Also, they’re herding cattle. It’s probably safer for everyone, Feds and protesters alike, if they know where everyone is. I could see it being something like: “Fine, protest. Do it over there, where you won’t get trampled or spook a cow and get us trampled.”
The idea of “free speech zones” puts my back up, too, but in this case it might actually be a practical consideration.
Wouldn’t the original “herders of the cattle” that actually owned the cattle be in a safer position to know what’s what than some armed BLM guys sent in to do the job, though? They aren’t there to herd the cattle so much as to confiscate it, presumably to help pay off the debts this guy owes (he claims his cattle is worth $1000 a head and owns 350 cattle in his herd…not an insignificant amount of money).
And if you watched the video, I too am wondering what the “sane” commentator of the video is asking when he says “All we want to know is what is the backhoe for?”
I am not advocating for either position…just trying to figure out what in the world is going on.
The rancher is not the only protester, apparently, and I wouldn’t trust some of the others that seem to have been attracted to herd rocks safely.
Well the cattle have been grazing that land for more than a hundred year and yet the turtles are still there–enough of them to count. I gather that a few of them have been stepped on by people conducting the roundup.
Perhaps not. But you’d entrust that same rock herding to federally appointed minions?
Hey, rock herding is kind of big business in Nevada. My friend and I were through there this summer and rustled a few stray rocks.
I live in Nevada, just down the road (well, the highway) from where Cliven Bundy lives and where this is all taking place.
It’s been in the news for some time now, and the actual story goes back more than 20 years, to when the desert tortoise (our state reptile) was first declared a threatened species and Bundy was told he could no longer graze cattle on land designated as desert tortoise habitat. He ignored that. He also ignored his bills for grazing the cattle on federal land. He has lost multiple court battles and does, in fact, owe the federal government at least $300,000 perhaps more than 1 million dollars. [Cite.
He’s a crank and an asshole and a fucking freeloading mooching thief. His rights aren’t being violated; he’s violating the law. Fuck him.
There isn’t.
He thinks the land is his by ancestral right. Fuck him, he’s a selfish delusional greedy prick.
This is 100% correct.
I don’t know much about this case, but, according to several wild land firefighters I know, BLM only administers land where nothing grows. 
Snowboarder, I accede to your local knowledge. I also thank God you didn’t mention quarries. Not kidding. Thank you.
To sort of touch on all of these quotes, the federal government can’t just kick traditional users off of public land because it feels like it the way a private landholder could. There is a whole big arena of law that relates to the use of public land. In general, the argument that someone (or someone’s family) has been using a piece of public land in a certain way for a long time is a very strong one, especially if that use goes back to before active federal land management began (usually around the 1920’s or 30’s in most of the west). It generally takes a pretty big conservation issue before the courts will let agencies just outright kick someone who’s been grazing or using water (or whatever) on a piece of land since the 19th century.
I honestly don’t know what the exact history of this case is. It could be that he tried to press his claim in court and failed (either because of the severity of the conservation issue or maybe his claim of traditional use wasn’t as strong as he’s making it seem) and he’s now trotting out all this oddball libertarian stuff as a last-ditch gambit to try to fight it in the court of public opinion. It could also be that he was a true believer in the magic word law junk all along and didn’t really pursue the courtroom options in the first place. Snowboarder Bo mentioned there were ongoing court cases, but I don’t know if those were him actually taking his argument through the normal channels or the BLM just trying to kick him off by means short of dispatching the goons.
Yeah, sort of. In contrast to things like National Forests and National Parks that were specifically set aside, most BLM land is just the leftovers that nobody wanted during the homesteading era. It’s generally not great for growing stuff, although there is some pretty good grazing land. You just needed a bigger ranch than you could get under the Homestead Act (even with various enlargements allowed in arid areas) so there are a lot of situations like this where ranches have existed since the homesteading era but are completely dependent on grazing rights in the vast swaths of adjacent public land.
What the fuck is there to laugh about in this situation??? 
You’re welcome, I guess. :dubious:
Dude, I’m sorry. I was just playing around.
In my opinion, he wants to press this claim, he should ask some Paiute or Shoshone folks if they maybe wanna work that angle first.
The changes in the BLM’s grazing policy have been driven by desert tortoise conservation efforts. in 1990, the desert tortoise was listed as threatened under the endangered species act. The 1993 desert tortoise conservation plan called for the establishment of a tortoise refuge within the Gold Butte allotment, and this is when the BLM rezoned the land from grazing to conservation. The BLM canceled Bundy’s grazing permit (which was capped at 150 head) in 1994.
Bundy didn’t remove his cattle, and the BLM went (slowly) through the court system to get him removed, ending up with a District Court order in 1998 allowing them to remove the cattle. Bundy appealed that ruling, and the 9th Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s injunction in 1999.
The BLM didn’t enforce the order then, and Bundy, I guess, got comfortable with flouting the law. He claims that he has 500 head on the allotment, and BLM surveys have counted between 700 and 900 over the past few years. Most reports speculate that the BLM is moving against him now to head off a lawsuit from an environmental group to force compliance with the tortoise conservation plan.
Whatever the reason, when the BLM moved to enforce the 1998 injunction the Clark County sheriff asked them to get a newer order. So they did, and you can read that one here. This order gave Bundy 45 days to remove his cattle, and he didn’t. The order therefore allows the BLM to impound the cattle, and it also specifically directs Bundy himself to stay out of their way.
The upshot is that Bundy’s lost every legal challenge at every level for 20 years, and hasn’t bothered to comply with any of the rulings. He hasn’t even complied with the terms of the permits that he did legally have up until this began. He’s got no legal or ethical leg to stand on, but he’s got a cause, a platform, and some brain-dead supporters. That’s all it takes, I guess.
Apparently it is. On August 25, 2013 the Huffington Post published an article about the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center which was suffering from such an overload of(mostly weak or sick) desert tortoises that it had euthanized large numbers of them. I am in doubt that cattle are causing the problem and suspect that the government is flexing its muscles.
There was also a bit of overreach on the part of the County Commissioner, Tom Collins, who made it known that anyone who came to the rancher’s support “had better have funeral plans.” That’s sure to help things go smoothly.
I won’t belabor it because it needs a separate thread but the establishing of free speech zones “for your own good” sets an ominous precedent. If you’re younger than I you may not have a good memory or been taught about how silencing the people has its early beginnings. Nobody should want this.
Seems odd that they want to provide protection when they’ve already set up a threatening situation by introducing funerals into the disagreement.
Note please: I’m not talking about political parties or tortoises here but rather about process. And I’m well aware that many times whole neighborhoods have to cede their property for State or Federal projects.
My ‘unusual’ friends are all over this story with sovereign citizen, gun confiscation, ‘the law enforcement officials are Russians!’, the is government is seizing private land, and other off beat and ‘patriot’ angles.
Would I be wrong to suggest to them that this could be a government ‘false flag’ operation intended to round up the patriots?