He also owes over a million dollars for past fees not paid.
Because FREEDOM!
There should be a warrant for his arrest. He has stolen from the government to the tune of millions of dollars. Now if he was a welfare mom getting a loaf of bread with welfare money, the right wingers would be up in arms. But if one of their own rips off the government for millions- time to bear arms against the government!
Right, but that’s neither a crime nor a reason to go shooting people.
At some point the government has to remove Bundy’s cattle because if you don’t eventually evict trespassers it will indeed cause long term problems. However, I’m not convinced that after twenty years they had to do it right then given it was likely to have caused people to get killed. I think the government showed wise and amazing restraint.
I’m not sure what the best strategy is long term, but I would imagine Bundy could eventually be charged with criminal trespass and arrested, no? That seems like an appropriate path to go down at this point.
I would also think the government could put liens on his assets (including his cattle) and seize any proceeds from their sale, which would effectively make his continued grazing a pointless activity for him.
Not paying fees isn’t theft or even usually a crime. It’s looked at as a matter of debt, and we don’t arrest people for debt in the United States. You can be jailed on contempt for non-payment after a court order, if there is a demonstrated ability to pay the debt and you’re just willfully violating the court order in your refusal.
I would instead think criminal trespass would be an appropriate charge to pursue. As would liens on Bundy’s assets. I am assuming he’s not grazing cattle for fun, but to sell for slaughter. If there are liens on the cattle then when he does sell them he will get no money. That in itself would seem to be a pretty big blow to Bundy.
Trespassing is a crime, and as far as I know they didn’t shoot anybody. Now, a long term strategy of eventually arresting him and charging him with criminal trespassing and endangerment of a protected species might work…if there weren’t an active campaign going on the other side that will use any and every compromise as a weapon to turn him into a “martyr”. Every day the government stalls in cleaning up this mess grows their ranks and encourages others to act as he did.
I couldn’t find any remotely credible source suggesting anyone was arrested or detained, legally or otherwise. Perhaps you can provide a more… “narrow” citation?
Right now I believe it’s just a matter of civil trespass though, they’d have to go through the appropriate motions to charge him with criminal trespass.
I’m not convinced that time = growing ranks. That smacks of the kind of argument used to justify going into the Branch Davidian compound. I’d actually wager time where Bundy’s cattle are allowed to graze unmolested will cause interest in this to die off.
Like I’ve said, I’m not sure how you ultimately resolve it, but the way it was going was going to get people killed and I don’t want that over a patch of land and some unpaid government fees. Not when there are other options and there is no public safety concern. Once a warrant is issued and it’s a criminal matter I think you then have to use force to execute the warrant, but unless Bundy lives on a survivalist compound he will eventually have to come to town and can be arrested peacefully there.
FWIW the Governor of Nevada has supported Bundy in this. So I think that in itself might merit a bit of reflection on how to proceed, as the Governor giving his support to someone might be a big part of the fuel on the fire. Maybe the Feds can discuss this with Nevada and come to some arrangement to get the State on their side and I think that would undermine a lot of Bundy’s argument.
I think he’s guilty of theft. The plant life on federal lands belongs to the federal government. His cattle ate those plants and thus took federal property. I don’t see this as any different than going to a restaurant, saying you’ll gladly pay them Tuesday for a hamburger today, eating the burger, and coming back on Tuesday with armed thugs blaming the restaurant for harassing you.
This is all per the wiki, but a court order was issued in July 2013 that instructed Bundy to remove the cattle and granted the BLM the right to seize any cattle that remained. Another court order was issued in Oct 2013. Six months later, the BLM finally did a roundup, gathering 400 cattle that were illegally on the land, 90% of which were Bundy’s. They were then set upon by an armed mob which demanded release of the legally seized cattle. Yes, it’s great that they opted to release the cattle rather than get involved in a shootout, but the BLM didn’t instigate this.
The federal government won the court case 16 months ago. They were granted permission to seize the cattle 10 months ago. You say, “At some point the government has to remove Bundy’s cattle,” but what does the government do if every time they try to do so, they’re confronted by armed citizens? If they back down every single time, then the court order isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. The government can’t keep acquiescing forever.
You are willing to see blood shed over this? Look, I recognize the importance of the principle at stake as well as you do, but as a libertarian I already acknowledge that law implies deadly force. Knowing that, we should take care about what laws we pass, because in the end, we have to be willing to kill to enforce them.
I’m not willing to kill over this, so I agree with the government decision to back down.
Was there any trespassing, though? The article just says the cattle were held “at corrals outside Mesquite”, and the accompanying photo shows the protestors on the pavement and shoulder of Interstate 15, which is surely public land.
The government views it as unpaid fees, not theft. I’m not concerned with how you view it but with what the law views it as. You actually are generally allowed to do a lot of stuff on BLM land, including limited collection of plants. No one considers it theft if you pick flowers on BLM land, for example. There has been a lot of precedent, allowed by the government, of BLM land being near free-for-all. That’s actually part of the environmental problem as we’re seeing classic “tragedy of the commons” stuff in some of the prime grazing land.
I would think if they can’t resolve this any other way, they scouted out all this cattle by helicopter–just kill the animals from the same platform and that removes any ability of the protesters on the ground to do anything about it and ends the matter. But that wouldn’t be ideal as that’d be a lot of beef carcasses rotting which might cause other problems environmentally.
Why isn’t he being charged under the Endangered Species Act?
This is publicly (i.e., “taxpayer”) owned land, and the guy didn’t “steal” anything but some grass. That obviously grew back, or he wouldn’t have kept grazing his cattle there for 20 years.
So the government is out some made up fee they demanded over some unused wilderness they couldn’t care enough about to put a fence around for 20 years.
Yeah, the guy made some minor civil infraction against the bureaucracy. STILL not worth killing a bunch of people over. Put up a fence and forgive the million dollars – sounds like a win/win to me. Solves the current problem peacefully and prevents any future confrontations.
Zero tolerance, hard line bullshit never helped anything, no matter who is “in the right”.
Shooting all the cattle seems like the worst possible way to resolve the dispute. The court order allowed the BLM to impound the cattle, not to kill them.
What endangered species resided on the land in question?
Ah, they are trying to make a buck. Shoot them!
Actually, a pretty high percentage of OWS protesters did want somethikng financial out of the deal: their student loans forgiven, higher social benefits, etc.
I’d only do that with some approval, obviously. I imagine a court might issue such an order if the government explains there is no way to safely impound the cattle.
The government does have management authority over the land it owns. The government even does cullings from time to time for management purposes. Couldn’t they declare a cull on cattle in that parcel of land or something similar?
I think to do that they’d need to declare the cattle unowned and wild. Most of the cullings on federal land are of animals that technically belong to the federal government.
I can’t deny that it would be a strong incentive to the next guy to stop fucking around, though. But the lawsuits would go on forever.
Bundy should grow a set and pay his fees and fines and move on. This would also provide incentive to others. There are set rules to the use of federal land for grazing. One should abide by the or be prepared to pay the price.
I should think that libertarians would be the first to condemn the armed mob for using force to steal from others. The property is the government’s, and I thought since property is The Most Important Thing In The Universe to libertarians, that they would come down on the side of the property owners, we the people.
If we allow armed fanatics to disobey whatever laws they don’t feel like obeying, then civilization ceases to exist. Nevada has turned into Somalia.
They shut down the highway for a while. Not sure if that’s trespassing, but it’s pretty darn inconvenient.
This seems like a pretty bad solution for a number of reasons, but it’s especially fresh considering the “let’s force the government to re-sell seized guns because destroying them is a waste of money and perfectly good guns” crowd.
Cows consume a lot of water, which, if coming from an aquifer, is essentially a non-renewable resource. There’s not a lot of water in Nevada, and the articles make mention of irrigation pipes and improvements that Bundy had been making to the land. I know it’s trendy to downplay the environmental impact of grazing, but it’s more than just some grass that grows back.