Bundy vs. BLM

To a degree, and certainly to the extent they inform his actions. If he was simply pursuing a vision of the Old West where a rancher could lead an independent life (...or lead it whenever the railroads weren't gouging him to bring his cattle to market....), I'd certainly say it was valid. But since his crusade seems to be wrapped up in some quixotic quest for Nevada to leave the union... eh. They're his particular windmills, not mine.

 

I support the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK's right to free speech.

I do not agree with their politics at all.

I would expect civil libertarians of all stripes to hold similar views.

I don't even know if I support Bundy in this case. I think enough questions have been raised that I would like to know the answer to.

Whatever Bundy's political views are have no bearing on whether or not I would support him.

 

Federal Land = Public Land.

Rules governing Public Land should not be allowed to be changed unilaterally. (And, I'm not necessarily saying that's the case here.) And, if the new rules included a grazing fee in return for the BLM's upkeep of the land, and they failed to do so, then it does call in to question whether the fees should continue to be paid. Both sides would have an obligation in this case. (And, I don't know if that's what happened here.)

And, if someone had rights to use public land, then maybe they should be grandfathered in if the rules change.

 

As far as I can tell, these rules have been in effect since at least 1934. No government agency ever denied access to public land to any of these dingbats. It was decided that unregulated grazing was causing damage to the environment, so the grazing areas were "limited" to 80 million acres. Part of BLM's management of public land is to ensure the environment's health, if only for as many of the hundreds of animal species living there as possible.

To use that area for grazing, you can apply for one of 18,000 permits, each of which lasts for 10 years. The current grazing fee is $1.35 per animal unit month (which multiplies the number of animals by the number of months of grazing). Coincidentally, that fee is the lowest fee permissible by law, due to a presidential executive order in 1986.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Grazing_Act_of_1934

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (P.L. 73-482) is a United States federal law that provides for the regulation of grazing on the public lands (excluding Alaska) to improve rangeland conditions and regulate their use.

The law initially permitted 80,000,000 ac (32,000,000 ha) of previously unreserved public lands of the United States to be placed into grazing districts to be administered by the Department of the Interior. As amended, the law now sets no limit on the amount of lands in grazing districts. Currently, there are approximately 162,000,000 ac (65,600,000 ha) inside grazing allotments.

These can be vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved land from public lands, all except for Alaska, national forests, parks, monuments, Indian reservations, railroad grant lands, and revested Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands. Surrounding land owners may be granted right of passage over these districts. Permits are given for grazing privileges in the districts. Also permits can be given to build fences, reservoirs, and other improvements.

The permittees are required to pay a fee, and the permit cannot exceed ten years but is renewable. Permits can be revoked because of severe drought or other natural disasters that deplete grazing lands.

 

The accusation you've heard from who? Bundy? Is there anything on the Nevada cattle producers association about it?

And grazing fees are nothing like an easement. It's basically rent. Bundy quit paying his rent.

 

When I lived in Arizona you could bring a holstered weapon into a courtroom. Then someone decided to start shooting the weapon inside a courtroom, and they changed the rules as to how a Federal Building was used.

The Federal Government is allowed to change the rules.

 

If Bundy and/or his supporters are wrong, I would imagine it would be easy to show.

The BLM could show what money they've spent to maintain these lands.

But, the BLM stopped taling the minute a spotlight was shown on them:

Why did they stop talking? Could their arguments/facts not stand the light of day?

I understand this. But, people have made two different arguments, one of which is that the public has no right to use land that is not theirs. Period. And, they've made comparisons to private property. My point is only that even owners of private property are often required to grant others access to their land.

As, for the "rent" his argument is similar to a tenant saying that the landlord has not maintained the property.

Now, in that case, you don't just get to decide to not pay rent. And, this is where I definitely have a problem with Bundy. At the very least, he should have made payments into an escrow account to show good faith.

 

The BLM probably stopped talking because it's plotting its next move. What else, specifically, would you like them to say?

Also, the BLM has a budget of $1.1 billion, after about $150 million offset by collections. That is to "administer" 245 million surface acres and 700 million sub-surface acres of public land.

By "Monday," the story means last Monday, April 7:

In a statement released Monday, the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association also distanced itself from Bundy and his livestock, noting that it supports effective range management and cooperation among agencies to balance ranching and the conservation of wildlife.

Though “sensitive and concerned how the Bundy cattle confiscation situation has evolved,” association leaders want no part of the dispute between the rancher and the federal courts.

“Nevada Cattlemen’s Association does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter,” the association said.

 

Translation: We like what we got, and keep gettin', so leave us da fuck out!

Very funny.

 

You guys must have missed yesterday's news:

So, while they don't necessarily support how Bundy has handled himself, they're not in full support of the BLM either.

Oh, and what did the BLM say in response?

 

The "I want mine and fuck everyone and everything else" attitude pervades just about every aspect of this story.

YF, again, what do you want BLM to address? They've won court ruling after court ruling, and just about EVERYTHING that has happened in the past 21 years has supported their contention that they own the land and Bundy owes them money.

 

At least two bulls were shot on purpose: