Apr 14, 2014 at 10:51 am #1315659
interesting situation in Nevada if you ask me :)Apr 14, 2014 at 11:27 am #2092866
I thought about posting this earlier. It is very complicated.
I wouldn't call him a hero, but I don't like all of the government's actions here either. I have mixed feelings here.
To me some of the discussion/argument we had on the national parks thread is related to the issues here as well. Not a complete match of course, but some of the federal versus state, stewardship of national lands, and economic/environmental special interests are in both topics.Apr 14, 2014 at 11:32 am #2092867
of course I replied based on the topic before reading your link.
There are much better, less crap filled, pieces written on the topic.
Here is a short description written by a guy I know from a different perspective. I think he has some good points/insight into the other side:
This is a very complicated issue. It is touching a raw nerve that exists in the Wesy over the federal ownership df lands in the west and the way the Feds are managing those lands – managing by abusing the environmental laws, particularly the endangered species act, and thereby destroying the economies of the west. The federal government is also ignoring and discarding the century + old compact it had with the ranchers in the west.
While it is technically correct that the federal government is the landowner, this guy is a mere leaseholder, and the government has the legal right to change the terms of the lease and evict him if he doesn't comply.
However, as usual, there is much more to the story than that. Most ranches in the west are comprised of relatively small amounts of land held in fee simple and the remaining majority of land leased from the federal and sometimes state governments. Those leased lands are tied to the fee simple. That is, the lands are not leased at an open auction, but the owner of the fee simple has an exclusive right to lease them, and that right to lease transfers with the fee simple land.
The lease land is a key component to the value of the ranch. When the ranch sells, it is valued not only on the value of the fee simple land, but also on the leased land that accompanies it. In fact, when the federal government condemns such ranches (such as it did at White Sands Missile Range), it has been forced by the federal courts to pay the ranchers for the value of not only their fee simple land, but also their leased land, since that total value truly reflects the value of the ranch being taken by the federal government.
Keep in mind also that the federal government made a compact with this guy's ancestors, and the ancestors of all of the western ranches. That compact was that if those ancestors were to go out and pioneer that god-forsaken land in the middle of nowhere, the federal government would not only grant you homestead rights on your fee simple land, but would also grant you the preferential grazing leases described above.
That system started changing in the 70s with the advent of the environmental movement and their hatred of ranching in the west. The BLM and the Forest Service (the two largest "owners" of federal grazing lands, which were originally created to help the ranchers, evolved to become their worst enemy. All across the west they started dramatically reducing the ranchers grazing allotments (i.e., the number of cow/calf units the ranchers were allowed to place on the federal lands). By drastic, I mean reductions of 90-99%. Many if not most ranchers in the west were wiped out. As an example, the county in Nevada where this is occuring had over 50 ranchers 20 years ago. This guy is the only rancher left.
Further, as someone pointed out above, much of this policy has been created through incestuous litigation. That is, environmental groups, staffed by former BLM and Forest Service employees, file suit agains those agencies. Prior to any court hearing, the agency "settles" with the environmental group and further agrees to pay the environmental groups legal fees. (By the way, no one knows how much the federal government is paying in legal fees to these environmental groups, but the best estimates is billions of dollars a year. For many of the groups, it is their only source of revenue.) Due to this sue and settle approach, the federal agencies are able to implement policies that are not permitted by statute. Furthermore, the policies are not subject to the normal regulatory process of issuing proposed regulations, having public comments, etc. Thus, the federal agencies have been able to implement massive social changes in the western US without any meaningful debate or any real due process.
Consequentially, most non-tourist locations in the west are sinkholes of poverty. No jobs exist and young people are being forced to move elsewhere to find employment. Virtually the entire cattle, timber and mining industries in the west have been shut down by this extra-legal process.
Most people in the Rocky Mountain west, outside the liberal tourist meccas, are deeply outraged at this situation. This standoff in Nevada has touched a raw nerve.
The BLM is very heavy handed in this issue. Even if this guy is violating a lease, does that justify sending in 200 armed agents and snipers, and unilaterally restricting everyones' 1st Amendment rights?
In summary, this isn't simply a question of landlord and tenant rights. Rather, it is a question of public policy, government oversight, government ownership of the vast majority of western lands, and who should best control and oversee those lands.Apr 14, 2014 at 11:50 am #2092875
Thanks for sharing that Michael. In a sea of propaganda from both sides, this is the most rational and credible explanation I've heard yet.Apr 14, 2014 at 11:51 am #2092877
A bunch of armed "patriots" coming to defend this jerk is reason for concern. All these arm chair wanna be soldiers makes for an explosive situation. Bundy owes money to the Federal government and has not paid up. His reasoning that he is Mormon and that he has rights to the land is hilarious. Umm so with that logic then, our native friends here should start an insurrection then. Funny how the right becomes more intolerant with federal over reach when we have a President that is not white nor named Jim……Apr 14, 2014 at 11:53 am #2092878
BTW the initial title was sarcasmApr 14, 2014 at 12:01 pm #2092881
From my understanding (I wasn't there), the BLM showed up with guns and snipers first. The protestors countered. Now I'm not saying the protestors should have been pointing guns at the feds, but I don't think the BLM should have been showing up to what amounts to a rally with sniper riffles.
The race of the president has nothing to do with it. If this was a bunch of hippies wanting to occupy wall street, you would probably be on board. I think the situations have many similarities.Apr 14, 2014 at 12:13 pm #2092887
Nawww Michael ….I despise hippies. Agree that The response was overkill, but to have armed militia types showing up and trying to be John Wayne is disconcerting. That is opening a can of worms.Apr 14, 2014 at 12:41 pm #2092895
Agreed. I don't think the situation called for armed protests and that was troubling. Certainly not something I would advocate.Apr 14, 2014 at 1:06 pm #2092903
@retiredjerryLocale: Oregon and Washington
Interesting story Micheal, I suspected there was another side to the story : )
They seem to have backed off now, hopefully they'll reach some peaceful compromise.
I have heard interviews of the guy talking about how he doesn't recognize the U.S. government which sounds kind of wacko, but I didn't listen that carefully.Apr 14, 2014 at 1:34 pm #2092911
"A bunch of armed "patriots" coming to defend this jerk is reason for concern. All these arm chair wanna be soldiers makes for an explosive situation."
(sigh)…Ken, do you realize that those "arm chair wanna be soldiers" are actually the most experienced retired and active duty combat troops America has produced since WW2? They are Oathkeepers…retired Army Rangers, Green Berets, USMC Scout Snipers, Navy Seals, etc. Most of the younger ones have cut their teeth in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the older vets will probably have survived combat in Desert Storm and Vietnam (possibly Korea). There are also many active duty personnel from all branches there on their days off and leaves (trust me, I know 3 personally that are there right now). They all are there to uphold their oaths, as there is no expiration date on the blank check they wrote the citizens of the USA. When compared to the local police/SWAT/BLM/forest rangers teams on the ground, with probably very few having the type of training and experience the vets have, I honestly think it would be a very short fight. I also think it would spark the largest insurgency the world has ever seen and I sure hope a solution presents itself before something like that happens. Say what you like, but I would put my money on the Vets.
Oathkeepers at the Bundy ranch:
Notice the flags:
I know I, personally, would feel much safer with a group of 10 Oathkeepers protecting me than 50 BLM jackboots. If something does start, I can also guarantee it won't be started from the Oathkeepers. These are veterans who know what kind of hell war really is and will do everything to avoid it. On the other hand, God help the Feds and BLM if something does happen.
OK…back to your regularly scheduled Liberal conservative bashing and race baiting.Apr 14, 2014 at 1:36 pm #2092913
Oh…and the real reason the BLM wants the land has nothing to do with turtles…it's because they want to sell the fracking rights.
"(NaturalNews) The Bureau of Land Management says its 200-man armed siege of the Cliven Bundy ranch in Nevada is all about protecting an "endangered tortoise." But a Natural News investigation has found that BLM is actually in the business of raking in millions of dollars by leasing Nevada lands to energy companies that engage in fracking operations.
This document from the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology(1) shows significant exploratory drilling being conducted in precisely the same area where the Bundy family has been running cattle since the 1870's. The "Gold Butte" area is indicated on the lower right corner of the document (see below), and it clearly shows numerous exploratory drilling operations have been conducted there.
What's also clear is that oil has been found in nearby areas and possibly even within the Gold Butte area itself.
It is, of course, customary for the U.S. government to bring armed soldiers to an oil dispute. (Operation "Iraqi Freedom" for starters…) Heavily armed snipers, helicopters and militarized soldiers have never been invoked over tortoises. (Anyone who thinks this siege is about reptiles is kidding themselves.)
BLM collects $1.27 million in shale fracking leases
The Bureau of Land Management has just cashed in with $1.27 million in oil and gas leases in Nevada. This was just reported two weeks ago in ShaleReporter.com, which states:
U.S. Bureau of Land Management geologist Lorenzo Trimble tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal the Elko County oil and gas leases sold Tuesday for $1.27 million to six different companies. The auction took place in Reno. The leases are near where Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. wants to drill for oil and natural gas on 40,000 acres of public and private land near the town of Wells. The Review-Journal reports the project would be the first in Nevada to use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract oil and gas from shale deposits.
The way this works, of course, is that BLM runs land theft operations by claiming they are "managing" the land and thereby kicking everyone else off it. They then invoke a reptile, an owl, a bird, a snake or some other animal which they claim to be "saving," even while they are stealing and destroying hundreds of cattle belonging to a private rancher trying to make an honest living in a nation where productive Americans are increasingly branded "enemies of the state."
Once control of the land is established via court order or by bringing armed men with automatic weapons, BLM then turns around and leases the land to fracking companies who proceed to exploit the land using hydraulic fracturing techniques that inject toxic chemicals into groundwater supplies (and have been linked to earthquakes). The money collected by the BLM is then used to increase BLM salaries and bonuses.
In essence, the BLM is a criminal mafia racket, and Cliven Bundy just happened to be in the way of their next target, the Gold Butte area of Nevada. That is why they brought hundreds of heavily armed men to a "save the tortoise" operation.
"Endangered tortoises" is merely the government cover story for confiscating land to turn it over to fracking companies for millions of dollars in energy leases. In truth, the BLM was rapidly euthanizing these very same reptiles en masse last year.(2)
As part of its police state intimidation to control the land, BLM unleashed attack dogs on a pregnant woman.
Does anyone really believe this is still about a tortoise?"Apr 14, 2014 at 1:39 pm #2092914
They're frighten delusional neutrons. The same ones that open carry and have a small penis. These are the same "patriots" that think Obama is tyrannical and that their supposed constitutional rights are being trampled.
Race bait…..you said it not me. Must really bug you that we have a damn Muslim President of different color than Lilly whiteApr 14, 2014 at 1:40 pm #2092915
"They seem to have backed off now, hopefully they'll reach some peaceful compromise."
You spoke too soon, Jerry….they're back and in force:Apr 14, 2014 at 1:49 pm #2092917
"Race bait…..you said it not me. Must really bug you that we have a damn Muslim President of different color than Lilly white"
Not at all. Skin color has nothing to do with the fact that he's incompetant and I dissagree with his policies. It's well known that Liberals like yourself are the most intolerant of others opposing viewpoints and tend to attack them by deflecting the issues and calling them "racist", just for policy dissagreements. It's your MO, i'm affraid. Go back and re-read your second post. You brought it up, pal. LOL. Are you really that dense that you don't realize that you just proved my point?Apr 14, 2014 at 1:52 pm #2092920
LolApr 14, 2014 at 2:03 pm #2092922
"While it is technically correct that the federal government is the landowner, this guy is a mere leaseholder, and the government has the legal right to change the terms of the lease and evict him if he doesn't comply."
Technically correct. Otherwise known as the best kind of correct.Apr 14, 2014 at 2:12 pm #2092928
That's ok, Ken, laughter is often the best defense mechanism for the insecure.Apr 14, 2014 at 2:15 pm #2092930
All right Matthew… all right.
"(sigh)…Ken, do you realize that those "arm chair wanna be soldiers" are actually the most experienced retired and active duty combat troops America has produced since WW2?"
I can't keep quiet on this topic anymore as this is an area where I'm a subject matter expert. Spring ignites our love of brights. As much as we love this season's soft and wearable Radiant Orchid, we will always love a swipe of bold, confident color. From hair dye to lipstick, these colors pop! Orange lipstick is going to be huge for spring. We’ve already spotted stars like Jessica Alba wearing a bold pout. Yina, the guru behind Yina Goes takes the trend to the next level with a neon hue. This season, when it comes to lipstick, go bright or go home. Jewel tones aren’t just for Winter. Tiffany D of Makeup by Tiffany transitions rich hues into spring with her blue eyeshadow tutorial. If you need a break from neutrals, this eye look gets our vote. Colorful eyeliner was everywhere at NYFW. If you’re looking for a gradient approach to the trend, then try Cflowermakeup’s sunset eye makeup in lieu of liner. This eye look combines a gold-toned yellow and orange shadow, keeping the look wearable. Spring hair is about subtle differences—not in color, but in placement. Kristin Ess of The Beauty Department showcases this new style by dying the underside of the hair.
All of which proves that anyone who disagrees with me is a cotton headed ninny muggins.Apr 14, 2014 at 2:58 pm #2092944
Nice try, Ian, but i'm a card carrying member of the KISS Army, so if you want to wear make-up and women's lipstick, i'm actually really cool with it. Next…..
MApr 14, 2014 at 3:32 pm #2092956
Whoa pump the breaks there killer! Just because YOU like to tromp around the woods in a skirt, don't try to put that on me.
Not that there's anything wrong with it as I'll be backpacking in full drag here in a few weeks (true story) but makeup is where I draw the line… except for fall since Autumn colors make my eyes pop.Apr 14, 2014 at 4:41 pm #2092981
Wow, first you try to poke fun at being a patriot, then you struggle with an argument and use the race card, after that fails, you are critical of the size of someone's manhood.
What about discrimination against women, gays, greedy corporations, and the rest of the lot.
The left is so predictable, so limited in their thinking, and yes so hateful against any one who doesn't follow their herd.
Get some help man!Apr 14, 2014 at 7:08 pm #2093034
@ouzelLocale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
"On the other hand, God help the Feds and BLM if something does happen."
Until a whole bunch of guys still in uniform, who also have a lot of recent combat experience, show up. Active duty Rangers, SEALs, Green Berets, and just regular old Army and Marines. Like you said, Matthew, let's hope wiser heads prevail.Apr 14, 2014 at 7:41 pm #2093050
Come on Ken. You brought race into this, not MatthewApr 14, 2014 at 7:45 pm #2093052
@hknewmanLocale: Western US
Not much to get riled up over. All these counties will get sucked dry by the growing Las Vegas metro water dept and just less water in general (whether you call it an extended drought or global warming). For cattle ranching, you need a well fed by ground water and the argument is that taking all this water will lower the water table dramatically. Vegas paper:
By arguing ranching is feasible, they are also arguing there's enough water to pipe to thirsty Vegas. NV is trying to grow Vegas to compete with Los Angeles and San Francisco for tech firms … besides some lip service, think they will choose Vegas over a tenant rancher.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.