BLM controversy in Southern Utah

[oldno7]

Forgot to add--type in the zipcode for the area you're looking at, it will bring up names and years.

[oldno7]

WOW--Scott, I thought my zip code had offenders, how many of these guys do you know?

http://farm.ewg.org/addrsearch.php?s...mage_large.y=0

[Scott P]

I could have remained neutral, until they brought in 200+ armed rangers, established 1st Amendment zones and violently throw a 57 year old woman to the ground.

I agree with you that is was a poor way to handle things. The 1st Amendment Zone was stupid. As far as throwing the woman to the ground, in the original video she kept jumping in front of the moving vehicles. If they wouldn't have gotten her away, she could have got run over. On that part, I don't know what they should have done.

WOW--Scott, I thought my zip code had offenders, how many of these guys do you know?

It's a small town, so quite a few. Some are friends.

Edit: Oh s***, one of top ones is my supervisor. Maybe I'd better not say much on the topic.

[oldno7]

. As far as throwing the woman to the ground, in the original video she kept jumping in front of the moving vehicles. If they wouldn't have gotten her away, she could have got run over. On that part, I don't know what they should have done.

Did you see the video? She was clearly alongside the vehicle.

[Scott P]

Did you see the video? She was clearly alongside the vehicle.

Yes. It is a clip of the full video I saw (or another video). In the full video, before she was thrown to the ground, it looked like to me she was jumping in front of the vehicles. I will see if I can find it.

I did find the interview where she said she was getting in front of the vehicles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=oz5LnLLTAFU

It is at 2:25.

Still, as I said before, I think this BLM incident has done far more to harm conservation efforts than it has done to help them.

[oldno7]

blm website, currently down for maintenance.

http://www.blm.gov/

[ratagonia]

blm website, currently down for maintenance.

http://www.blm.gov/

Looks like Anonymous jumped in... probably a denial-of-service attack.

Misguided, from this seat. But was fun to see who in my town is sucking on the government teat. All good, upstanding, conservative Republicans, I'm sure. They make good socialists.

Tom

[Byron]

All good, upstanding, conservative Republicans, I'm sure. They make good socialists.

Yeah well...most people talk it, few actually walk it. Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind poaching some free government cheese, but I don't qualify for a damn thing.

[Glenn]

Maybe it would be politically inappropriate to micro-manage, but I would like Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) to publicly step in and offer to set up some mediation to resolve this. I think she's a fairly smart person and I have a lot of respect for her - both as a businessperson (former CEO of REI) and environmentalist/conservationist.

[nelsonccc]

Pretty interesting, definitely worth watching. I really like the selective management stuff;

http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/#GszHzsPEi4cgiIOc.01

[Scott P]

Pretty interesting, definitely worth watching.

Some of the people commenting on the video have some "interesting" websites:

http://www.usfreedomfighters.com/chr...orbondage.html

[Sombeech]

As far as throwing the woman to the ground, in the original video she kept jumping in front of the moving vehicles. If they wouldn't have gotten her away, she could have got run over.

So she was "toppled" for safety purposes!

[ratagonia]

Maybe it would be politically inappropriate to micro-manage, but I would like Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) to publicly step in and offer to set up some mediation to resolve this. I think she's a fairly smart person and I have a lot of respect for her - both as a businessperson (former CEO of REI) and environmentalist/conservationist.

Yeah, like, maybe Clive Bundy could recognize the existence of the Federal Govmint on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and every-other Sunday. Oh wait, he already recognizes them when he puts their checks in the bank.

So, Glenn, you think people should just ignore the law, ignore the court, not pay their bills, for 20 years... and then we should negotiate with them? How about the charges of inciting armed rebellion? Perhaps that could be negotiated down to public indecency???

I'm pretty sure the Feds are waiting for things to cool off, then they'll pick ol' Clide up and he will be a tenant of the Federal Government (for free!) for the rest of his days.

Tom

[deagol]

The following is a summation a legal friend of mine wrote...

Been digging into the whole Bundy Range War situation in Nevada and wrote down my thoughts. This is a bit long, but if you want a good understanding of the background behind the dispute this is useful info.

The whole situation has its roots in the Dust Bowl, believe it or not. After overgrazing and aggressive farming practices contributed to the destruction of topsoils across the West, in 1934 the US instituted the Taylor Grazing Act (along with other changes) to prevent any one person or group from overusing it.

"A new permit system granted grazing privileges by preference to ranchers who had actually used a grazing district's land during a priority period before 1934. Owners of land or water rights who could support livestock on base ranches during seasons when herds were not on the grazing districts were favored; those without property were not. Technically, the grazing permit is a revocable license under the law, not creating any right, title, interest, or estate in or to land, but it is considered by many to be a unique form of ownership, constituting a property right of the utmost importance."

That there is key. The law basically said the ranchers, to use federal land for grazing, have to pay an annual grazing fee to cover the cost of managing the system.

In the 1960s and 70s, other federal regulations began to apply (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.). During that period, federal law expanded the limitations on public land use to include not just managing the land itself for the use of the ranchers, but also managing the land to protect the general public interest (loggers, farmers, water users, tourists, and wildlife).

Then, in the 1990s, the desert tortoise was added as an endangered species. This impacted a lot of federal land in Nevada and was very controversial there. So Nevada and the Fed struck a deal. Nevada would buy back grazing permits from any ranchers that wanted to sell, they would then swap that land with the BLM for land that didn't involve the tortoise and could be used by the state. Many ranchers sold back their grazing rights to the tune of about $5 million.

Here's where it gets sticky...

Mr. Bundy's family had been grazing on that land before 1934. No, it wasn't "his land" per se, but his family, like countless other ranchers, had worked up to that point on the idea that any non-private land was free for everyone to use.

The 1934 Taylor Grazing Act changed that, of course, but most everyone (including the ranchers) agreed it was necessary to have someone manage public land to prevent another event like the Dust Bowl. There's no record that Bundy's family felt any different. His family, like countless other ranchers, paid the grazing fees and kept working.

The 1960s and 1970s law changes didn't seem to have much impact on the situation either.

It was the 1990s classification of the desert tortoise that was the last straw for Bundy's family. When they found out that they would no longer be allowed to graze on federal land because of a tortoise, they were incensed. And to show how angry they were, they stopped paying the range fees.

Why was that a problem? Because when Nevada and the Fed reached the buyback agreement, Bundy's family had nothing to buy back. They had defaulted on the grazing agreement by not paying the fees for about 2 years. So they were not eligible to be compensated for what they didn't have any more. Instead, the state of Nevada bought the permit he had formerly held from the BLM for about $275,000.

Now the Bundys were even more angry. So in protest, they started grazing on the land again, but not paying the fees. Two more years. Five more years. Ten more years. Twenty more years. Through this process, they were taken to court over and over, and judges repeatedly sided with the BLM. In the courts' view, it was a contract dispute, and the Bundys defaulted on the contract voluntarily in the 1990s and gave up all rights to use federal land for grazing. But the Bundys just ignored the court orders.

And so we hit the present, where the BLM begins confiscating the cattle, we have a standoff, and the BLM backs down to prevent an incident.

As you can see, it's not nearly as simple a situation as the big bad federal government trying to stop a family, unfairly, from grazing on land "his family has been using for 100's of years". A lot of local ranchers are not happy about what Bundy is doing. They pay their range fees every year, and here he is getting use of public land for free for 20 years, and calling in a bunch of armed militia members from all over the country to help him make it stick. It's easy to take the side of the little guy against the government, but sometimes, the little guy isn't right.

[Iceaxe]

Awesome post.... thanks.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Glenn]

Yeah, like, maybe Clive Bundy could recognize the existence of the Federal Govmint on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and every-other Sunday. Oh wait, he already recognizes them when he puts their checks in the bank.

So, Glenn, you think people should just ignore the law, ignore the court, not pay their bills, for 20 years... and then we should negotiate with them? How about the charges of inciting armed rebellion? Perhaps that could be negotiated down to public indecency???

I'm pretty sure the Feds are waiting for things to cool off, then they'll pick ol' Clide up and he will be a tenant of the Federal Government (for free!) for the rest of his days.

Tom

Oh, gosh, not at all. If you read my very first post on this you'll see that I don't side with Bundy's claims at all. At the same time, the actions that the BLM took were not planned well and helped make this situation worse. And I guarantee that Bundy will not be hauled off to jail - at least not as you describe. That would just make him a martyr and would incite a whole new round of antagonism.

i just think someone like Jewell might be able to calm the waters somewhat and help get this concluded.

[Glenn]

deagol....that WAS a great post (although I had to zoom my browser to read the text!). I wish this summary could be spread out so more of the public could see what's really going on.

[ratagonia]

deagol....that WAS a great post (although I had to zoom my browser to read the text!). I wish this summary could be spread out so more of the public could see what's really going on.

Many people are only interested in facts that support their already-established point of view.





in 3 - 2 - 1 - GO!

Tom

[Scott P]

deagol....that WAS a great post (although I had to zoom my browser to read the text!). I wish this summary could be spread out so more of the public could see what's really going on.

Agreed, and also, regardless of which side one takes, if any, it should also be mentioned that the Bundy Ranch is 160 acres and the area where the cattle are being grazed is more than 1200 square miles, and includes national park and private lands which were never owned by the ranch. It was the landowners who's property and crops were damaged that filed many of the complaints. In fact, the cattle have even damaged property in the city of Mesquite. Would you be mad if someone's cattle came on your property and were damaging it?

[ratagonia]

Would you be mad if someone's cattle came on your property and were damaging it?

Nope, I'd be even. 2nd Amendment solution, as it is called.

Tom