Showdown at Bundy Ranch
While there was lots of news last week about missing Flight 370, the death of
the Ultimate Warrior and Stephen Colbert being named as David Letterman’s
replacement, there was a little confrontation out in Nevada between a rancher
and the Bureau of Land Management you might not have heard about.
Basically, rancher Cliven Bundy’s been at odds with BLM for 21 years. The agency says he hasn’t paid for grazing rights on federal land in the Nevada desert in that time and, after numerous court hearings during the past two decades, BLM decided it was time to get Bundy’s cattle off the property. Bundy says his family’s run cattle on the property since the 1880s, anything he might owe would be to the county and the state of Nevada, and that he doesn’t recognize the federal government’s authority.
Before the confrontation was over, armed militiamen and protesters from across the country, alerted by social media, showed up for a showdown with armed federal authorities in what was described as a tense situation. It was one of those moments when a truck backfire or the sound of someone’s cracking joints probably would have set off a shoot-out unrivaled since the days of the Old West.
Fortunately, the BLM decided cattle weren’t worth a potential firefight, released the ones they’d rounded up and went home, although it isn’t the end. On a Bundy Facebook page Tuesday there were calls for people willing to stand up to the government to get back there because the feds were about to raid the Bundy home, but there also was a post from the Bundy family saying they weren’t requesting people to come back. (A later post, however, did extend an invitation to a celebration party on Friday.)
I’m a bit torn on the whole thing. The law’s the law, and if Bundy’s not abiding by it then he needs to face the consequences. By the same token, the federal government shouldn’t go armed to the teeth to execute a civil court order. It’s like sending a SWAT team to serve divorce papers.
On the one side, the land is under the management of BLM, apparently since 1934 after passage of the Taylor Grazing Act — which covered about 80 million acres —and when BLM was the U.S. Grazing Service. Before that, the land had been ceded to the United States by Mexico in the 1840s, well before the Bundy family arrived. Then in 1986, Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12548 to establish grazing fees for public lands.
Time and again since 1993, Bundy and BLM have gone round and round as he’s built up about $1 million in back fees and refused to get his cattle off public property. It would be like cutting timber in the Ozark National Forest without permission or paying for it because that’s what your family’s always done. Bundy was given chance after chance to comply with the law, yet has consistently refused to do so and now must face the consequences. No one is above the law.
On the other hand, Bundy makes a good point of his family having run cattle on the land since the 1880s, acting as its steward, and that nobody else is using the land. Basically, it sounds like he’s exercising a bit of reverse eminent domain. He further contends if anyone “owns” the land it’s the state of Nevada, and he’s tried unsuccessfully to pay grazing fees to the state and county. Apparently, he sees it as a state’s right issue, too.
He also echos some of the sentiment of the 1980s tax protesters by refusing to recognize federal authority, only state and local governments. With the show of force the feds took to his ranch for essentially a civil case, the BLM made a good case for the government bullying citizens and overstepping boundaries.
Apparently they didn’t remember Ruby Ridge and Waco.
I was surprised the government sent such a large armed force to round up cattle because they feared a potential for violence. Yet, it seems the show of force actually precipitated the potential for violence from the response of armed militia, protesters and others flocking to the scene to confront government agents and protect Bundy. It did demonstrate how quickly, thanks to social media, people can respond to such a situation.
Here were two armed groups, with at least one side itching for a fight if it came to it, and talk-show hosts, “news” sites. bloggers and tweeters urging them on. Apparently, they, too, had forgotten about Ruby Ridge and Waco, or maybe some of them wanted a repeat of those two tragedies. After all, 30 years ago some anti-tax and anti-government groups sought out confrontations with the government during the conservative Reagan years.
The Bundy situation isn’t finished. There still are court orders pending and no resolution in sight. What’s needed is some sort of independent mediation to resolve the differences among Bundy, BLM and the court, not another armed confrontation.
Next time, it might not end so peacefully.
Basically, rancher Cliven Bundy’s been at odds with BLM for 21 years. The agency says he hasn’t paid for grazing rights on federal land in the Nevada desert in that time and, after numerous court hearings during the past two decades, BLM decided it was time to get Bundy’s cattle off the property. Bundy says his family’s run cattle on the property since the 1880s, anything he might owe would be to the county and the state of Nevada, and that he doesn’t recognize the federal government’s authority.
Before the confrontation was over, armed militiamen and protesters from across the country, alerted by social media, showed up for a showdown with armed federal authorities in what was described as a tense situation. It was one of those moments when a truck backfire or the sound of someone’s cracking joints probably would have set off a shoot-out unrivaled since the days of the Old West.
Fortunately, the BLM decided cattle weren’t worth a potential firefight, released the ones they’d rounded up and went home, although it isn’t the end. On a Bundy Facebook page Tuesday there were calls for people willing to stand up to the government to get back there because the feds were about to raid the Bundy home, but there also was a post from the Bundy family saying they weren’t requesting people to come back. (A later post, however, did extend an invitation to a celebration party on Friday.)
I’m a bit torn on the whole thing. The law’s the law, and if Bundy’s not abiding by it then he needs to face the consequences. By the same token, the federal government shouldn’t go armed to the teeth to execute a civil court order. It’s like sending a SWAT team to serve divorce papers.
On the one side, the land is under the management of BLM, apparently since 1934 after passage of the Taylor Grazing Act — which covered about 80 million acres —and when BLM was the U.S. Grazing Service. Before that, the land had been ceded to the United States by Mexico in the 1840s, well before the Bundy family arrived. Then in 1986, Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12548 to establish grazing fees for public lands.
Time and again since 1993, Bundy and BLM have gone round and round as he’s built up about $1 million in back fees and refused to get his cattle off public property. It would be like cutting timber in the Ozark National Forest without permission or paying for it because that’s what your family’s always done. Bundy was given chance after chance to comply with the law, yet has consistently refused to do so and now must face the consequences. No one is above the law.
On the other hand, Bundy makes a good point of his family having run cattle on the land since the 1880s, acting as its steward, and that nobody else is using the land. Basically, it sounds like he’s exercising a bit of reverse eminent domain. He further contends if anyone “owns” the land it’s the state of Nevada, and he’s tried unsuccessfully to pay grazing fees to the state and county. Apparently, he sees it as a state’s right issue, too.
He also echos some of the sentiment of the 1980s tax protesters by refusing to recognize federal authority, only state and local governments. With the show of force the feds took to his ranch for essentially a civil case, the BLM made a good case for the government bullying citizens and overstepping boundaries.
Apparently they didn’t remember Ruby Ridge and Waco.
I was surprised the government sent such a large armed force to round up cattle because they feared a potential for violence. Yet, it seems the show of force actually precipitated the potential for violence from the response of armed militia, protesters and others flocking to the scene to confront government agents and protect Bundy. It did demonstrate how quickly, thanks to social media, people can respond to such a situation.
Here were two armed groups, with at least one side itching for a fight if it came to it, and talk-show hosts, “news” sites. bloggers and tweeters urging them on. Apparently, they, too, had forgotten about Ruby Ridge and Waco, or maybe some of them wanted a repeat of those two tragedies. After all, 30 years ago some anti-tax and anti-government groups sought out confrontations with the government during the conservative Reagan years.
The Bundy situation isn’t finished. There still are court orders pending and no resolution in sight. What’s needed is some sort of independent mediation to resolve the differences among Bundy, BLM and the court, not another armed confrontation.
Next time, it might not end so peacefully.
.jpg)
The ranches and government have been at it for years. After living out west most of my life, I am for the ranches on this one.
ReplyDelete