steph1

Clivens Cattle Ranch

Recommended Posts

I'm just seeing this so why is the BLM being like this? What's your take?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live under a rock and have no idea what was going on, so here's an article for others who also live under rocks! :D

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/07/nevada-officials-blast-feds-over-treatment-cattle-rancher-cliven-bundy/

treatment of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy
Published April 10, 2014
FoxNews.com
Facebook3120 Twitter1178 Gplus90
  • bundyranch1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

    Cliven Bundy said his family's herd has always grazed on public land. (Courtesy Bundy Ranch)

Two of Nevada’s top elected leaders are riding to the rescue of a rancher whose decades-long range war with the federal government has reached a boiling point in recent days.

The federal Bureau of Land Management has surrounded the Clark County ranch of Cliven Bundy with armed officers, helicopters and four-wheel drive vehicles. Last week, they began seizing cattle found grazing on adjacent federal lands in violation of a law meant to protect an endangered desert tortoise.

“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans.”

- Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval

Both Gov. Brian Sandoval and Sen. Dean Heller have condemned the BLS for what they characterize as heavy-handed actions involving Bundy and other Silver State residents.

“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans,” Sandoval, a Republican, said. “The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”

Heller, also a Republican, said he told BLM Director Neil Kornze the situation is being handled poorly.

“I told him very clearly that law-abiding Nevadans must not be penalized by an over-reaching BLM,” Heller said.

Bundy, 67, who has been a rancher all his life, told FoxNews.com last week he believes the federal agency is trying to push him to the breaking point and likened his situation to the 1993 disaster in Waco, Texas, in which federal and state law enforcement agencies laid siege to a compound of religious fanatics calling themselves Branch Davidians, a move that resulted in the deaths of 76.

“This is a lot bigger deal than just my cows,” Bundy told FoxNews.com. “It’s a statement for freedom and liberty and the Constitution.”

The fight involves a 600,000-acre area under BLM control called Gold Butte, near the Utah border. The vast and rugged land is the habitat of the protected desert tortoise, and ranchers whose cattloe graze there must pay fees. Bundy, a descendant of Mormons who settled in Bunkerville more than 140 years ago, claims an inherent right to graze the area and casts the conflict as a states' rights issue. He said he doesn't recognize federal authority on land that he insists belongs to Nevada.

BLM spokeswoman Kirsten Cannon said agents on Saturday and Sunday rounded up 134 of an estimated 900 trespassing cattle in a vast 1,200-square-mile area of rangeland northeast of Las Vegas and the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Cannon said the roundup was a last resort and blamed Cliven Bundy for "inflammatory statements," including vows to fight and characterizations of the cow removal as a range war.

"Mr. Bundy has been in trespass on public lands for more than 20 years," Cannon said, adding that he owes the federal government some $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees.

The bureau last week announced the area would be closed through May 12 while contractors conduct the roundup using helicopters, vehicles and temporary pens. Cannon said the agency paid the contractors $966,000.

Bundy's son, Dave Bundy, 37, was arrested Sunday for refusing to disperse as the roundup began, but freed the next day.

Federal officials tried to round up Bundy's livestock two years ago, but he refused to budge.

Since then, he has lost two federal court rulings — and a judge last October prohibited him from physically interfering with any seizure or roundup operation.

Federal officials said BLM enforcement agents were dispatched in response to statements Bundy made that the agency perceived as threats.

“When threats are made that could jeopardize the safety of the American people, the contractors and our personnel; we have the responsibility to provide law enforcement to account for their safety,” National Park Service spokeswoman Christie Vanover told reporters Sunday.

The trouble started when Bundy stopped paying grazing fees in 1993. He said he didn't have to because his Mormon ancestors worked the land since the 1880s, giving him rights to the land.

“We own this land,” he said, not the feds. He said he is willing to pay grazing fees but only to Clark County, not BLM.

“Years ago, I used to have 52 neighboring ranchers,” he said. “I’m the last man standing. How come? Because BLM regulated these people off the land and out of business.”

More articles:

http://rt.com/usa/nevada-ranch-armed-feds-520/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/10/tense-video-feds-taser-pro-nevada-rancher-protester-during-clash/

http://www.infowars.com/cliven-bundy-calls-on-sheriff-to-start-arresting-blm-feds/

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-feds/story?id=23225314

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/feds-charged-with-killing-cattle-in-nevada-range-war/

Edited by Epona142

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, okay, I see it....so, it's about money? 1.1 million, to be exact? That would explain, after 20 years, just now raising a fuss about his cattle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy grazed cattle for 20 years on public land without paying.

Then he threatened to shoot and kill any BLM person or anyone helping them that came to remove the cattle.

This is the truth of the matter:

On the Bundy vs. BLM issue everyone is posting about. Do some RESEARCH!!!!! This has been in and out of court since the late 90's because he stopped paying grazing fees. There are 3 separate court orders demanding he remove his cattle from public lands or pay the BLM fees. He owes $300,000 in back fees to the BLM. He gives honest ranchers a bad name. If he followed the LAW none of this would of happened!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine if everyone out west stopped paying their grazing fees? And stopped following the guidelines of how many animals to stock, when to pull them off the land, etc? It would be chaos. The rancher has not paid in 20 years, and has been given opportunity after opportunity. He has had a year's warning to remove the animals. At some point, there has to be ramifications for his actions. From what I've seen said, it's almost as if HE wants to make this "like Waco" which is scary. I also think it's pretty telling that the Nevada Cattleman's Association is staying out of this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm interesting. I'm clueless as to how the BLM works. It's being made like this guy is being victimized and his cattle being stolen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy grazed cattle for 20 years on public land without paying.

Then he threatened to shoot and kill any BLM person or anyone helping them that came to remove the cattle.

This is the truth of the matter:

On the Bundy vs. BLM issue everyone is posting about. Do some RESEARCH!!!!! This has been in and out of court since the late 90's because he stopped paying grazing fees. There are 3 separate court orders demanding he remove his cattle from public lands or pay the BLM fees. He owes $300,000 in back fees to the BLM. He gives honest ranchers a bad name. If he followed the LAW none of this would of happened!!!!!

Please explain to me, a non-rancher but avid disliker of governmental garbage, the details of these LAWS and why they are beneficial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing to do would be to go read the truth, which is as Andi stated it, then ask your questions, if you still have any. It's explained pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well asking questions is in fact doing research. It sounds like Andi really knows the issue so it's fitting to ask her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The land he is using is public land... Owned by all of us. Ranchers pay the government to graze cattle on that land, $1.34 per AUM (animal unit month) at the moment I believe. The rancher also has to do maintain fences, water, etc., and remove animals before it is overgrazed. These lands are to be managed for multiple uses, not ranching alone. The land belongs to all citizens, not just the rancher with the grazing lease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know where his "inherent rights" to the land went. Is he talking out his arse or should he actually have generational rights to it?

I still feel sorry for him. I'm sure it's byond frustrating to feel like the one person who wants to say things are BS and now he probably can't just stop. For the sake of ease, which he obviously doesn't care about anymore, he 'should have' been paying his fees but that's not where the issue is at anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He admits he owes the money, so I do not think he even is claims he owns the land. The BLM wanted him to cut the number of cattle out grazing, from 250 to 150, which can happen in droughts or for other reasons-in this case it was the turtle. When fires occur often grazing is restricted for 3 years. It sucks, but the land is to be managed by BLM for multiple uses... Not just grazing. He has had over TWENTY years to find other leases. I think he is looking for a fight, a reminant of the sagebrush rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of the leases in this manner:

The land has layers. The BLM is in charge of the land overall. However, an individual (person or entity) can own water rights, either surface or primary (well or creek) and an individual can own grazing rights (plant material). They enter into a contract with the gov't to purchase those rights and the conditions of that contract can be revoked or modified as the gov't sees fit.

Bundy's family is what is known as a "heritage" ranch. It's been in the family prior to the Taylor Grazing Act. He owns 150 deeded acres and in 1972, the grazing rights were passed down from his grandfather to him. He assumed the lease, did all the things he was supposed to do, which included paying his AUM's. In 1993, his AUM's were cut for the desert tortoise restoration/reclamation project. (another one of those trumped up gov't programs, I think but whatever ...)

Bundy was pissed and protested by not paying his AUM's. Legal battles ensued. He was given every opportunity to retain his rights to use the land and refused. He wanted to pay the county for the land, not the federal gov't. That's like me saying I want to pay the drug store for my gas bill. The drug store might accept it but that still wouldn't make it right or legal.

He thinks (and so do a lot of others) that the land should be turned over to the state and taken out of the hands of the BLM. So this is his way of making a "stand" about it. Except now he's just looks like an idiot and the BLM looks like an overkill gov't agency and they BOTH are wrong.

This should have never gotten this far and he should have never been allowed to play this game.

I don't feel sorry for him. He made his bed. He knew the rules and defied them. He threatened to kill anyone, the BLM or whoever came to help them, that came after his cattle. Can you blame the BLM for coming in armed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband has been watching news feeds on this all night... Some of the spin being out on it is Unbelievable! The BLM is between a rock and a hard place, which it seems they are for most issues, because of the multiple use clause. You cannot make everyone happy, yet some how that is what they are supposed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll there are a lot if people out there who would like nothing better than to see ALL cattle kicked off public land. Things like this are going to make others question if the grazing leases are worth the trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even when reading those heavily biased articles, the first thing that I noticed was how long he'd been grazing cattle on the land without paying.

Knew right away there was another side to the story.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter if the family ranch has been grazing this land for years, they still have to play by the rules, & they always change. Now both sides have dug their holes, & makes for alot of bad press. PD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My grandfather farmed land that was condemned by the state for a highway. I think I'll claim ownership and set up a toll booth on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know ranchers that have grazed BLM leases for generations, well every since there was a BLM to manage the leases anyway. The BLM dictates to them when they can put cattle on the leases and for how long. The ranchers must follow these guidelines or lose the lease and/or be fined.

A lot of BLM land in my state is well used by multiple types of people. I would be upset if I could not ride in the sand because some rancher had decided that the land was only to be used by him and his cattle or that the rancher had failed to abide by the BLMs guidelines for the grazing leases and ruined the land for other uses. Hunters can get permits to hunt a wide variety of animals on BLM land and campers and hikers also use the land. Bikers and ATVers can use some, but not all, BLM land for recreation also.

Ranchers that graze leases have to provide water for the stock that they graze. This, in turn, provides water for all of the wildlife there. If the ranchers are not allowed to use the leases, they will not maintain the water. They also put our salt, minerals and protien tubs that the wild animals have free access too. I know there are some fat, healthy mule deer on the ranches that I do day work on due to the protein tubs that are put out before calving starts.

The only beef I have with this whole mess is why did they wait so long to do anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly because they were hesitant to have to put up with all the BS they are now getting over it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy grazed cattle for 20 years on public land without paying.

Then he threatened to shoot and kill any BLM person or anyone helping them that came to remove the cattle.

This is the truth of the matter:

On the Bundy vs. BLM issue everyone is posting about. Do some RESEARCH!!!!! This has been in and out of court since the late 90's because he stopped paying grazing fees. There are 3 separate court orders demanding he remove his cattle from public lands or pay the BLM fees. He owes $300,000 in back fees to the BLM. He gives honest ranchers a bad name. If he followed the LAW none of this would of happened!!!!!

Living in Canada, I never heard of the issue, but reading this info, I agree 100 % with Andi

I do not accept religious exemption for anyone not following government laws and policies. The BML is responsible for managing land, and to down grade it as an issue between cows and some turtle is an attempt to play on public sympathy.

Wild horses and burros also are managed by the BML, and while that management is in conjunction with LEGAL paid grazing leases, there is no way some self proclaimed individual being outside of BML mandate or policy can just do what he wants, basically claiming squatter's rights

I agree on enforcing the law to the letter, as all you need is to condone such a blatant disregard of BML jurisdiction, to set a precedence for others like him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any truth to this? A FB comment on a "Bundy Ranch" status.

"Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to.

Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us.

He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed.

Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero."

-Kena Lytle Gloecknerh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feds release cows gathered in Nevada roundup

Posted: Apr 12, 2014 4:40 PM EDT

Updated: Apr 13, 2014 3:01 AM EDT

By MARTIN GRIFFITH

Associated Press

Federal land managers say "escalating tensions" led them to release all 400 or so head of cattle rounded up on public land in southern Nevada from a rancher who has refused to recognize their authority.

Bureau of Land Management Chief Neil Kornze announced an abrupt halt to the weeklong roundup just hours before the release.

"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 concerns about the safety of employees and members of the public," Kornze said in a statement.

Hundreds of states' rights protesters, including militia members, showed up at corrals outside Mesquite to demand the animals' return to rancher Cliven Bundy. Some protesters were armed with handguns and rifles at the corrals and at an earlier nearby rally.

Las Vegas Police Lt. Dan Zehnder said the showdown was resolved with no injuries and no violence. Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie was able to negotiate a resolution after talking with Bundy, he said.

The fight between Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management widened into a debate about states' rights and federal land-use policy. The dispute that ultimately triggered the roundup dates to 1993, when the bureau cited concern for the federally protected tortoise in the region. The bureau revoked Bundy's grazing rights after he stopped paying grazing fees and disregarded federal court orders to remove his animals.

Kornze's announcement came after Bundy repeatedly promised to "do whatever it takes" to protect his property and after a string of raucous confrontations between his family members and supporters and federal agents during the weeklong operation.

Bundy did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Republican Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval issued a statement praising the agency for its willingness to listen to the state's concerns. He earlier criticized the agency for creating "an atmosphere of intimidation" and trying to confine protesters to a fenced-in "First Amendment area" well away from the sprawling roundup area.

"The safety of all individuals involved in this matter has been my highest priority," Sandoval said. "Given the circumstances, today's outcome is the best we could have hoped for."

Nevada's congressional delegation urged the protesters to be calm and to leave the area.

"The dispute is over, the BLM is leaving, but emotions and tensions are still near the boiling point, and we desperately need a peaceful conclusion to this conflict," U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said in a statement. "I urge all the people involved to please return to your homes and allow the BLM officers to collect their equipment and depart without interference."

The 400 cows gathered during the roundup were short of the BLM's goal of 900 cows that it says have been trespassing on U.S. land without required grazing permits for over 20 years.

Bundy, 67, doesn't recognize federal authority on land he insists belongs to Nevada. His Mormon family has operated a ranch since the 1870s near the small town of Bunkerville and the Utah and Arizona lines.

"Good morning America, good morning world, isn't it a beautiful day in Bunkerville?" Bundy told a cheering crowd after his cattle were released, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The crowd protesting Saturday recited the pledge of allegiance, and many offered prayers. Others waved placards reading, "This land is your land," and "We teach our children not to bully. How do we teach our government not to be big bullies?" according to the newspaper.

It's the latest skirmish since the 1980s when the Sagebrush Rebellion challenged federal ownership of Nevada rangeland ranchers said was rightfully theirs.

A federal judge in Las Vegas first ordered Bundy to remove his trespassing cattle in 1998. The bureau was implementing two federal court orders last year to remove Bundy's cattle after making repeated efforts to resolve the matter outside court, Kornze said, adding the rancher has not paid grazing fees in 20 years.

"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," Kornze said. "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."

___

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't quite understand this. It worked? Refusing to pay, refusing to remove cattle... it all worked? He gets to keep his cattle on this Public owned land for free?

I must be missing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no dog in this fight. I think technically the BLM is right, but I also like that AMerican citizens stood up for what they believed in, armed, and the gooberment backed down... however,

How much do you want to bet this guy ends up dead soon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now