Nevada rancher: “I did not graze my cattle on United States property”

posted at 7:21 pm on April 14, 2014 by Allahpundit

The fairest explainer I’ve found on the Bundy saga is Becket Adams’s post at TheBlaze. If, like me (and Ace), you came to this story after it had already been hyper-polarized and weren’t sure whose facts to trust, try Adams’s Q&A. He plays it straight. In one sense this is complicated — land ownership, grazing rights dating back decades, a court battle, the feds tasing a Bundy family member, even a Harry Reid cameo — but after listening to this Glenn Beck interview with Bundy, it seems surprisingly simple. Bundy stopped paying the BLM in 1993 for grazing rights on federal land near his ranch. Why’s that, asked Beck? Quote:

CLIVEN: Let’s talk about the — Glenn, I really want to talk about that because that’s very important. You’re talking about the Enabling Act of the people of the territory of the state of Nevada. And remember, in the — section of the Constitution, we’re talking about territories of Nevada. Let me see if I can get that straight. What it says, it says the United States Congress will have power to dispose of all rules and regulations within the territory. Now, let’s think what we’re doing. We’re talking about the territory of Nevada. People of the territory of Nevada. As they — they do not have the Constitution. They’re within the territory and Congress had an unlimited power to make all the rules and regulations. Okay. The people of the territory petitioned the United States Congress to make this a state. And they have a clouded title. So in order to clear their title, they give up their public domain — forever. It sounds terrible. Forever? But let me tell what you they had to do. They had to give it up forever so Congress would have a clear title.

And what did Congress do? It made a state of Nevada. Which [indiscernible] a lot of them — quote Ed Presley here. Here’s what Ed Presley said. It doesn’t matter what happened before statehood. What matters is what has happened at the moment of statehood. Now, if you think about that in the second. At the moment of statehood. What happened? At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution with equal footing to the original 13 states. They had boundaries around them, a state line. And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were county. I live in one of those counties: Clark County, Nevada. And in that county, Clark County, Nevada, we elect our county commissioners, which is the closest to we the peoplend we elect the county sheriff and we pay him to do what? Protect our life, liberty and property.

I’m a citizen of that county. I abide by all the state laws.

Beck’s understated reply: “That is a different point of view than everybody else that is a rancher that I know.” Here’s what the enabling act to the Nevada constitution (mentioned above by Bundy) says about public land:

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;

Here’s another part from Article I, Section 2 of the Nevada constitution:

Sec: 2.  Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.  All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

What Bundy’s saying, I think, is that he simply doesn’t recognize the concept of “federal land,” at least in Nevada. It was the people of the territory of Nevada, he says, who passed the enabling act that made public land there the property of the United States. But that was just a formality to make sure that the land was organized under a single government before statehood. Once Congress formally approved Nevada as a state, the property implicitly reverted to the new state of Nevada, and unless/until the state declares that public land there belongs to the U.S., it’s Nevada property as far as Bundy’s concerned. If they want to kick him off, fine, but the BLM has no jurisdiction to kick him off. That’s a, er, “creative” view of public land transfers, enough so to prompt Beck’s comment about how much of an outlier it is. It strikes me as the land-use equivalent of a tax protest, when someone refuses to pay income tax because they insist the Sixteenth Amendment wasn’t properly ratified. I’d be curious to know if there’s anyone in Nevada state government who shares Bundy’s view. (Presumably zero given the havoc Bundy’s theory would wreak on land sales by the United States in Nevada over the past 150 years if it were accepted by courts.) Brian Sandoval, the state’s Republican governor, has objected to the BLM’s treatment of critics in herding them into a “First Amendment zone” when protesting but, as far as I know, he doesn’t dispute that the land belongs to the United States. No wonder Bundy lost his court battle.

Interestingly, per Adams’s post, Bundy did pay grazing fees for a time prior to 1993. It was that year that the feds decided to limit grazing rights in the name of protecting the desert tortoise; Bundy then decided to stop paying the fee. When he decided that the land didn’t legally belong to the feds is unclear.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I don’t get behind people who deliberately hide behind women.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Nobody actually thought you would support anyone in the face of establishment disapproval.

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 at 7:34 PM

I don’t get behind people who deliberately hide behind women.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Nobody actually thought you would support anyone in the face of establishment disapproval.

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 at 7:34 PM

LOL, said the hot air Putin supporter. Lets hear your “Free Mumia” rant you big, anti establishment rebel blowhard.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 7:37 PM

don’t get behind people who deliberately hide behind women.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Nobody actually thought you would support anyone in the face of establishment disapproval.

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Sharrukin, you should put your mom on the computer to tell me how I’m wrong.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Harry Reid is the most corrupt dishonest man in the history of Congress – and that says a lot.

bw222 on April 15, 2014 at 7:41 PM

To say Glenn Beck isn’t an emotionally stable individual is being kind.

bw222 on April 15, 2014 at 7:49 PM

LOL, said the hot air Putin supporter. Lets hear your “Free Mumia” rant you big, anti establishment rebel blowhard. V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 7:37 PM

Akzed on April 15, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Sharrukin, you should put your mom on the computer to tell me how I’m wrong. V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 7:41 PM

I’m your huckleberry.

Akzed on April 15, 2014 at 8:15 PM

I don’t get behind people who deliberately hide behind women.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 7:28 PM

No doubt that sheriff’s a disgusting human being, might want to ask yourself why republicans are using one guy to smear all Bundy supporters though. R’s said they were going to learn from Alinsky and it looks like they did, shame they’re using those tactics on people who would otherwise be in their camp.

clearbluesky on April 15, 2014 at 8:23 PM

shame they’re using those tactics on people who would otherwise be in their camp.

clearbluesky on April 15, 2014 at 8:23 PM

And who would that be? Who would have otherwise supported facing down the government?

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 at 8:26 PM

And who would that be? Who would have otherwise supported facing down the government?

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Who would who be? R’s are using that sheriff to smear all Bundy supporters if that’s what you’re asking.

clearbluesky on April 15, 2014 at 8:28 PM

R’s are using that sheriff to smear all Bundy supporters if that’s what you’re asking.

clearbluesky on April 15, 2014 at 8:28 PM

But the people who would bail out because of something like that aren’t the sort you could ever rely on in the first place are they?

That sort will ALWAYS find some excuse because the situation will always be less than puritanical. Real life is messy and you don’t get to choose the pure and unsullied as allies, nor pick situations that are clear and without moral compromises.

If that is what they are demanding then they want what can never be, and their support will never materialize. They get to strike a cheap pose and never take a stand.

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 at 8:34 PM

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Yes, i agree up to a point, they’re the ones you could never rely on anyway, but that doesn’t change the fact that suggesting women be used in that manner, even if it’s voluntary, is abhorrent.

clearbluesky on April 15, 2014 at 8:42 PM

but that doesn’t change the fact that suggesting women be used in that manner, even if it’s voluntary, is abhorrent.

clearbluesky on April 15, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Why not fight to win?

Those women are there because they choose to be there and if that means winning against a government that has over a million in uniform to call on…why not?

A real fight, rather than just strutting around, is going to be extremely ugly and anything that can avoid more bloodshed should be seized upon. It isn’t a game, and it isn’t going to be fair or decent. If it comes to that, and lets hope it does not, it will be brutal and ugly on both sides.

Playing by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules is playing to lose, because there won’t in fact be any rules at all.

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 at 8:51 PM

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 at 8:51 PM

I see what you’re saying and it’s a good point, but we all have that line we just won’t cross and using women that way, even if voluntary, would be mine, so i’ll just have to disagree.

clearbluesky on April 15, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Thanks, Akzed on April 15, 2014 at 8:14 PM

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 9:09 PM

don’t get behind people who deliberately hide behind women.
V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Sharrukin, you should put your mom on the computer to tell me how I’m wrong. V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 7:41 PM

So you’re all about the womens, but you don’t mind bringing someone’s mom up as a juvenile tactic. You stay classy.

Akzed on April 15, 2014 at 9:18 PM

No doubt that sheriff’s a disgusting human being, might want to ask yourself why republicans are using one guy to smear all Bundy supporters though. R’s said they were going to learn from Alinsky and it looks like they did, shame they’re using those tactics on people who would otherwise be in their camp.

clearbluesky on April 15, 2014 at 8:23 PM

I hadn’t noticed that republicans were using him (the sheriff who proudly announced that they were using women as human shields) to do anything. I first saw it on Fox and then here, posted by Allah I think. Is Allah a big friend of the republicans now? Let me know if he is looked on as a GOP lackey now so It will be finally confirmed that I am living in bazarro world.
Look, my first instinct was to be in favor of of this, I think it’s long overdue that people stood up to the federal government, however, the more I learned the more unhinged Claven Bundy looks. We, all of us, need to be careful before we hop on a bandwagon like this because this guy isn’t the one we need to rally around and his tactics are pretty cynical and irresponsible.
If this we were all rallying around congress and insisting that they pass a balanced budget then yes, I’ll help storm the castle. Standing next to someone who is standing behind women for safety and insisting that the local sheriff disarm the national guard before he will send everyone home after he’s gotten basically everything he wants is not a good idea.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 9:22 PM

So you’re all about the womens, but you don’t mind bringing someone’s mom up as a juvenile tactic. You stay classy.

Akzed on April 15, 2014 at 9:18 PM

That was kind of the point.

“Womens”… Yay.

I’m your huckleberry.

Akzed on April 15, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Great.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Playing by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules is playing to lose, because there won’t in fact be any rules at all.

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 a

So said Osama bin Laden. I didn’t see you out there as a human shield.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 9:26 PM

I hadn’t noticed that republicans were using him (the sheriff who proudly announced that they were using women as human shields) to do anything.

The becket adams guy who allah referenced in this post has been using the sheriff to smear bundy supporters all day on twitter and he’s got plenty of R’s gushing with delight about it. I agree we need to be careful about hopping on bandwagons, we also need to be careful about smearing decent people the way adams and others are today, Bundy never asked any women to stand in front of him, that was the idiot sheriff, supporting Bundy doesn’t mean supporting the sheriff.

clearbluesky on April 15, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Ahem. The 16th Amendment was NOT properly ratified. And yes, I pay my taxes. The Courts have recognized the fundamental need for a nat’l tax as well as the absolute chaos that a ruling declaring the 16th Amendment as indeed not ratified would cause. Hence they elected to stick with the flawed status quo. This is not the only example of the bending of the constitution. Can you say Louisiana Purchase?

As for Mr. Bundy’s contention, I doubt that you’ll find 5 people who take an unemotional view of his arguments who would agree. But is it an absolute shame western territories gave up over 70% of their land to the feds upon entering the union. Fortunately, Texas joined as a sovereign, albeit broke, state and kept its land.

The US holds something like 1/3 of the entire land mass of the country. Why..?!? Much of it should be returned to the states.

NeoCon_1 on April 15, 2014 at 9:43 PM

clearbluesky

The becket adams guy who allah referenced in this post has been using the sheriff to smear bundy supporters all day on twitter and he’s got plenty of R’s gushing with delight about it.

I had to look him up. He’s a journalist, a blogger, he’s not in the RNC, his opinions are his own. Glen Beck also did something on it today and came to a similar conclusion.

Bundy never asked any women to stand in front of him, that was the idiot sheriff, supporting Bundy doesn’t mean supporting the sheriff.

I wasn’t there, however it seems that he was quite willing to see other people hurt to pursue a cause that he doesn’t have much legal standing. Remember Kent State? That wasn’t a planned, someone cracked under the pressure and started shooting. It could have happened there and the front row would have been women. “Our” side is supposed to be more responsible than this.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 9:50 PM

The US holds something like 1/3 of the entire land mass of the country. Why..?!? Much of it should be returned to the states.

NeoCon_1 on April 15, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Or sold to the private sector to reduce the debt.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 9:52 PM

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 9:50 PM

No, he’s not in the RNC, most republicans aren’t, yet they are, in fact, republicans. And you’re right, they should be more responsible, but they’re clearly not and seem more than happy to smear the very people who probably voted R in the last election.

clearbluesky on April 15, 2014 at 9:57 PM

We should note that the whole saga of Nevada’s becoming a state and its Constitution are a mix of political manipulation and corruption.

Nevada became a State in 1864 with barely 35,000 people instead of the legally required 60,000 only because President Lincoln maneuvered this part of the then Utah territory into basically seceding and becoming a new state that would deliver 3 additional pro-Lincoln electoral votes (before Atlanta fell) to help shore up his potential 1864 reelection in a very hostile political environment.

Whoever wrote Sec.2 above certainly wasn’t familiar with the Founding or if they were then certainly it wasn’t a group of We The People sympathetic with the actual events of 1775-1788 and their meaning. It’s just one more example of Federal overreach in a different era.

There once were 53 ranchers in Clark County and now there is one. The ranchers I’ve seen interviewed claim they were driven from the land by the Feds. We know the desert tortoise ruse was just that as the Feds have been exterminating them because of over population. The Chinese/Reid family deal concerning this land just wreaks of cronyism or worse. The heavy handed approach exhibited by the Feds is just not needed. And the deployment of all the armed force is just one more example of the waste that the Federal government can get away with because it has its unconstitutional Federal Reserve money printing capability.

The legal problems should be worked out peacefully between the State, Feds and Bundy in the courts! And the governor should take the lead in making this happen.

Falcon46 on April 15, 2014 at 10:01 PM

but they’re clearly not and seem more than happy to smear the very people who probably voted R in the last election.

clearbluesky on April 15, 2014 at 9:57 PM

Indeed, you have a good point. There’s a lot of that going around.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 10:23 PM

How the West was owned.

Axeman on April 15, 2014 at 10:23 PM

According to the BLM website, the federal grazing fee is $1.35 per animal unit month. An AUM is one cow and calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats per month. So for the Bundy ranch with its 1000 cattle. I have heard he has 1000 head of cattle, or 750 head of cattle, but it is not clear how many AUMs this is. I believe the fluctuating numbers suggest that he has about 500 cows, which produce about 500 calves each year, so he owes for about 500 AUMs. So about $16 per year per cow, or about $8100 annually. I am not sure how the BLM comes up with $1.1 million over 20 years, since $8100 times 20 equals $162,000.

There used to be 51 other ranches in the Gold Butte area. The BLM has forced all the others out of business, so it is no longer collecting any grazing fees on those ranches either.

Bundy says that the BLM wants to charge him for managing the land, but its only real interest is in putting him out of business like all the other ranchers. This seems to be true.

The Bundy ranch is approximately 600,000 acres — it takes a lot of desert land to feed each cow, so Bundy is grazing about one cow per 1000 acres. With this density, there doesn’t seem much likelihood that these cows are endangering any tortoises or any other species.

If the BLM had succeeded in getting him to cut his herd to 150 cows, that would have been one cow for every 4000 acres. For what purpose?

Some say that the Chinese investors have no interest in Bundy’s land, and that is true — they want to build a solar energy project closer to Las Vegas. But the land they want to build on is also a habitat for the desert tortoise. The BLM has this process called “mitigation,” meaning if the solar energy project is going to kill turtles, then other lands must be taken out of production so that the total number of endangered turtles is unchanged. It’s like planting trees to mitigate the emissions of CO2 from a new factory.

But the only way this mitigation plan makes sense is if the BLM exaggerates the impact of grazing, because if the cows really don’t bother the turtles at all, then removing the cows won’t increase the turtle population on the Bundy ranch.

In the end, Cliven Bundy and his cows are not really the issue. The issue is how the BLM arrived at the decision to put all the ranchers out of business, and how Harry Reid and his son are involved in the Chinese venture, and how they are willing to walk all over regular Nevada residents so they can fill their own pockets.

J Baustian on April 15, 2014 at 11:18 PM

With this density, there doesn’t seem much likelihood that these cows are endangering any tortoises or any other species.

J Baustian on April 15, 2014 at 11:18 PM

“The most complete data is from the Beaver Dam Mountains. Woodbury and Hardy reported a tortoise population density of 150 per square mile in 1948. BLM reduced cattle grazing a few years later and eliminated cattle in 1970. Coombs reported a tortoise density of 39 per square mile in 1974. In these 26 years cattle use was reduced 100 percent and tortoise numbers were reduced 74 percent.

“These tortoises were doing so poorly a veterinarian, Dr. Jarchow, was consulted. He reported all six specimens were suffering from osteoporosis caused by a protein deficiency in their diet. Dr. Jarchow examined five specimens from the same mountains that shared their range with cattle. He reported these specimens were all healthy and well nourished.

“The historical record proves conclusively that tortoise thrive when cattle are on the range with them and without cattle grazing they are always malnourished and unhealthy and their numbers plummet.

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 at 11:24 PM

TarheelBen on April 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM

ajacksonian on April 15, 2014 at 12:59 PM

bluefox on April 15, 2014 at 2:03 PM

This last weekend, “Fox News Reporting” did a show involving different stories of Gov’t Tyranny. The Hage’s story was included and “book-ended” the hour-long show.

I don’t think it was intentional timing since the source material for the show had to have been months in collection, but the timing was impeccable. The whole story of the Hages was a pretty impressive expose of the abuses of the BLM against ALL cattle ranchers in southern Nevada for decades.

The son of the first Hage rancher continued the fight after his dad passed away, and when he ran out money for lawyers, went to law school so he could fight the feds directly. Apparently, it paid off big with the major ruling in their favor last year.

Why not fight to win?

Those women are there because they choose to be there and if that means winning against a government that has over a million in uniform to call on…why not?

A real fight, rather than just strutting around, is going to be extremely ugly and anything that can avoid more bloodshed should be seized upon. It isn’t a game, and it isn’t going to be fair or decent. If it comes to that, and lets hope it does not, it will be brutal and ugly on both sides.

Playing by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules is playing to lose, because there won’t in fact be any rules at all.

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 at 8:51 PM

The women obviously believe that paying the price of Freedom with their lives at this point is better for the long-game. I have more respect for them than for most of the conservative commenter’s I read. It’s pretty easy to keep saying on the internet the Tree of Liberty is past time for nourishment, but to have the courage to act is a whole different matter.

sharrukin on April 15, 2014 at 11:24 PM

Now isn’t that amazing that nature regulates itself very well when gov’t bureaucrats get out of the way.

UnstChem on April 16, 2014 at 2:29 AM

Why can’t this be negotiated out? Drop the desert tortoise defense and let Bundy’s cattle graze, and Bundy pay the grazing fees minus penalties. We all know why there won’t be a negotiation, and that is because the government is using these laws to take over Bundy’s land and livelihood to line their own pockets. I’m sure they have plans in other areas in the west to do the same. They will get their way, but at least the link was made to Harry Reid and his family. That is no coincidence.

lea on April 16, 2014 at 10:54 AM

I am amazed that you guys are always so eager to embarass yourselves by blindly jumping into a perceived culture war incident without knowing the facts.

This bundy dude is clearly wrong, and the feds have bent over backwards to try and accomodate him.

If you’re desperate for a poltical spin your favor you should be mocking the feds for being incompetent enough to let this guy keep breaking the law for over two decades.

everdiso on April 16, 2014 at 10:58 AM

bluefox on April 15, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Definitely not. Sorry about that. Too much cutting and pasting.

He’s been really ‘tooling’ it up lately on this story. I’ve followed him for sometime and never have seen him act this much like an ass.

reddevil on April 15, 2014 at 6:09 PM

No problem, cutting & pasting sometimes isn’t as easy it you think:-)

I’m not familiar with B. Adams’ writings. But Glenn needs to make up his mind which side of this he is on.

bluefox on April 16, 2014 at 1:53 PM

I don’t get behind people who deliberately hide behind women.

V7_Sport on April 15, 2014 at 7:28 PM

You and others that are commenting on this person, you need to identify that this person is an EX-Sheriff that made this trashy statement.

Oh, and it doesn’t surprise me that the only place I’ve seen this posted is on Glenn Beck’s site.

bluefox on April 16, 2014 at 2:43 PM

So you’re all about the womens, but you don’t mind bringing someone’s mom up as a juvenile tactic. You stay classy.

Akzed on April 15, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Nice zing. +10. Irony is hilarious.

As a rancher, I know many people who have been affected by Federal agencies.
It is clear on this forum the gigantic majority of you do not know what it is like personally to ranch on ‘public’ lands.
These lands were often ranched by the people who are descended from people that were there before the Federal govt stole the land.
These people have improved & managed the land for a long time. They have cared for it & made it better.
Buffalo are gone. Cattle take their place & cattle are perfect for rangeland bcs the grasses & other animals have evolved around grazing as a way of life. When I say that, I mean the buffalo shaped the land as the elephants shaped the savannah & in turn, caused other creatures to evolve around them to fit the niches they now reside in these habitats & ecosystems.
I have a good friend that is from Mesquite NV. So I have been watching this. This person now lives near me, but visits quite frequently & indeed had gone down there during the standoff. I’ll have to talk with him to find out what happened.
But I already know what’s been going on.
BLM, egged on by environmental activists & lawsuits & such have been driving ranchers off of the land. Indeed, even recreational users.
And this isn’t just in NV.
This has been ALL OVER the Western rangelands where there are big swaths of Federally ‘owned’ land.
Those of you who have had no experience ranching on such lands need to refer to those of us who have & who work with those that have.
I thank God everyday none of our acres are near any National Grasslands. But they are nearby me.
We have a good friend who ranches just south of Medora against the old Teddy Roosevelt ranch. He owns his land. At least for now.
Ranchers are not free loaders. You have no idea what bull$hit they have to put up with.
Banks loan operating $$ to these ranchers based upon their allotments.
The land has been carved up so much that many ranches have been forced down to a pathetic amount of deeded acres & there is no way they can ranch if the Feds cut their allotments.
You tell a 5th generation rancher to cut his cows on an allotment to almost nothing & you are just forcefully putting him out of business.
And the reasons are NONSENSE.
My ranch provides more habitat than anywhere around me.
Who’s picking on the farmers for farming land that shouldn’t be farmed (I have been watching patches of VIRGIN PRAIRIE getting torn up bcs GOVERNMENT payments are far more attractive than what a rancher can pay for a grazing lease)?
The Federal govt should not own land. Ever. I make a living off of my land. I treat it with respect.
And so does Bundy.

Badger40 on April 17, 2014 at 8:57 AM

To add, ranchers like us who have all deeded land still face removal/restrictions by Fed. agencies.
A major river in the area winds throughout our ranch. In our summer pasture a creek that carries a lot of water runs through that.
There has been talk about making the river on our land a National Scenic River. There has been a push to fence off the whole river from livestock.
This is impossible. This would put us out of business.
The reasoning they use is that cattle poop & pee in the river, therefore contaminating it.
Which is pure BS. WTF do you think MILLIONS of buffalo did on the range when they grazed through these areas for tens of thousand of years?
We are told bcs we live by the river if you have over a certain # head of cows that you feed in a certain # months during the year you have to construct an environmentally approved waste runoff facility.
These facilities cost a MINIMUM (no matter the size of the operation) of $50,000 EACH.
There are also rules about fuel tanks now. Anything over a certain # gallons has to have containment spill structures built around EACH ONE.
And this has nothing to do with being near water or not.
These are just a couple of ways the Federal govt has made our lives as ranchers not only less profitable, but less viable for future generations.
Bcs I will tell you what will happen when they drive us off of the land.
You will get big housing developments. You will have farmers getting paid govt payments to rip up native pastures.
You will get land made off limits to the public & grazing animals designated as ‘wildlands’. Wildland corridors are the rage. Sustainable agriculture. All of these things are aimed at driving rural agriculturalists off of their land & into cities.
They want urban areas removed & want to force all to live in cities.
I’ve been watching it happen. It is happening. IT is nothing more than about control.
You look at what Wayne Hage went through. He ‘won’ the case against the govt. I ask was it really a win anyway?
If you have something the Federal govt wants, they will bully, harass, & intimidate you out of business.
This is why Bundy is a target. Bcs he didn’t lay down & die like those around him were forced to do. He has taken a stand over many years at great cost to himself & his family.
And people have been calling him a deadbeat & freeloader etc.
He is none of these things.

Badger40 on April 17, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Badger40 on April 17, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Badger40 on April 17, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Thank you for adding to what is really going on. I wish some of the other Ranchers that have been put out of business by these clear tactics by various Gov. Agencies.

bluefox on April 17, 2014 at 12:54 PM

I wish some of the other Ranchers that have been put out of business by these clear tactics by various Gov. Agencies.

bluefox on April 17, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Oops, got a phone call and didn’t finish my comment.
What I wanted to say is that it would be nice to hear from those Ranchers. We’ve read a lot from everyone but them.

Also, you may want to repost your two comments on the QOTD tonight.

HA is having Open Registration today until 4PM, so if you want try to repost early:-)

bluefox on April 17, 2014 at 1:04 PM

You and others that are commenting on this person, you need to identify that this person is an EX-Sheriff that made this trashy statement.

Oh, and it doesn’t surprise me that the only place I’ve seen this posted is on Glenn Beck’s site.

bluefox on April 16, 2014 at 2:43 PM

???? It was on Fox, the Daily Caller and even Hotair; the knower of all truths. I’m not sure what his former profession has to do with what he said but he evidently was a former sheriff.

V7_Sport on April 17, 2014 at 1:47 PM

It’s an Obama World. :(

SansJeux on April 17, 2014 at 2:54 PM

bluefox on April 16, 2014 at 2:43 PM

???? It was on Fox, the Daily Caller and even Hotair; the knower of all truths. I’m not sure what his former profession has to do with what he said but he evidently was a former sheriff.

V7_Sport on April 17, 2014 at 1:47 PM

The EX-Sheriff is Richard Mack. We only have his statement about this accusation he made. Who are these “other organizers?” he refers to? Also ““We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said.” Who are the “We?”

Even tho you don’t think his former profession has anything to do with what he said, evidently Fox did & Beck did. Otherwise, he would not have been quoted.

Just because he’s an EX-Sheriff doesn’t mean he is to be taken at his word.

Or maybe you think no one would want to discredit the American Patriots that were there to support Mr. Bundy? And this EX-Sheriff actually was there to “support” Mr. Bundy by accusing the American Patriots of being cowards?

I call this EX-Sheriff and his accusations, B.S.

Let him get some credible witnesses to vouch for his insults and I’ll consider reading them.

bluefox on April 17, 2014 at 3:22 PM

the United States government should have offered to sell Calvin Monday land to properly care for his cattle. But we live in a Country once the Feds get control of something it will take hell to freeze over before they give up control. It’s a shame that we got a government that takes pleasure In hurting their citizen but they will bend over backwards for illegal.

pjmel on April 17, 2014 at 5:29 PM

V7_Sport on April 17, 2014 at 1:47 PM

bluefox on April 17, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Here is the Blaze article that the EX-Sheriff, Richard Mack was quoted on:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/14/former-arizona-sheriff-reveals-chilling-strategy-to-put-women-up-at-the-front-during-bundy-ranch-standoff/

Here is the Blaze article that a commenter posted on about the EX-Sheriff’s comment above:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/17/now-that-the-feds-have-backed-off-where-does-this-leave-the-nevada-rancher-in-his-battle-with-the-govt/

That comment follows on my next post.

bluefox on April 17, 2014 at 7:07 PM

The comment from my previous post:

Coll53
Apr. 17, 2014 at 12:02pm
Because I doubted Beck’s accusatory presentation of that vid clip, I wrote Sheriff Mack. Here is his response: Hello Colleen,

Thanks for taking to time to write. The interview in question was about the brave women who were there at the scene, putting themselves in harm’s way for freedom and the Bundys. The women had already strategized to put themselves in front and I was honoring them for their bravery.
I said “we” because we were all in it together. I was so impressed with all they had done that day and their move to lead the way. They actually did it! It was not my idea and would have never suggested they do so. They just did it. I was trying to give them credit for a peaceful resolution to a very volatile life and death situation. We would not have
made it without them!

When I did this interview the whole ordeal had just ended. We were at this point celebrating and thanking those who had
played a part in this successful outcome. Children were never mentioned at all and were not present at this particular scene. Using women as “shields” was
also never on the table and never considered at any time. I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding this “sound bite” may have
caused. I should have chosen my words more carefully.

Sincerely,
Richard Mack
PO Box 567
Higley, AZ 85236
Office: 480-840-9091

bluefox on April 17, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Continued…

Now, that response by EX-Sheriff Richard Mack was altogether different than the one Glenn Beck posted! That was written by a
Jason Howerton.

Also the video clip included with that article was only 21 seconds long, a sound bite.

The comment that followed Coll53 mentioned above is interesting:

IndyGuy
Apr. 17, 2014 at 12:43pm.

coll53…Thanx for that….I have known about Mack for about 8 years and I knew he wouldn’t instigate the use of the women in such a way….Looks Like Beck is turning out to be quite the Propagandist…

*******************************************************************

Right now, unless more info is found, it appears that the B.S. was done by Glenn Beck and not the EX-Sheriff. I’m not done researching yet, but it doesn’t look good for Beck so far. Especially when you consider other statements he has made since.

bluefox on April 17, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3