THE BUNKERVILLE WAR – The Fight for Land Rights -The Bundys, the Conclusion

April 7, 2021 — bunkerville

The Bunkerville War — Part II

The fight for land rights

by Mustang

The Bundy’s

In 1848, as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (ending the Mexican/American War), the United States purchased from Mexico the entire southwestern region of the United States.  The federal government has since then owned much of the land that is now Nevada, including an allotment of land previously permitted to Cliven D. Bundy, which was called Bunkerville Flats, Nevada.

In 1861, the Nevada Territory was partitioned from the Utah Territory and, in 1864, Nevada became a state.  Nevada’s original settlers in the 1840s and 1850s were Mormons from Utah with a few small-time farmers from Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi sprinkled in.  After the War of Yankee Aggression, much of the southwest land was settled by rural farmers, homeless squatters, and small-time ranchers from former Confederate states.  Most of these people sought to escape the ravages of war — some of them were fugitives from the law.  The ancestors of Cliven David Bundy (b. 29 April 1946) were Mormons from Utah.

Since 1934, federal land in Nevada has come under the management of the US Forest Service, BLM, or its predecessor, the US Grazing Service.  More than two-thirds of Nevada’s 70-million acres fall under the authority of BLM; nation-wide, the agency manages around 18,000 grazing permits and leases — in Nevada, around 700.  In every permit agreement, the federal government asserts its control over the leased land, so there is no question about whose land it is.

Cliven Bundy’s father, David Ammon Bundy, first obtained a grazing permit from the BLM in 1954.  Bundy maintained these permits until 1993.  Five years earlier, in 1989, the federal government declared the desert tortoise an endangered species and began to develop a plan to save this creature within Clark County, Nevada.

The government announced their project by asserting that its purpose was “to meet the needs of the tortoise and the people,” such as Bundy, who owned a permit to use the tortoise’s land.  In 1991, the US Fish and Wildlife Service approved a short-term conservation plan that set aside 22,000 acres of tortoise habitat around Las Vegas … and did so in exchange for strict conservation measures on 400,000 acres of BLM land south of the city.  This arrangement eliminated livestock grazing and imposed strict limitations on off-road vehicle use within protected areas.  Unhappily for local ranchers, the final arrangement in 1992 doubled the size of the conservation area, which by then included Bunkerville Flats.

But 1992 wasn’t the first time ranchers complained about the federal government’s control of western lands.  Following passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 came the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion — when cattlemen, miners, loggers, developers, and farmers argued that federal land ownership harmed their states’ economies and violated the principles of federalism and states’ rights.[1]

The Sagebrush Rebellion demanded that the federal government transfer its control over large amounts of this land to individual states, giving state legislatures the right to make their own decisions about land and resource management.  This “rebellion” was diffused when Ronald Reagan appointed James Watt, a Sagebrush Rebellion leader, to serve as Secretary of the Interior.  Watt devised and implemented a “good neighbor” policy to manage federal lands, a cooperative arrangement that seemed to appease the sagebrush rebels.[2]

After the government’s adoption of the Turtle Policy, it asked Bundy to return his grazing permit for a refund. Bundy refused, and as a protest of the government’s actions, he also declined to renew his “modified” permit in 1993.  In 1994, BLM canceled Bundy’s permit to access Bunkerville Flats.  Concurrently, however, Mr. Bundy asserted his “vested right” to graze his cattle on land that had been in use since 1954.

Photo:By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America – Cliven Bundy, CC BY-SA 2.0,

Bundy ignored federal court orders to quit the federal land; not only that, but Bundy also refused to pay his back permit fees or stop grazing his cattle at Bunkerville Flats.  Accumulating Fees and court-ordered fines soon approached $1-million.  In contrast, excluding Bundy’s fines and fees, ranchers’ total unpaid costs in arrears nation-wide amounted to only $237,000.

The Battle of Bunkerville

On 24 March 2014, BLM announced its intention to close federal lands known as Gold Butte, Mormon Mesa, and Bunkerville Flats.  The purpose of the closure was to “limit public access, use, and occupancy during impoundment of illegal cattle to ensure the safety and welfare of the public, contractors, and government employees.” The closure project involved a jaw-dropping 802,571 acres of land, only some of which fell under BLM management.  According to federal officials, the confidential nature of on-going law enforcement operations prevented them from giving their standard 30-day notice of intended action.

Reportedly, the federal government offered to buy Bundy’s cattle, resell them, and provide him with the proceeds of the sale — no doubt, less what Bundy owed BLM in accumulated fees.  Mr. Bundy declined BLM’s offer.  Between 5 and 9 April 2014, federal contractors using horses and a small helicopter penned around 400 head of cattle on the closed range — ninety percent of those animals were Bundy’s.  During the roundup, six animals died, four of which the government euthanized because they posed a threat to contractors or employees.  One was a prized bull.  Ultimately, government officials suspended the roundup out of concern for the safety of the wranglers.

Cliven Bundy wasn’t taking any of this lying down.  At the end of March, he sent out notices asking for the help of fellow ranchers and other sympathetic organizations.  The media categorized these organizations as “right-wing” and “domestic terrorist.”  It was inspired rhetoric designed to incite violence between federal law enforcement officers and citizens who have complaints about the federal government’s perceived abuses.

Whether the complaints were legitimate is for the courts to decide, which they apparently did when they ruled in favor of the federal government.  Bundy, however, claimed that federal courts are always rigged in favor of the government and against the people.  One can understand how a citizen might develop this view given the fines assessed against Cliven Bundy, as compared to, say, the government’s refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton for violating federal secrecy statutes.

But if there was any doubt about the Bundy family’s argument, Cliven’s son Ryan cleared the air in plain-spoken language: “If they are going to be out in the hills stealing our property, we will put measures of defense. And they have always asked us, ‘What will you do, what will you do?’ and our stance has always been we will do whatever it takes.  Open-ended.  And because of that, that’s why they are scared, because they don’t know to what level we will go to protect our property, but we will protect our property.”

In early April 2014, armed citizens from across the United States joined in peaceful protests against the government’s trespass-roundup in what has become known as the Battle of Bunkerville.  BLM officials were “concerned” that protests might turn into a twenty-first-century range war.  Accordingly, federal officers sought to limit these peaceful protests by establishing “first amendment zones.”  Nevada governor Brian Sandoval almost immediately stepped in and demanded the removal of these federal restrictions.

On 10 April, protestors impeded a BLM vehicle refusing to grant passage until federal officers explained what they were doing on Bunkerville flats with specialized equipment.  Addressing the protestors, Cliven Bundy doubled down by questioning the BLM’s jurisdiction, authority, and police power.  Cliven may have been a bit over-wrought when he added that Nevada ranchers were ready to take over the country.

Later, after protestors tied up traffic on I-15 for more than two hours, they converged on Gold Butte, where Bundy’s animals were being held against their will; a tense hour-long standoff occurred.  Protestors armed with high-powered rifles took up positions that gave them a good field of fire into the BLM’s position.

Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie (in office from 2007-2015) opined that escalation of the problem rested squarely at the feet of BLM, who largely ignored his advice on handling the matter. Gillespie’s under-Sheriff, Joe Lombardo (who succeeded Gillespie in 2015), stated that the standoff was volatile.  Angry armed citizens seemed anxious for a fight. “We were outgunned, outmanned, and there would not have been a good result from it [violence].”  The standoff at Gold Butte was resolved when the BLM signaled that the government would return Bundy’s cattle a short time later.

Officials and citizens from several western states seem to support Cliven Bundy’s claim that the federal government was acting beyond its constitutional authority.  Politicians in neighboring Arizona, for example, vocalized their support of the Bundy claims — one of whom characterized the Bundy standoff as being similar to the incident in Tiananmen Square.  It was a suggestion that the federal government had become as abusive as the Red Chinese in Beijing — an opinion shared by many conservatives throughout the country.

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval sided with Bundy and the protestors, stating publicly that the federal government’s intimidation of the American citizen, its denial of constitutional rights to citizens with whom the federal government disagrees, is unjustified.  Members of the Nevada Assembly agreed with Sandoval and voiced their support of Bundy’s refusal to give in.  Michele Fiore thought that it was time that the federal government return all federal land in Nevada to the people of Nevada.

Politicians in Utah insisted that federal bureaucrats had become de facto paramilitary units and SWAT teams — they called for the disarming of bureaucrats.  In a letter to the White House,  Texas Congressman Steve Stockman accused the Obama administration of conducting unlawful paramilitary raids against the United States citizens.

There has been no shortage of infantile rhetoric on both sides of the Bunkerville War.  The political left claims that anyone who stands up for their Constitutional rights is a domestic terrorist; the political right responds by declaring the federal government under the Democratic Party in flagrant disregard of the U. S. Constitution.  The truth may lie somewhere in the middle of this petty speechifying but still, in 2021, there has been no overtures of peace from either side.  The matter remains “unresolved.”

Postscript:  The usual conclusion.  In this case Reid, his offspring, money and China.

Sources:

  1. Dick, E.  The Lure of the Land: A Social History of the Public Lands from the Articles of Confederation to the New Deal.  Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1970.
  2. Ferrara, D. “Cliven Bundy Case Dismissal Upheld by Appeals Court.” Las Vegas Review-Journal.  6 August 2020.
  3. Gates, P. W.  The Jeffersonian Dream: Studies in the History of American Land Policy and Development.  Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996.
  4. Maughan, R. “A Brief History of the public lands, the BLM and grazing.” The Wildlife News online, 23 April 2014.
  5. Robbins, R. M.  Our Landed Heritage: The Public Domain, 1776-1970.  Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1976.

 

Endnotes:

[1] On average, the federal government owns 60% of the land in twelve states within and west of the Rockey Mountains.

[2] The “good neighbor” authority allows federal land management agencies to enter into agreements with state land management authorities to accomplish projects critical to maintaining healthy and productive forests.  However, given the number of forest fires that develop annually in the western states, it would appear that work to remove dead underbrush — the kindling materials from which forest fires are conceived — has been less than effective … and perhaps intentionally so.

This is part II. For part 1:

The Bunkerville War – The fight for land rights

Posted in Energy, Government, Uncategorized. Tags: , , , . 11 Comments »

The Bunkerville War – The fight for land rights

April 6, 2021 — bunkerville

The Bunkerville War — Part I

The fight for land rights

by Mustang

What initiated this fight was the so-called “Dust Bowl” — but to start there would be to begin a story halfway through the tale. It is a complicated story that seems to have been exacerbated in no small measure by an event occurring on the other side of the world.

Barren farm in Dust Bowl | 1936. Great Depression - public d… | Flickr

Background

At one time, the French and Spanish empires owned most of the present-day United States. Of course, the word “claimed” may be more accurate. Prolific Spanish exploration began in 1492, less than twenty years after the union, by marriage, of the Iberian kingdoms of Aragon and Castile. The territorial acquisition process set into motion a competition between the ruling families of Europe, primarily Spain, France, and ultimately, Great Britain.

The kingdom of New Spain was established on 18 August 1521, following the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire. New Spain was a dependency of the Crown of Castile, but a kingdom rather than a colony, and always subject to the sovereignty of the Iberian monarch, who exercised sweeping powers in the so-called “New World.”(1 )The royal decree of 12 October 1535 created the Viceroyalty of New Spain — the viceroy being the Spanish king’s deputy.(2)

1.Funds for global exploration came from Queen Isabella of Castile. Isabella and her heirs not only exercised sovereign rights of the conquered territories, but the Crown also exercised property rights, as well, as sole proprietor of all Spanish dominions. Every privilege, every position, whether economic, political, or religious, emanated from the ruling monarch.
2 The Spanish Empire eventually involved all of North America south of Canada, including present-day Mexico, Central America (less Panama), most of the present-day United States (west of the Mississippi River), Florida, the Spanish West Indies (Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, Trinidad), and the Spanish East Indies (the Philippines, Mariana Islands, Caroline Islands, and parts of Taiwan).

Not until the eighteenth century did Spain realize that other European powers threatened its claims over North America — which the Spanish called their borderlands. Spanish authorities began to establish human settlements in the northern territories in the early 1800s, but it was already too late by then. Spain’s problem was that lands claimed for Spain, but left unattended, belied its territorial claim. The issue of establishing human settlements was further complicated because hostile natives already occupied the land claimed by Spain — Indians who did not recognize Spanish authority and had no intention of relinquishing their lands to European control.

The issue of territorial control by human settlement, which is to say asserting sovereignty, was not lost on the British, who claimed the territories of the eastern seaboard of the present-day United States and began to move westward. British colonists displaced native Indian populations and began to challenge French and Spanish claims in Canada and the area west of the Appalachian Mountains, east of the Mississippi River.

After the American Revolution, the United States’ emerging government incorporated British thinking into their land-management responsibilities. The United States could not claim sovereignty over land it did not occupy. Under the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the Revolutionary War, the United Kingdom relinquished to the United States a large tract of land west of the Appalachian Mountains, effectively doubling the size of the new nation. The next question was how the United States would incorporate these western lands into the United States.

The Land Acts

In 1785, the US Congress adopted a Land Ordinance; two years later, a group of land speculators who had organized themselves as the Ohio Land Company approached Congress with a proposal. Because the United States needed cash, the idea of earning revenue in the sale of western territory inspired the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Among its provisions, the Northwest Ordinance established a procedure for forming new states, guaranteed inhabitants civil and religious liberty, and set limitations on human bondage.

The key to Western settlement (and control) was the government’s encouragement of western migration. The availability of comparatively cheap land was one inducement to settlers, but of course, few people were interested in placing their lives at risk from hostile natives without the government’s commitment to protecting them.

In 1850, Congress passed the Donation Land Claim Act, which allowed settlers to claim land in the Oregon Territory (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Wyoming). Single white settlers could claim 320 acres of land (married couples, 640 acres); Congress repealed the act in 1855. The federal government sold these western lands for $1.25 per acre. Beginning in the mid-1850s, many politicians in Congress insisted that independent farmers deserved priority consideration for land acquisition in the western territories. Consequently, a fight evolved between Free Soilers and Republicans on the one hand and pro-slave/anti-immigrant Democrats on the other.

With the outbreak of civil war most Democrats withdrew from Congress, enabling Republicans to pass without further obstruction the Homestead Act of 1862. The effect of the act was to liberalize earlier land restrictions (1841), granting to citizens (willing to risk the adventure) up to 160 acres of land provided that they (a) improve the land and (b) file a claim deed. Persons over 21 years of age who had never taken up arms against the United States (including freed slaves and women) could own the land if they occupied it for five years and show evidence of land improvements.

Similar homestead acts followed in 1866 (reconstruction period), 1873, 1904, 1909, and 1916. The purpose of the Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 was to allow livestock growers 640 acres of land. The government passed additional provisions in 1930, 1934, and 1938. In 1976, the federal government decided to retain its control of land rather than sell it, so homesteading was terminated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Initially, the federal government encouraged the settlement and development of the Great Plains region for agriculture. Westward migration increased after the Civil War, fueled again in 1869 by the completion of the transcontinental railroad. These migrants significantly increased the amount of land under cultivation. At the time, settlers used most of the land in this region for cattle ranching. Still, the adverse effect of harsh winter on livestock, drought, and over-grazing led many settlers to increase the land they put under cultivation. Subsequently, the government expanded land allotments to 640 acres in western Nebraska (Kincaid Act, 1904) and 320 acres elsewhere in the Great Plains (Enlarged Homestead Act, 1909).

Demand for land increased again in the early twentieth century as waves of immigrants flooded into the Great Plains region. Concurrently, the return of unusually wet weather seemed to confirm what government officials and farmers alike believed — that “rain follows the plow.” The advent of agricultural mechanization (along with the aforementioned mistaken belief) allowed farmers to operate larger properties without increasing their labor costs — and this encouraged even more cultivation.

The Catastrophes

World War I and the Russian Revolution (1914-21) decreased the worldwide production of crops; with increased demand for wheat and other crops, agricultural prices increased. Once more, the government encouraged farmers to increase the number of acres under the plow. The amount of farmland between the Llano Estacado in northwestern Texas and eastern New Mexico doubled between 1900 and 1920 — and tripled again between 1925 and 1930. Deep plowing and other soil preparation practices eliminated the native grasses that held the soil in place and helped retain moisture in the soil during dry periods. Cotton farmers left their fields bare during winter months (when winds in the high plains are highest), and they burned the areas to control weeds — depriving the soil of critical organic nutrients and earth retaining vegetation.

Beginning in the summer of 1930 and lasting ten years, the northern plain suffered extreme drought. Soil erosion and the loss of topsoil reduced massive agricultural fields to tens of thousands of square miles of fine dust, which, when combined with unusually high winds, created what we refer to today as the Dust Bowl. In 1934 alone, more than 12 million pounds of dust was pulled up from the Great Plains and deposited on Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Boston, New York City, and Washington, D. C. In terms of agricultural production and pricing, along with forced human migration, the Dust Bowl period was an epic economic disaster — and, given the stock market crash of 1929, it could not have come at a worse time(3).

In 1934, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act, which regulates cattle grazing on public lands to improve rangeland conditions and control their use. President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated programs to conserve soil and restore ecological balance to the western environment. Included in Roosevelt’s initiatives were the Soil Conservation Service, Forestry Service, Resettlement Administration (Farm Security Administration), and Department of Agriculture. In 1936, the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act required landowners to share allocated government subsidies with their farm laborers. Under this law, the government structured benefit payments to control agricultural production and farming income. To stabilize prices, the government ordered (and paid) farmers to slaughter six million hogs.

In 1946, the federal grazing service, within the authority of the Department of the Interior, merged with the General Land Office to form the Bureau of Land Management. The United States thus became acutely aware of the importance of environmental management.

Some Clarity

The American people have a vast land heritage — it’s the story of how the United States began its expansion beyond thirteen British colonies. But in terms of the United States’ size, the federal government owns thirty percent — around 650-million acres, including all National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, all Bureau of Land Management lands, all military bases, and Indian Reservations. Government officials assure us that they hold all but the last two for use by our citizens.

3 Only around 43% of migrants arriving in California during the Dust Bowl years were farmers from the American southwest. Nearly a third of all migrants were white collar professionals (teachers, lawyers, and small business owners) who lost their sources of income to Dust Bowl conditions.

There are federal lands in all fifty states, but most of these lands are in the western states, which is to say, west of the Missouri River. Of National Parks and Monuments, 84-million acres; of National Forests, 190-million acres. National Wildlife Refuges account for around 150-million acres. The agency managing most (247-million acres) of this federal land is the U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Some of these lands have become part of a dispute between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy (and his family). Bundy argues that the federal government is encroaching on land that doesn’t belong to them. Specifically, Bundy refers to land that he either owns outright or which rightfully belongs to Nevada.

Some of the BLM’s lands were private properties either purchased by or gifted to the federal government. Today, most of the federal government’s land was acquired by the United States through either the Louisiana Purchase or conquest (Mexican cession). The latter category has never been private, county, or state property. Until the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, these lands were generally called “the public domain,” and they were “unmanaged” commons. Some of the public domain land was granted to railroads to facilitate transportation and communication across the continental United States, and some deeded to the American people through Homestead grants. Privatization of public land has dwindled since the 1930s; today, most public domain land resembles an unkept vacant lot.

The problem with public domain as a common was that everyone was responsible for caring for it. In effect, however, this meant that no one was responsible.(4) The purpose of the Taylor Grazing Act, introduced by Congressman Edward Taylor, a Colorado rancher, was (a) to halt the injury to public lands by preventing overgrazing/soil deterioration, (b) provide for orderly land use, improvements, and development, and (c) stabilize a livestock industry that had become dependent on public ranges.

4 The Tragedy of the Commons describes a situation in which individual users, who have open access to land resources, which is to say unhampered by shared social structures or formal rules that govern access to and use of land, act independently according to their own self-interests and, quite often, contrary to the common good of all users, which causes depletion of resources through uncoordinated actions. This is a concept that originated in 1833 by British economist William F. Lloyd who explained his argument by a hypothetical argument involving unregulated grazing on common land.

To implement the Grazing Act, the government divided 80-million acres of land into grazing allotments and then issued use permits to private landowners. Private land ownership was a requirement because permit holders would need to keep their livestock off public land for part of the year. Federal grazing fees were charged on a per head basis — on average, $1.35 per head/per month. Given a herd of 300 cattle, permit fees would come to $4,860.00 annually(5). Permits expire after ten years. Rancher Cliven Bundy’s permit expired in 1992; he refused to renew it because the BLM had changed its rules. Since 1992, Mr. Bundy has been grazing his livestock on the Bunkerville allotment “free.” It was this issue that led to the confrontation between BLM and rancher Cliven Bundy.

Sources:

1. Dick, E. The Lure of the Land: A Social History of the Public Lands from the Articles of Confederation to the New Deal. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1970.

2. Ferrara, D. “Cliven Bundy Case Dismissal Upheld by Appeals Court.” Las Vegas Review-Journal. 6 August 2020.

3. Gates, P. W. The Jeffersonian Dream: Studies in the History of American Land Policy and Development. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996.

4. Maughan, R. “A Brief History of the public lands, the BLM and grazing.” The Wildlife News online, 23 April 2014.

5. Robbins, R. M. Our Landed Heritage: The Public Domain, 1776-1970. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1976.

Endnotes:

5 I used the number 300 as a hypothetical because all historic economic data shows that herds of less than 200 head are not profitable. No one goes into the cattle business in order to “go broke.” A livestock grower requires 18 acres of land to support each cow and her offspring per year.
Posted in Government. Tags: , , . 16 Comments »

Cliven Bundy case declared a mistrial, Misconduct by FBI, BLM

December 21, 2017 — bunkerville

 

A lesson for all of us. This is what happens when a government goes out of control. Take a few minutes to view the video. Levoy Finicum slaughtered by the deep state. First the good news, then a refresher:

A federal judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the case of a Nevada rancher accused of leading an armed standoff against the government in 2014, blaming prosecutors for withholding key evidence from defense lawyers, including records about the conduct of FBI and Bureau of Land Management agents.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Las Vegas dismissed a jury seated last month for the long-awaited trial of Cliven Bundy, his sons Ryan and Ammon Bundy and self-styled Montana militia leader Ryan Payne.

The decision is the latest in a string of failed prosecutions in Nevada and Oregon against those who have opposed federal control of vast swaths of land in Western states.

Jurors acquitted the two Bundy sons of taking over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon for more than a month in early 2016 and amid calls for the U.S. government to turn over public land to local control.

In the Nevada case, Navarro faulted federal prosecutors for failing to turn over all evidence to defense attorneys.

“The government is obligated to disclose all evidence that might be favorable” to the defense, the judge said.[…]

Jurors got a glimpse of the claims when Ryan Bundy, who represented himself, spoke at opening statements about seeing government snipers and surveillance cameras positioned on hilltops surrounding his family home in the days before armed supporters answered his family’s calls for help.

A whistleblower memo by a lead U.S. Bureau of Land Management investigator that was released last week alleges widespread bad judgment, bias and misconduct, as well as “likely policy, ethical and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff” in the days leading up to the standoff.

The memo said agents who planned and oversaw the cattle roundup mocked and displayed clear prejudice against the Bundys, their supporters and Mormons.

The investigator, Larry Wooten, said he was removed from the investigation last February after he complained to the U.S. attorney’s office in Nevada.

The judge freed the Bundy sons and Payne to house arrest during the trial after nearly two years in jail. Cliven Bundy refused the judge’s offer, with his lawyer saying the patriarch was holding out for acquittal.

Keep reading…

Just a refresher:

Two camera angles of LaVoy Finicum shooting – Video

March 12, 2016 — bunkerville 

Finicum was shot three times in the back. He was an Arizona rancher who took part in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge takeover in Oregon.

Finicum was driving the truck that carried Ryan C. Bundy, 43, Ryan W. Payne, 32, Shawna Cox, 59, and Victoria Sharp, 18. In the Jeep behind them was driver Mark McConnell, 37, Brian D. Cavalier, 44, and Ammon Bundy, 40, the public face of the occupation. They were bound for a community meeting 100 miles north of the refuge in John Day.

Here is a video that I bet few have seen. For the first time we see not just the fuzzy unclear overhead police angle, but actually footage and words of those taken inside the Finicum car at the exact time of the police ambush. And really that is what one can only conclude if one watches this side-by-side clip of the two angles. Here tis:

Two camera angles of the LaVoy Finicum shooting demonstrate what tends to happen when people fail to prevent the government from becoming overgrown.

 

More at Moon Battery

For more:

Excerpts from the Washington Post:

Everything you need to know about the long fight between …

Posted in Government. Tags: , , , , . 27 Comments »

Bunkerville Bundy debate with Chris Hayes and GOP Assembly woman, Hayes loses

April 21, 2014 — bunkerville

If you haven’t caught this, it’s worth a watch.  Why can’t we have more politicos who can tangle with the libtards?  Chris Hayes wants desperately to portray her as a domestic terrorist. He just can’t get there. Fiore for Senate 2016!

Via Hot Air:

This story comes to us courtesy of The Right Scoop. (Which makes sense since I don’t watch any of the cable news evening lineup and haven’t seen Chris Hayes on the small screen in ages.) While people gathered at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in protest of the BLM’s handling of affairs there, the protesters were joined by Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore. This prompted MSNBC host Hayes to interview her, and the Scoop captures the video for us.

Let’s just say that Fiore wasn’t about to have the conversation steered to any Left side talking points.

 Hayes repeatedly tried to get Fiore to admit that the Bundys are in violation of the law, but Fiore stuck to arguing that the government was engaging in outrageous tactics and “suspicious activity.” Hayes insisted the government’s tactics is a different issue from whether or not Bundy is in the wrong and his rejection of the federal government’s authority.

Fiore asked, “If you owed the federal government money, Chris, do you want them coming to your house pointing guns at your wife and children? Is that okay with you?”

 

 

Posted in Government. Tags: , , , , , , . 15 Comments »

Bunkerville and Bundy – the real story about the fight and timeline

April 16, 2014 — bunkerville

Mark Levin last night gave a superb explanation and history of the Bundy and Bunkerville showdown.  For anyone who really wants to understand, do take the time to listen to his explanation of how there is more than one kind of BLM land, and it was the re-classification of this land that started this mess.

In short, Levin calls it an abuse of power and believes the BLM should stop referring to the land as a conservation area and allow Bundy’s cattle to continue grazing on the land just as it has for the last 100 years or so.

He cites the Washington Post as doing a “pretty good outline” of giving the history.

Excerpts from the Washington Post, go over to the link for the full thing:

Everything you need to know about the long fight between …

1989: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the desert tortoise as an endangered species. A year later, its designation was changed to “threatened.”

March 1993: The Washington Post publishes a story about the federal government’s efforts to protect the desert tortoise in Nevada. Near Las Vegas, the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts.

“Among the conservation measures required,” according to the Post’s coverage, “are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land.”

Many people were not impressed by the new conservation plan. “Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a ‘land grab,’ are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve.” People who use the desert to prospect for minerals and to race motorcycles and jeeps also feel shortchanged. “‘It was shoved down our throat,’ said Mark Trinko, who represents off-road vehicle users on the committee that oversees the plan.”

April 1995: The fight between the Bureau of Land Management and the ranchers who want to use the federal land without fees or oversight is growing more tense, according to a story published in USA Today.

The reason that things were ramping up? Counties were starting to challenge federal ownership of land. In 1991, Catron County in New Mexico passed an ordinance that claimed state ownership and local management of public land in the state. Thirty five counties followed suit. Nye County, Nevada, became the first to act on its legislated threat. The county commissioner bulldozed his way down a closed national forest road. Forest rangers soon followed, who the county commissioner threatened to arrest if they interfered.

At this point, Cliven Bundy had racked up $31,000 in fees for grazing on federal land without a permit. Helicopters often hover over his herd, counting up the cows so he can be fined appropriately. “They’ve taken their authority and abused it,” Bundy said. “I’m not being regulated to death anymore.”

March 18, 1996: The federal government, which owns 87 percent of the land in Nevada,  is still worried about potential violence if they try to remove illegally grazing cattle from protected land. Two more pipebombs had exploded in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management offices in the past two years. The Justice Department has 12 lawsuits pending against Nevada cattle ranchers. A federal court in the state struck down the Nye County ordinance that caused trouble the year before. Not that ranchers took that as reason to stand down, however. One local resident told USA Today,”A single district court decision in one district doesn’t settle it. It’s just a single day in the year of a revolutionary war. We’re going to continue on with the fight.” Bundy is also continuing to graze on federal lands. “I’m still saying the state of Nevada owns that land, and the federal government has been an encroacher. I’m not moving my cattle. We have … rights.”

 

Posted in Green. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 21 Comments »

Harry Reid says “It’s not over” and what can go so terribly wrong at Bunkerville

April 15, 2014 — bunkerville

Not looking good America. A reminder of what can go so terribly wrong.  Warning, disturbing images.

A video documenting the actions of the FBI & ATF at Waco and the resulting carnage. Music, George Michael “Praying for Time”

 

 

RENO, Nev. (MyNews4.com & KRNV) — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hasn’t been very vocal about the cattle battle showdown in recent days, but says “it’s not over.” 

Reid tells News4’s Samantha Boatman his take on the so-called cattle battle in southern Las Vegas. “Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over,” Reid said. 

Senator Reid made his comments after the unveiling of four brand new battery-electric buses for the RTC fleet.

 

Harry Reid says it not over. What could possibly go wrong? Here is the video of the real conclusion.

Published on Apr 13, 2014

Here is the video you WILL NOT SEE on the mainstream media. The BLM did NOT simply “leave” and return the Bundy cattle. They were going to KEEP the cattle.

 

Earlier posts:

The BLM’s grand plan for Bunkerville and the West

Harry Reid and his long dirty fingers in the Bunkerville, NV range dispute: UPDATE

Cowboys, snipers in Nevada – another Ruby Ridge? Waco?

Posted in Government. Tags: , , , , , . 16 Comments »

The BLM’s grand plan for Bunkerville and the West

April 13, 2014 — bunkerville

What’s really spinning out of control in Bunkerville NV in particular and the West in general? An out of control government who is not satisfied with owning 50 percent of the West, and over 80 percent of Nevada. Note that it not just government-owned land that is involved in the grand design, but private land as well. Throw in the EPA land grab, and one will not recognize America.

As early as  April 16, 2012 in Who owns the West? – RenewAmerica 

    In recent years, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and other federal agencies that have jurisdiction over federal land have tightened regulations to the point that ranchers, such as Cliven Bundy and Kit Laney, are now a dying breed. It is nearly impossible for what once were thriving ranches to even survive. The Progressives — Democrats and environmentalists — have once again taken control of government. They blame Capitalists — Republicans and business leaders — for all the economic woes.

  Posted August 13, 2010 

 The document also gives a not-so-subtle clue as to the size of the land area it seeks to “protect”.

“Of the 264 million acres under BLM management, some 130-140 million acres are worthy of consideration as treasured lands. These areas, roughly equivalent in size to Colorado and Wyoming combined, are valuable for their unspoiled beauty…”

The memo was leaked by a Department of Interior official to Utah Congressman Bob Bishop.

It took Bishop months to get the document, which lays out the context for the snippets released a few months ago.

“They have clearly been dragging their feet, and they don’t want to let us know what they’re trying to do,” Bishop says.

He is especially concerned about portions of the document that recommend using the Antiquities Act “should the legislative process not prove fruitful.” The act gives the president power to designate a national monument with no public or legislative input.

Bishop’s office has release the entire BLM document titled “Treasured Landscapes” of which only pages were released a few months ago. It lays out what some consider a sweeping and detailed plan for changing the way the federal government manages land over the next 25 years.

The document lays out a sea change in the way the federal government manages land. It proposed that rather than manage individual plots of land, regardless of size, the government should consider managing entire “landscapes, ecosystems, airsheds and watersheds.”

Written in March of 2010 but still most relevant! – Leaked Memo Uncovers Obama Administration Land Grab

Senator Jim DeMint took to the pages of the Washington Post this morning to raise the alarm about a planned, 10 million acre Western land grab by the Obama administration… this morning to raise the alarm about a planned, 10 million acre Western land grab by the Obama administration.A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that’s essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.

President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.

In Nevada, the Obama administration might make another monument in the Heart of the Great Basin because it, supposedly, is a “center of climate change scientific research.” Much morehere.

The leaked document lists 17 sites in 11 states that could be designated as national monuments through the federal Antiquities Act. Over 380,000 acres in Colorado are designated in the memo under the heading “Prospective Conservation Designation.

According to the memo, around 380,000 acres of BLM and private land in Colorado would be subject to a “conservation designation” under the National Monument designation of the 1906 Antiquities Act. The Vermillion Basin, northwest of Craig, and the Alpine Triangle near Ouray are listed in the memo. This designation would close the areas off to multi-use activities including, mining, hunting, grazing, oil and gas development and other recreational activities. (Note BLM and PRIVATE Land).

H/T: The Battle for Bundy Ridge – pre BLM stand down from Lady Raven’s Whiskey in a Jar has a great list of links and more information.

Past Indiscretions

President Carter used his National Monument “proclamation authority” to offset the perceived damage from the construction of the Trans Alaska pipeline.

Several past presidents have made gratuitous use of the National Monuments designation to give back-room favors to their environmentalist supporters. The law allowed Former President Clinton to single-handedly create 19 new national monuments, expand three others and prohibit recreational use over 5.9 million acres without ever consulting anyone.

He unilaterally closed the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah to oil and gas development, without ever consulting the public or state, local and federal officials. Prior to the designation, the 135,000 acre region was responsible for producing 65,000 barrels of oil a year. The designation even sparked a Supreme Court case.

President Jimmy Carter used the executive to lock up more land than any other president; all in the name of “conservation.” He took more than 50 million acres in Alaska despite heavy opposition from the state.More here.

 

Posted in Liberal Loonies. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 12 Comments »

Harry Reid and his long dirty fingers in the Bunkerville, NV range dispute: UPDATE

April 12, 2014 — bunkerville

UPDATE:  Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch

The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.

Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled “Cattle Trespass Impacts” directly states that Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development, more specifically the construction of “utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,” the document states.

The first segment of the document pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.

Another BLM report entitled “Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone” (BLM Technical Note 444) reveals that Bundy’s land in question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for “Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land “managed” by BLM.

The second segment of the document pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.

BLM>Nevada>District Offices>Southern Nevada District Office
Print Page

Impound Operation Concluded

Statement from Director of the Bureau of Land Management Neil Kornze on the Cattle Gather in Nevada:As we have said from the beginning of the gather to remove illegal cattle from federal land consistent with court orders, a safe and peaceful operation is our number one priority. After one week, we have made progress in enforcing two recent court orders to remove the trespass cattle from public lands that belong to all Americans.

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.

We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner.

Ranching has always been an important part of our nation’s heritage and continues throughout the West on public lands that belong to all Americans. This is a matter of fairness and equity, and we remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public lands ranchers do every year. After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially.

National Park Service Closure Maps and Updates

It has been reported that there were over 50 ranchers in the Bunkerville area. Now down to one. The story to be told has yet to be revealed. What is clear is that this story is more than a rancher not paying the BLM grazing fees. What we do know is that Harry Reid has his long dirty fingerprints in this story. While the Bundy family may not be the most articulate, soon we hear from others what the BLM has been doing to ranchers. You betcha. Here we go:

The son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Rory Reid, is the primary representative for ENN Energy Group, a Chinese energy company seeking to build a $5 billion solar panel plant on a 9,000-acre Clark County desert plot in Laughlin, Nevada.

ENN scored big when Clark County commissioners unanimously voted to sell the Chinese company the public land for just $4.5 million, despite the fact that it was appraised at $38.6 million.

Sen. Reid has been one of ENN’s biggest supporters, having recruited the company during a 2011 trip to China. According to Reuters, last month Sen. Reid tried to “pressure Nevada’s largest power company, NV Energy, to sign up as ENN’s first customer.”

This isn’t the first time the Reids have come under fire for alleged cronyism. In 2003, allegations emerged that Nevada industries frequently lobbied Sen. Reid through his well-connected relatives.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com …

 Reid’s son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.

NEVADA’S LARGEST LAW FIRM

To advance the Nevada project, ENN retained the state’s largest and most prestigious law firm – Lionel Sawyer & Collins, where Rory Reid works. It is headed by Richard Bryan, a former Nevada attorney general, governor and member of the U.S. Senate.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/04/Harry-Reid-s-Son-Representing-Chinese-Solar-Panel-Plant-In-5-Billion-Nevada-Deal

Posted in Government. Tags: , , , , , , , . 9 Comments »

Cowboys, snipers in Nevada – another Ruby Ridge? Waco?

April 11, 2014 — bunkerville

UPDATE: From Comrade Matrix:

Stand firm Mr. Bundy. Reason behind this: Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada .Senator Reid behind BLM land grab

Cliven Bundy’s cattle ranch is under siege by federal agents because he won’t let the feds push him around….the snipers are setting up….is this going to be another Ruby Ridge? Waco? Is this about the tortoise or the 87 percent of Nevada land that the Government owns. Clintons & their Waco Slaughter – 80 plus April 19,

It has been the Federal Government that has a history of violence without condemnation from the left. A great read on this history can be found here Little Akex in Wonderland. The spawn of Oklahoma City was created. For Ruby Ridge Storm Front.

Those on the left, like Clinton, seemed to be longing for the violence to come. Perhaps because they realize they are going to lose power without spilling a single drop of blood, and there is nothing they can do about it. At least if they were to incite violence, the government would have a reason to step in and shut down the protests. VA Right

 

Statement from Clive Bundy’s daughter:

By SHIREE BUNDY COX:  

I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.

 My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.

  Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.

 My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.When they offered to buy my dad out for a pittance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.He quit paying the BLM, but tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

 In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the endangeredspecies card. You’ve already heard about the desert tortoise. Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.

 Now they’re desperate. It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

 Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.

 Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.

 Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. 

Then they plan to take them to the Richfield Auction and sell them.All with our tax money.

  They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.  

See how slick they are?  

Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”    

H/T  American Freedom Fighters 

Posted in Government. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 16 Comments »