year lease after the expiration of a previous ten-year lease?
I don't agree to live at the behest of what the government dictates.
Simple as that.
Bump!
Yes, raising the price no problem but to change the usage terms is a no-no. If the property supported 900 cattle on December 31st it will do so on January 1st.
You and I both know the BLM was playing games. And its been proven in spades. Did you see where the Government was euthanizing the Tortoises they were collecting from the very same land in question? Hard to make a case that the Cows endanger the Tortoises when the Government are killing them in droves and on purpose.
The BLM/Obama/Democrat Party decided to wait until after the election to continue this. They’ll be back. The Dems have too much riding on their “deal” with Red China.
They’ll be back.
Next time our side will have better feeds and commo...
One lesson learned is the feds don’t look so big when a whole lot of people with cameras show up, people who didn’t feel like standing down and cowering.
Like some in the crowd said, lets put the BLM, and park rangers back to emptying trash at camp grounds and being helpful.
No Neil, tell the truth. You are not concerned about the safety of YOUR employees because you have overwhelming firepower right now AND lots of body armor (saw it in the videos). You have armored vehicles, helicopters, snipers, etc., ad nauseum. You have dogs...they're dangerous...really. That's not the issue. THE ISSUE is...a LOT of us are not militia members nor are we rednecks and we're not going to leave our homes and go protect the Bundys or anyone else UNTIL you kill some innocent Americans.
You see Neil, behind closed doors you big boys are talking about the momentum of public opinion in this matter and how it was slipping away from you. The media could easily turn on you and begin to show sympathy for protesters, especially if you kill some for any reason (even if they fire on you). All this nation needs is a few martyrs on Clive Bundy's ranch and the show is on and you know it. Those folks should bring little children or some pet dogs out there next time and dare you do shoot anything (guns or tasers) at anyone with little children and pets around. Man, even if one of your attack dogs killed someone's dog, you would have a monumental problem on your hands. All it would take would be one child (possibly even a Fido) martyr and all hell would break loose in this country and you're probably concerned the protesters might think of that.
What are you going to do now? You can't retreat...really. That will embolden those who hate how the Federal Agencies behave. The public is fed up and is not going to take it anymore. Where will the next conflict arise that will bring a huge number of people out of their homes to plan some REAL trouble for you fellas? Back to the drawing board Neil...
I’m waiting for Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin and Tex Cruz to start talking about corrupt Reid and his corrupt son. They cold all do the country a big favor. And the facts are there. All they have to do is repeat them ad nauseam.
They are merely taking a break and regrouping to let the publicity die down.
No telling how many cattle they destroyed, but the older stories mentioned "about 1000 head and this story says 900 head - I wonder if it is any indication...
Yep. Loved your post.
That's not true. The same rules of BLM grazing permits/leases that require the BLM to offer a new permit/lease on the same property to the rancher if all terms and conditions of the previous grazing permit/lease were met also specifically permit the new contract to reduce the limits on the number of livestock grazed in a number of circumstances, including the presence of Endangered Species habitats.
At the time of Cliven Bundy's previous grazing lease/permit, desert tortoises were not an Endangered Species. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service didn't declare the desert tortoise an Endangered Species until 1989.
The BMS didn't place a grazing limit on the Bunkerton allotment in 1989, it waited until Cliven Bundy's next grazing permit renewal.
You and I both know much of what the federal government does to protect "Endangered Species' is nonsense. Changing usage terms may have been irrational, but it wasn't a no-no. Changing usage terms in a new contract was part of the BLM grazing program rules.
That's not true. The same rules of BLM grazing permits/leases that require the BLM to offer a new permit/lease on the same property to the rancher if all terms and conditions of the previous grazing permit/lease were met also specifically permit the new contract to reduce the limits on the number of livestock grazed in a number of circumstances, including the presence of Endangered Species habitats.
At the time of Cliven Bundy's previous grazing lease/permit, desert tortoises were not an Endangered Species. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service didn't declare the desert tortoise an Endangered Species until 1989.
The BMS didn't place a grazing limit on the Bunkerton allotment in 1989, it waited until Cliven Bundy's next grazing permit renewal.
You and I both know much of what the federal government does to protect "Endangered Species' is nonsense. Changing usage terms may have been irrational, but it wasn't a no-no. Changing usage terms in a new contract was part of the BLM grazing program rules.
Sorry but with such glaring evidence your argument is invalid.
Reducing the limit of livestock permitted to graze under a new BLM grazing permit/contract is specifically permitted by the law.
You and I can disagree with the law in general. We can disagree with using that provision to limit grazing due to so-called habitats of so-called Endangered Species. We can disagree with using that provision if the government is euthanizing the same Endangered Species whose habitat the BLM used as the basis to limit grazing. We can cuss out the BLM in general and question the intelligence or abuse of power of those who in Congress and the BLM who made the rules.
However, the BLM's right to limit the number of livestock permitted to graze under the renewal of a grazing permit/lease is specifically provided for in the law. Change the subject if you want (again), but that what the law says, however ill-advised it may be.
And that is why lawyers make the big bucks. If law were as cut and dried as you claim Bundy would've been off of that property long ago.
"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," BLM Director Neil Kornze said.Translation: We're afraid some of these people protesting are going to start pulling a BOOM! HEADSHOT! on our employees.
Both sides said the issue is one of fairness, with the federal government maintaining that thousands of other cattle ranchers are abiding by the law by paying their annual grazing fees, while Bundy's family and supporters say the government's actions are threatening ranchers' freedoms.Prediction: The BLM will win this with very public, very documented legal orders and court cases. Lots of scrutiny and making sure all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.