Dispute between Nevada rancher and Feds over grazing rights escalates

Earlier this week, TheBlaze reported armed federal agents had been deployed to northeast Clark County, Nevada after a decades-long standoff between a local cattle rancher, Cliven Bundy, and the United States government. Bundy, who has likened the situation to historical confrontations like Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas, is the last remaining rancher in the southern Nevada county. He currently stands in defiance of a 2013 court order demanding he remove his cattle from public land managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management.

As the BLM and National Park Service agents moved into the area last week to remove the cattle, they simultaneously closed the Gold Butte area to the public – instead instituting “First Amendment zones” for protesters to gather. Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval said he was “disturbed” by the First Amendment zone because it “tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution.”

In Wednesday’s morning meeting with his producers, Glenn explained why he feared this case was yet another example of the federal government waging a war against ranchers and farmers in. But as more details have emerged, it is harder to decipher who is right and who is wrong.

As it turns out, Bundy does not own the land, which is near his 150-acre ranch, and has not paid grazing fees since 1993. Bundy says he does not recognize the federal government’s claim to the property but believes he is entitled to use the land for grazing because his family has done exactly that for decades – even before the BLM was formed.

TheBlaze’s Becket Adams reported:

The government’s move to assert itself in the Gold Butte area shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise considering the fact that it’s a move years in the making. In fact, the tense relationship between Bundy and federal government dates back to well before the 2013 court order.

The fight began when Bundy stopped paying the Bureau of Land Management’s grazing fees in 1993, arguing in court filings that he had no obligation to pay the agency because his Mormon ancestors had worked the land decades before the agency was formed.

Bundy claims he owes roughly $300,000 in back fees, but the federal government says it’s more than that.


The land was finally declared off-limits for cattle in 1998 and became a designated habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise. That same year, a judge ordered Bundy to remove his cattle. He refused to comply.

The situation escalated on Wednesday when protesters confronted the federal agents. Bundy’s son was hit with a stun gun during the incident, and his daughter was pushed to the ground. Another woman claims federal officials struck her with their vehicle.

Pat and Stu filled in for Glenn on radio this morning and sought to make sense of it all. As the situation has evolved this week, both Pat and Stu have found themselves with mixed feelings. While it initially seemed as though this was yet another example of the “out of control” government running amuck, there are also obvious issues with Bundy refusing to pay the grazing fees all these years and defying federal law.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV
  • Deckard426

    The rancher needs to hire five Black cowpunchers, and then film them being arrested by BLM agents. I bet they ain’t got the nads to do that.

    • Pablo Descartes

      Sad but true.

    • Mark Samuels

      Grow up, its not a race issue, and the same action would be taken by the Feds.

      • Robby Drobel

        It’s you who needs to grow up Mr. Samuels. You do not seem to have a clue about what is happening, and being rude shows your ignorance.

  • ThorsteinVeblen2012

    Mormons, while claiming to be patriotic Americans have defied the government from the outset. They wanted to seize Utah, Nevada, Arizona and Southern California for their own country. After they murdered the Fancher Party at the Mountain Meadow Massacre the US Army arrived and put their rebellion down. If the Civil War hadn’t happened there likely would have been a government takeover of the Utah Territory and the seditious religion would have been nipped in the bud.

    • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

      And that has do with this topic how?

    • Anonymous

      Ignoramus, you should actually learn about the Mormon church from Mormons. You are akin to the idiots who go to msnbc to learn about conservative principles……oh, wait, that is what you do.

      • ThorsteinVeblen2012

        By your astute reasoning I should only learn about communism from communists, Nazism from Nazis and pedophllia from pedophlles.

        Assuming you take your own admonishment and have opinions on all these matters I can only conclude that you consort with communists, nazis and pedophlles.

        Did you meet them all at church?

        • Anonymous

          A Loser liberal and a liar. If you had astute reasoning skills you wouldn’t support the progressive agenda. Where do you meet your friends? At the altars of baal? By the way loser I’m being offensive to your religion if global warming and your climate God from the planet of algore

          • Anonymous

            And what is exactly is incorrect about his statement? Mountain Meadow did happen, there was a American Military expedition sent to quell what was seen as a Mormon rebellion (The “Mormon War” in 1857), and the looming Civil War influenced how the govt handled it.
            He should have stated regardless of that past- the Mormons are perhaps the most patriotic citizens outside of the South.

          • ThorsteinVeblen2012

            If I am a loser what have I lost? If I am a liar how have I lied?

            I support no agenda other than what I believe to be morally and logically defensible.

            I am not beholden to corrupt politicians such as Al Gore, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or Mitt Romney.

            I read not only the points of view that support my beliefs but also ones that challenge them.

        • Pablo Descartes

          Said by a proud member od nambla such as yourself.

        • bluebonnet114@yahoo.com


        • fassler

          It is no use arguing with a moron.

      • unocelestial1

        You think the Mormon church tells the Mormons everything?

      • Anonymous

        @Rktul123 Good luck with those self-esteem issues indicated by insulting strangers. LOL

    • Anonymous

      You are distorting the facts for your own gain. How shameful. I can almost bet your liberal. Liars are liars and support liars.

    • Anonymous

      Seize Utah? Utah was just a territory when the Saints settled there and paid the Indians for their land. Later they created the state of Utah, and were the first to have women voters in the entire US. First woman US senator was a Mormon from Utah who ran against her husband back in the 1800’s.

      • Cody Whitney

        Actually, the Mormons were in the Intermountain West before it was even part of the United States & even as the Mexicans continued to decline to settle such an arid & geographically dramatic place. They independently devised strategies to channel water to crops & learned the often cruel lessons associated with figuring out how to coexist & WORK within a particular type of nature- & they thrived for some 50 years before the feds even made their first moves to claim the land as their own & manage it according to how they see fit, which has typically entailed mismanagement & looting. The initial land grabs were unconstitutional & so is this one – the BLM & potentially Reid are stealing from the people by now claiming state land

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    I am sorry left but this is not a Marxist country so we have a right to own land and do what we want with it. It is not yours leave us alone.

  • Robert Morrow

    These Corrupt Petty Bureacrats with Support of the Corrupt Politicians who Support the Washington DC establishment created the uncontrolled BLM which stole Land from the States. Turtles like fish and other things is an excuse to take over and steal freedom and turn the Republic into a Commumist state ruled by the so called elite. Just why is there over 500 of these out of controlled ruling agencies? Face we have been sold out just so these scumbags of Politicians and Bureaucrats can gain power to run and the Payola that greases their Palms. Just think how many citizen are murdered each year from the FDA approval of poison drugs that kill and not cure. Poison drugs that have a markup in the Thousands of percent. The count of murders and suffering is over 100,000 each year and yet NO ONE will mention these facts, I know for I have presented this factual information to our Senators and Representative and recevied nothing in return except some insulting letters or request for money. Being retired and good age of 84 and not on any of their poison pills or partake of the toxin laced foods, I teach free cooking classes Titled “How to Cook healthy outside the Government Poison Box.” Chef Robert Here in what is left of the Land of Enchantment New Mexico after our corrupt Politicians sold us out to the highest bidder that will grease their Palms.

  • dmprisk

    I have this gut feeling that the government is going to do these type of “cracking down” until one finally results in another WACO or worse, then they can use all of the militarized police, drones, tanks, etc. to take or try to take us all down. This is Public Land, it is owned by the PEOPLE, not the federal Government. Put it to the vote of the people in either Nevada or the whole USA, (of course the voting process is corrupted) so it might end up being like my husband’s UNION meetings, when they don’t like the vote, they yell, “secret Ballot” and amazing, it item seems to get the correct vote so they can get new rental cars, etc. of the Business Agents. So I wonder what other ploys is the government goons going to keep up to get to declare marshal law?

    • unocelestial1

      If it is my land, I want a grazing fee.

      • Anonymous

        Me too. I don’t think it’s fair that he run his business and feed his livestock for free on land that is maintained by tax payers. Pay the fee, or go graze your cattle on your own land… very simple, and nothing secret about it.

  • Anonymous

    Check out the solar energy plans that Harry Reid has for the land.

    NV Rancher’s century old grazing being displaced by force – possible Federal confrontation w/thousands of militia – Sen Reid’s solar deal with China imperiled. http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-china-reid-solar-idUSBRE87U06D20120831

  • Diane Botti

    You should read Dana’s story on this. She has the facts right! Mr. Bundy has paid the State and County fees. Mr. Bundy’s LDS (Mormon) ancestors have worked that land long before the feds came in and took the land under the BLM. They have run off all the ranchers but Mr. Bundy. This is a state’s rights issue. Reid is deeply involved in this because they don’t care about the Desert Tortise, Reid and his son have a Chinese energy company wanting to build a solar farm on the grazing “protected” land. Reid did this in Ivanpah, Nevada, south of Las Vegas. That land was also designated “protected for Desert Tortise”. No matter to Reid, he got that solar farm built and now the pilots are complaining because of the sun reflection blinding them in their attempt to land at McCarran International Airport. This is not a simple matter of Mr. Bundy not paying federal fees. Also, why is the BLM taking Mr. Bundy’s cattle. If he truly owes the BLM the money they allege he owes, why do they not put a lien on his property (150 acres)??? They are trying to run Mr. Bundy and his way of life out of the State of Nevada so greedy, crooked dirty Harry and his son, Rory Reid, can make big bucks from the Chinese! Mr. Beck I am disappointed in you.

    • TheMammaBear

      Where can we read Dana’s story?

      • Anonymous

        I need to read Dana’s Story as well. Please respond as to where it is available. My sympathies to this man and I truly respect him for his many years of hard work and am so sorry for the lack of respect that many of his peers are showing for him. NOTICE: He is the LAST Rancher in that County! Also, notice that “Dirty” harry reid and company are the ones to profit if the Rancher loses!!!!! Constitutional??? I think not.

        • Robo
          • Anonymous

            Robo: For some reason, that link didn’t work????
            Can you resend or send another way or something. I really would like to read “Dana’s” Story.

        • Anonymous

          The guy didn’t pay for his grazing rights. Poor him?
          Do you think your landlord would let you stay in an apartment free of rent for 21 years just because you didn’t want to pay them? And, Harry Reid has nothing to do with it. The solar farm his son helped the Chinese with is 100 mile away near Laughlin Nevada.

        • Mark Samuels

          Do yourself a favor, read the Glen Beck article on the issue, Glen, a Conservative Republican, like myself, defends the Feds, and claifies all the misconceptions mentioned about Cliven, the Welfare Rat.

        • unocelestial1

          Welfare Cowboy!

      • Anonymous

        danaloesch.com…very well done, btw…

    • Mama Spark

      The Drudge Report reported the real story yesterday. Perhaps you should have dug a little deeper since there is way more to this than Pat and Stu seemed to know. Disappointed with you on this!!

    • Anonymous

      1) The land has always been Federal land since the USA acquired the territory – which happened decades before there was even a Mormon church and long before there was even a Nevada Territory.
      2) Bundy paid the BLM fees until 1993- when the BLM restricted the number of cattle that could be run on the range.
      3) The Feds are going overboard with the armed force. But since “some people” have been yelling about “armed resistance” and there was some rifle-rattling by the Bundys last time the Feds attempted to round up the cattle- what else did anyone think was going to happen?
      4) Bundy has no grazing rights, his cattle have no business on the land. The cattle are not being kept- they’re being removed from public land. He can reclaim them. He may have to pay a recovery fee- just as one would if their car was towed for being parked illegally.
      5) As for the back grazing fees- if Bundy refuses to pay, then there will no doubt be a lien attached to his property- which could also include his livestock. Are you asserting he has a right to continue to trespass – which is the basic issue here- merely because the Feds haven’t been aggressive in collecting his past fees?

      • mike michigan

        Harry Reid’s sun is managing a deal for a $4 Billion solar panel farm by a Chinese firm. They need Bundy off the land so the deal can go forward as part of it will be on his land. Reid’s son stands to benefit greatly from this deal. It has nothing to do with Tortoises, Land/Grazing rights and fees unpaid. Do your research before you shill for the Government.

        • Robo

          The Fed gov owns 84% of the land in Nevada, they don’t Need the little plot Bundy uses for solar energy. That story stems from a Reuters story from 2012, when the land was purchased. The stories are unconnected.

          • unocelestial1

            Why I he not paying his lease? He owes the taxpayers $1,000,000 !

          • mikey

            He has always paid the state for his grazing right. The Feds steped on and wanted him and 56 other ranchers to pay the Fed also and he refused to pay the reduculas tax.
            All 55 ranchers finally through in the towel he is the last one standing…there is so much more to this story then is being reported…fox CNN will only say he has not paid his taxes and stop right there…and Harry Reed calls these people domestic terrorist she on him….these people love there country win for the regular guy this week..

        • Mark Samuels

          You need to do the research, the Solar farm has been built for quite a while, and its over 100 miles from this land.

          • Dani

            No. The following article includes the documents that prove you wrong. http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

            “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.”

            That’s right, SIX Southwestern states. They aren’t just building one. Keep getting your information from CNN and MSNBC.

      • Anonymous

        This off course ignores that fact the the Fed is not supposed to own any land except for what is specifically needed for govt purposes, such as buildings, arsenals, docks. National Parks not included.

        • Michael Anderson


          • Anonymous

            Do you know how many national parks have been turned over to the UN?


          • Stephen OConner

            As well as collateral for China. . . . And other countries that are paying our debts. To include Muslim extremist.

          • unocelestial1

            Thank Bush for those unpaid wars, uncovered tax cuts for the wealthy and uncovered Medicare Part D .

          • Stephen OConner

            I thought it was the terrorist responsible for the war. I guess going over 7 times for combat, I might know a thing or two about that. And please don’t start on the tax cuts for the rich. Obama has given thousands of companies TAX FREE STATUES. Both sides are bad.

          • unocelestial1

            I don’t know here you were but there were no terrorists in IRAQ until it became a breeding ground for them due to our invasion. Bush/Cheney lying us into war and no WMD’s; those 2 are a pierce of work ! And by the way, tax laws are made and passed by Congress.

          • Stephen OConner

            I was in Afghan and Iraq. I guess you are right. All the killing that Saddam did was fine until we got there. All the killing that was happening long before we got there might be ok with you, but not to most who feel all humans deserve to live in peace. And we are willing to fight for that.
            And, how old are you??? We did find WMD’s over there. lol. Do just a little research. I was there. I saw it. Plus it was on the news.
            I guess you are ok with Obama helping the muslim brotherhood kill hundreds of thousands of Christians overseas.
            People like you will never listen to the truth. I said both sides are bad. So, pay attention.

          • unocelestial1
          • unocelestial1

            Invading Iraq was planned right after inauguration. It was for oil. Even McCain let it slip out during one of his town hall meetings. There were no WMDs. You do the research, I did. And look how disgusting ‘your’ president was.


          • Stephen OConner

            Are you not American? I didn’t vote for either bush or obama but they are still my president. I am not delusional. Do you have any idea what WMD stands for? Let me help you because my job in the military was EOD… Look that up.
            Weapons of Mass destruction. Meaning Chemical, Biological and Nuc. We found a lot of Chemical Weapons. They used many Chemical Weapons many times. A known fact.
            So, you can try to say the didn’t have Nucs but not WMD’s.

          • unocelestial1
          • unocelestial1
          • Stephen OConner

            I love it when people who were never overseas try to tell those who sacrificed many years of their lives in combat what was happening. unless you were there, you have no idea. NONE. Just like most of the news…..

          • Anonymous

            In the article linked, James Baker says it right out. Land as collateral for debt owed. We were sold out to the bankers decades ago.

            And if this does not say it best, I don’t know what does:

            “‘I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” – Thomas Jefferson

            That is the plan under UN Agenda 21 – No private property. Govt keeps buying taking more and more land and eventually only the real wealthy and well-connected will own any while the serfs get herded into urban public housing where energy resources will be rationed.

          • Stephen OConner

            It is very sad. Very sad. I just hope we don’t look back 5 years from now and say, “I could have done something”.
            Agenda 21 and all the other things being done to this country bothers me to no end. I wish I had the answers to our problems.

          • Anonymous

            Stephen – do not give up hope. Already there has been progress made considering some of the newer politicians voted into office. Part of the reason we’re in this situation is lack of knowledge and insight into all the bills and treaties that have filled Washington’s books and the consequences such may bring. Too often they only look at the immediate cure and ignore long term not to mention the “fixes” only create new problems which need new fixes and on and on.

            On Agenda 21, this is a great video to share:


          • Comissar


          • Anonymous
          • Stephen OConner

            Good reply. You truly proved your point there. We all feel you are vey smart. Or, should I put it in words you can understand.
            We (meaning Nobody). Think you have no point, so you call people names like a child. Good for you…. Good boy…

        • Mark Samuels

          Wrong, the BLM legally owns lands to ensure the viability of our country for the ages. That means, enough land for grazing, crops, minerals, recreation etc.

          • Anonymous

            The BLM owns NOTHING! They are merely a bureau of the Feds controlling land with authority to shoot to kill.

          • smurfmonkey

            And the militia showed up for what? Were they planning on a war?

          • Anonymous

            The BLM is tasked with managing the FEDERAL land where Bundy’s cattle are trespassing.

          • unocelestial1

            16,000 other ranchers are paying their fees. He is a welfare cowboy.

          • Teigan

            The government owns nothing, we the people own the government. They cannot function without we the people and our tax money. The government works for the people, the people do not work for the government.

          • unocelestial1

            Bundy owes us taxpayers the $$$$$$ !!!

          • Comissar

            You need to read the constitution. Article IV specifically addresses federal ownership of property. And for my money, the government IS working for me. Right wingers pretend it’s them vs “the government” as if they were some foreign invader. But “the government” is US, the people and laws we collectively elected. That’s how democracy works. Try studying it more.

          • Dani

            It is YOU who needs to read the constitution. Particularly since you clearly have no idea what is contained within it. (were you planning on elaborating on the “federal ownership of property” you mentioned that Article IV discusses? What kind of property? Public? Private? What rights do they have? Does this article address federal ownership of state’s land?). Well, Article 1 makes it crystal clear.

            “It is the BLM, not Cliven Bundy, who is in violation of the law and the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17of the Constitution.

            The clause, known as the Enclave Clause, authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited conditions, namely “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and not, as the feds now insist, to protect an endangered tortoise.

            The Founders were opposed to providing a centralized federal government with unlimited authority to purchase and, as is routinely the case today, seize state and private land.

            During the federal convention debates in September, 1787, Elbridge Gerry, who later went on to serve as vice president under James Madison, contended federal purchase of land “might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience.”

            In order to make certain the federal government did not abuse the Enclave Clause, the words “Consent of the Legislature of the State” were added.

            Madison, Jefferson and the Founders were primarily interested in limited government and the diffusion of federal authority over the states for the protection of individual liberty. In 1992, the Supreme Court issued an opinion on the framers’ reasoning behind the state consent requirement (New York v. U.S):

            “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governmentsfor the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: rather,federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” (Emphasis added.)

            Madison knew unlimited federal power inevitably results in unbridled tyranny. “I venture to declare it as my opinion that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America,” he wrote.

            Despite the desire of the founders and the originating principles of the nation, conceived as a constitutional republic, the federal government has repeatedly and habitually exacted dictatorial authority in Nevada and throughout much of the West.

            “The United States government owns and has broad authority to regulate federal lands in Nevada,” the BLM arrogantly insists. “In response to challenges of federal ownership of the lands in Nevada, the 9th circuit held that the federal government owned all federal lands in Nevada, and that those lands did not pass to the state upon statehood.”

            This is in direct conflict with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.”

          • SRH

            In this case, Nevada in 1864 gave that consent in their own constitution: 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; …..”

          • nick

            @SRH, are you saying that the 1864 price of admission to “The Union” was a Nevada State Constitution declaration of disclaimer ?

            And if you are saying this, does that infer that The SCOTUS has no basis to hear the merits of Dani’s
            Article 1,section 8, Clause 17 case in the matter of
            TODAYS NEVADANS Individual liberty?

            It seems to me, that no Federal or State Act may precede, antecede, supercede, or transcend The Supreme Law of the Land; The Original Articles of the Constitution of the United States . Of course, I’m a little bit out of the loop, not being an attorney as such.

            More to the point, does the WILL of those now deceased 1864 “inhabitants”, Who entered into this Unconstitutional “agreement” with the Federal Government of that Time, have legal vitality into perpetuity ?

            Did those Nevadans have the authority to grant to The United States, the right to abrogate Article 1 S8-C17 and did The US have the right to demand and recieve that WILL ? …….into Perpetuity?

          • Dave Hill

            Read the Nevada constitution… The article you quote from the US constitution is about creating the capital and it does not preclude the federal government from owning territory. If so then is puerto rico now up for grabs?

          • nick

            Thank you and God Bless You Dani,
            You are awesome !!!

          • Dave Hill

            That article you mention is to eastablish the capital- not to limit the federal government from owning land on behalf of the people of the United States. Your grasping at straws. Who owns puerto rico? Who owned all the land the country got from mexico before most of the western states were created? Your saying Canada could have just claimed the territory that came to be Alaska because the United States couldn’t own that territory?

          • Teigan

            We aren’t a democracy, we are a Republic. Maybe YOU should read the Constitution.

          • Anonymous

            <> What’s your point? The BLM is working for US to recover land where unlawful grazing has been taking place for 20+ years.

          • Teigan

            BLM works for Harry Reid that sells rights to that land to enrich his family through his son’s contracts with the Chinese. Follow the money honey.

          • ellafsalot

            Bundy owes WE, THE PEOPLE $1,000,000+.
            Talk about “Welfare Queens”!!!

          • Anonymous

            Did it also include land for the govt to use as collateral for debt?

          • mikey

            In Utah they own 84% of the land just a little much…American eyes are shut so tight and are being ran over by are own goverment and can’t see it…wake up

        • Mayz

          Military training and testing and that’s a preservation…

      • Robby Drobel

        vastlyamused is actually vastly confused number 1 is contradictory on it’s face. Bundy did and does have grazing rights, are you familiar with that terminology?He readily owes fees and admits it. To the State of Nevada.The BLM manages the land for the State. They have way overstepped but that is their plan throughout the west.

        • unocelestial1

          THEN….why doesn’t he pay it ????

          • Anonymous

            He’s got a lawsuit going. Most lawyers will tell you not to pay as it may be an admission of compliance and work against him. Also, we do not know if those fees are may be accumulating somewhere.

          • unocelestial1

            A law suit for 20 years? He lost years ago and owes one million. He’s a welfare cowboy! There are a lot of other ranchers paying their grazing rights fee and Bundy thinks he has a special dispensation?

        • Comissar

          The fees aren’t owed to the State of Nevada, they are owed to the BLM. He may wish otherwise, but that’s not how it works. And the BLM may be corrupt or incompetent – or not – but it doesn’t make Bundy any less in the wrong.

        • Anonymous

          Seems that you are vastly confused… 1) he has NO grazing rights – his grazing permit was canceled when he stopped paying, and the permit has been retired, 2) he owes nothing to the STATE of Nevada because it’s FEDERAL land, 3) He owes *plenty* to the Federal government in penalties, and 4) BLM is a Federal agency, they do not manage land for the state.

      • Michael Harrington

        Wrong, that territory was part of Mexico when the Mormons moved into the west in 1846. It was never part of the USA then. The United States gained the territory in 1848 . Learn your history before you make ignorant statements.

        • Tim Ericks

          The Bundy’s didn’t move to that area until the late 1870s, which occurred after 1848 if my math is correct. Bottom line, Cliven Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on, he’s a lawbreaker and a criminal, plane and simple. There are honorable men to defend out there, but he isn’t one of them. Choose your battles wisely, because he’s gonna end up on the wrong side of history.

          • Anonymous

            1887, per Bundy’s daughter.

      • Stephen OConner

        You make a lot of very good points. And are correct with most.
        I looked into a few things and found that our lovely Senator Majority leader Harry Reid. He has a deal with friends on that land. They could care less about the desert tortes. It is very sad how the gov on both sides use our money to move government agents around as chess peace’s to make more money for themselves.

        • Anonymous

          There’s no “deal” on the land related to Senator Reid.

      • Princess

        Funny, they shot many of them and dumped them in a mass grave. How is he suppose to “get them back”? Got news for you, this is just practice for when they round up Americans and do the same thing to them.

    • Anonymous

      The Great American Sellout:

    • Robo

      The story actually says he paid fees up until 93, and then refused because the BLM changed the contract. It in no way states he has been paying Clark County. He offered to pay Clark County, but they refused, he asserts that he will ONLY pay Clark county, and not the Federal government.

    • Chris rische

      Actually Bundy says he owes $300,000.00.. just not to the feds…

      • Mark Samuels

        The Feds are owed, never defend a Welfare Rat like Cliven, expecting to get something for nothing, in this case a $50,000 per year land lease, which he is not paying. We, the taxpayers bought this land, and take cliven, multiply him by every mineral, recreation, gas, oil, grazing payment default, and we the taxpayer must pay more to run the BLM.

        • Robby Drobel

          The Feds are overreaching all over the west. This scenario is intensifying all over. I wish you knew what you are talking about Mark, but you don’t. Putting people out of business, overreaching into states rights, and seizure of land is by design, just part of a bigger plan. Are you a rancher Mark? If not listen, you might learn something.

          • Anonymous

            That may be the case that the federal government is overreaching in other circumstances, but this does not appear to be the case here.
            They own the land, and have always owned the land. Nothing was seized here, and the Nevada constitution reaffirmed federal ownership of the land, so it’s not a states’ rights issue.
            The federal government has only asked that he pay for the right to graze, and he refuses.

      • Michelle Brown

        His daughter summed it up here. The BLM said the grazing fees were to improve the land. He did all the improvements before they came. He paid them for a decade, they did not maintain the land, water areas, roads, fences or bridges. http://patriotaction.net/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A6645462&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

        • unocelestial1

          Then don’t use the land or pay up!

    • Anonymous

      Maybe he should show the receipt for his payment, because the BLM nor anyone else has seen it. In fact, the Department of Interior says the lease amount in arrears is over $1 million. Bundy says he owes $300,000 but he does admit he has not paid since 1993.
      If you don’t pay your rent for 21 years, do you think your landlord would allow you to keep living there? Of course not, and the eviction procedure would include the sheriff moving you out.
      Not only that, nut Bundy has moved his cattle onto other National Parks land – property he didn’t even originally have grazing rights on.
      The Chinese company that built the solar – built it over 100 miles away near Laughlin – in Clark county but a long way from where Bundy has been illegally grazing BLM land.
      You should get your facts from court cases – not from Sean Hannity and the tea party terrorists.

    • Mark Samuels

      Wrong on all counts, Reid had nothing to do with the initial claim, and in fact fought for my Cliven’s rights to graze his cattle, when the issue to the tortoise came up in 1993. AS for the Solar farm, another rumor. Try reading the Glen Beck article on the issue . Glen, a Republican defends the Feds, and clarifies every misconception you’ve used in your comment. Cliven does not belive in any form of government, has not paid any fees, only owns 150 acres of his own land. The cost per cow is $1.35 per month, or around 16 dollars a cow per year, not a bad deal, you’re paying this clown to make a profit on our taxpayer owned lands. He’s a Welfare Rat, not paying $50,000 per year as per his contract, thus earning $50,000 in Federal entitlement, then running cows, ie. working under the table to make a profit.

    • Anonymous

      The state and county don’t own the land. The federal government aka all of us, own it and we insist that he pay for the use of it.

  • Anonymous

    Also, check the Constitution – Article I Section 8 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
    So the Federal Gov’t has no jurisdiction over most of the land it claims.

    • Keith Klapperich

      That actually apply more with enacting legislation over places like Washington DC, which is for the most part governed by Congress. They have jurisdiction because the blm is given it by both the federal and state government to manage the land. If the tables were turned, and it was the government feeding their cattle on a citizens private land what would you expect him to do about it?

      • Anonymous

        Read it again:

        and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
        of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the
        Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful

  • Anti Fabian

    I have seen pics of the scores of Federal Vehicles and helicopters and armed officers all over the place around the Bundy’s ranch. I wish the Government would spend that same amount of effort around the southern border of the USA. Allow millions of people to immigrate illegally and claim millions of dollars in government welfare, vs. punish a rancher who is defying the Federal Governments control of property that should belong to the State, not the Fed. Hmmmm.

    • Anonymous

      Ah, but to the feds, Bundy is the enemy, can’t you see?

      • Anonymous

        And the illegals are potential members and voters for the Democratic Party.

    • Mark Samuels

      If the state had wanted the land, they would have made the purchase. In stead, the BLM made the pruchase, and it’s to allow their mission, which is to ensure enough open land for crops, grazing, mineral, oil & gas exploration etc. for the viability of our country for eternity, knowing development would take those lands out of production.

  • Anonymous

    You’re looking at the government doing the same they did to native Americans. The more new departments are formed, the more bureaucracy you’re going o see. If the feds truly owned this land, then it would be fenced off properly and posted as off limits. There’s a LOT of corruption behind this rediculous argument by the feds. Trace the MONEY trail and you’ll se things quite clearly.

  • Anonymous

    Your story doesn’t tell people that Mr. Bundy has been paying Clark County and Nevada for their grazing rights. You also say his ranch is 150 acres. I hear it is 525 acres. I’m going there tomorrow, so when I get back, I will have some true reporting for you. Like… How many of the cattle have they killed? What are the backhoes for? When did the government enter into the mineral leases for the fracking companies who will be moving onto that land? Where are they going to place the Chinese solar plant that Harry Reid’s son contracted for them? Since when does the BLM have the authority to arrest anyone? They aren’t qualified for that. Just saying.. there’s more to this story and you need to get to the truth.

    • Mark Samuels

      Learn to read, the Solar farm has been built for a while, and its over 100 miles from this site. As for fracking, same price per acre as for grazing, thus no benefit to throw him off the land. As for paying the County, they’ve refused his money, knowing its meant to go to the BLM.

    • unocelestial1

      He’s not paying, period! Oh, and while you are ‘visiting’ find out why the militia nut jobs want to put women in front of the them on the front line.

    • Anonymous

      Even if he has been paying Clark County, *they do not own the land*!
      If my landlord kicked me out of my apartment for non-payment, do you really think I could make it all better by saying “well, I was paying the guy who owns the building next door instead, so can I move back in now?”

      If he has 525 acres, why is he grazing his cattle on property he doesn’t own and has no right to graze on? But yes, get back to us with your “reporting”, oh random person on the internet…

  • Anonymous

    VIDEO: Friend of Bundy makes speech questioning the patriotism of Federal snipers.

    Friend of Bundy alleges the feds are abusing the newest calves, rounding up the herd without pairing the newborns with their mothers. Where’s PETA?


  • Mark

    Is it true that Harry Reid will personally pocket millions when a Chinese firm installs a solar panel farm on this same land that BLM is claiming Bundy is trespassing on…a deal that coincidentally Harry Reid’s lawyer son helped broker with China, and that Harry Reid is using the U.S. Government (BLM) as his strong arm to successfully steal this land from ranchers and that Cliven Bundy is the last standing rancher that BLM / Harry Reid / China must remove before the Chinese Solar Panel farm is constructed (out of over 50 ranchers that BLM has already regulated off of the land)? Protecting turtles, that’s what BLM wants us to believe…REALLY? Maybe I’m misinformed, so am just asking.

    • Anonymous


    • TG

      Protecting turtles by giving them shade and soil barren of life under a vast horizon of solar panels… none of the indigenous wild life will survive there.
      I doubt they bothered to even do an environmental study…

      • Anonymous

        Rule by deception.

    • unocelestial1

      Solar farm is built 100 miles away.

  • Anonymous

    Who cares if the guy hasn’t paid the grazing fees? His family has been cultivating that land since BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMED THE LAND AS THEIRS. The Bundys homesteaded the land. The government did not. Under almost all libertarian understandings of property rights, the land has never not been legitimately owned by the Bundys.

  • Anthony James Palumbo

    Pat and Stu you are saying is philosophically inconsistent. The arguement that “Bundy should pay his fair share” is a statist argument. The fact that others are paying taxes doesn’t justifying federal action. Second, yes, he isn’t paying taxes to the federal government because it isn’t their land or resources. He has even offered to pay greater fees to his local government, who has legitimate claim to the land. The land was homesteaded in the 1850’s long before the federal government sought to buy the land.

  • Anonymous

    Hmmm, let’s look at some of the elements of this story, and see what fits.

    When did Mr. Bundy and his family begin using this land for grazing? Apparently well before the BLM was formed, and may have been outside of the USA in the beginning, as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Mormons, were driven entirely out of the States into land that no one else wanted at the time.

    When was the BLM formed? Much later, I would assume, and likely some time after the area was incorporated into the United States by Statehood ratification. Now, my question is, what service does the BLM provide to the public, that may justify their existence? They seem to say, “We have taken over this land, and since we know what is best for it, we can tell you what is allowed or not, to be done on it, and charge you for the service.”

    Now, where is the Constitutional legality of doing that? That could well be Mr. Bundy’s thinking, in refusing to pay for the BLM’s “services.” In light of the foregoing thoughts, I am wondering why “Permits” need to be issued at all? Especially when they seem to be willy-nilly in their reasoning and effects on the things they purport to govern. Desert Tortoises? Has there been an Environmental Impact study done to show the presumed negative effect the cattle would have on said Tortoises? I would bet that the Tortoise is merely a convenient fiction of a desk-sitting pencil-pusher, in order to make an appeal to the powerful animal rights lobbyists, and other environmentalists, who all likely know nothing of the environment they so vocally seem to love.

    Ah, I get carried away in my ranting.

    Laus Deo

    • TG

      They will not be protecting turtles or any thing living there now by giving them shade and soil barren of life under a vast horizon of solar panels… none of the indigenous wildlife will survive there.
      I doubt they bothered to even do an environmental study… maybe they should now be called in to do one…? that would be excellent…
      Matter of fact one expert said that the tortoises did better with the cattle in the area explaining that the cattle provided a plentiful supply of partially processed vegetation and moisture ( cow pie) which they apparently thrived on…

    • James

      Tracy,the BLM contributes absolutely NOTHING of value to America. If they do anything at all,it benefits only the oppressive hands of Government. We need to close down the BLM,lock the doors,and offer all who work for them,except those who end up prosecuted for illegal activities,a choice of two futures:either “more time to bond with their kids and follow their dreams” or a transfer to Border Security.

  • TG

    Here’s the latest… Reid and Chinese connection… Documented proof…huge story…
    I hope Glenn has what it takes to get on board and serve a little of that “journalistic justice” we once trusted to protect America.
    You do intend to get the story right this time don’t you Mr. Beck.


    • Anonymous

      It is interesting that the DOJ recently stopped an FBI investigation on Harry Reid’s campaign funds or was this just the “cover” story. Coincidence?

  • Zippy Zipperson
  • Tyrone Tyler

    This whole thing is about food control. The lack of protein-rich meat in the American diet will make us all weak and easy to manipulate. Religious cults don’t allow their members to eat meat for the very same reason. This is a war and our food supply is under attack.

    • Anonymous

      Agenda 21: Meat consumption is no longer sustainable. Yup, the cattle need grazing space which actually helps maintain the land from overgrowth and possible wild fires. But they give off methane. Can’t have that, now, can we. And all those humans letting off co2 polluting the air; gotta get rid of them too.

  • Michael L

    I have had relatives here since 1753.
    Do I now not have to pay any taxes?

    When the land use fees were first
    implemented (1993?) he should
    have filed suit then. This is getting
    out of hand with people throwing
    themselves toward police and vehicles
    and ending up getting tazered.
    Another Waco overreach of the
    government could be an Obama
    response. But this time it could be
    the ranchers fault if they show up
    with guns instead of Constitutional

    • mike michigan

      You obviously have little info on this story. He has been fighting them in court for two decades. Harry Reid’s son is managing a purchase of this land for a Chinese firm to install solar panels. They already forced out like 50 ranchers in the same area. Has nothing to do with tortoises, grazing fee’s, land rights. Has to do with Reid and his son will benefit from this deal so they need to use the BLM to force him out.

      • Dan McMartin

        And we’ve heard that too. Being one of Reid’s subjects, and no I’ve never voted for the guy, I wouldn’t put it past him. Reid is the slimiest of politicians. He’s never been much concerned about Nevada or her citizens unless it helps him grow his power base. Bundy also claims other ranchers have been forced out. The tortoise listing is a ruse. There are hundreds of thousands of those things, maybe millions, in southern Nevada. At one time not to long ago they outnumbered people in Clark County and Nevada is the edge of their range. They are yet another tool of the government to consolidate power and I’m afraid Reid and his son are taking advantage of that and the area ranchers to make more money for themselves. If it weren’t for his union thugs and God knows what else, Sharon Angle would be our Senator but Reid is as slippery as they come.

  • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

    this is a complicated story and what adds more confusion is the neighbor ranchers have paid their grazing fee so if they let this rancher go w/o paying the fee, how should the regional ranchers respond to that?

    • Jason Adams

      I have a question, why is the BLM charging grazing fees to the American public who own the land? Next they will be charging us to hunt and camp on the BLM land. OOOPS! I shouldn’t be giving them ideas…

      • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

        that’s bundy’s stance exactly. i think at one point nevada did own the land and i’m unclear how it became the feds.

  • Anonymous

    Please answer these questions:
    1. Did the Bundy family ever actually own the land? Was it land that the state of Nevada owned and ranchers used to graze their cattle? If so, even in the absence of a deed, the Bundys’ still have an ownership interest in the land. The government, be it state or federal, cannot simply revoke that interest without proper compensation.
    2. Where did the “tax” on grazing come from? Did it pass through Congress as mandated by the Constitution? Or did a bureaucrat at BLM determine that their statutory authority gave them the right to impose a “fee”?

    I am not familiar with the ranching laws in the state of Nevada. I do know that laws revolving around ranching activities reach far back into our history, and create some interesting and unique carve-outs in the legal code. If the land was owned by Nevada, and the Bundy ranch was allowed to graze their cattle on that land, and the federal government (reportedly in the 1930’s) assumed ownership of the land, but allowed ranchers unfettered access, but then began to revoke that access either through taxes imposed or outright prohibition on the use of the land, then you have a Fifth Amendment violation. If the “grazing fee” – which is a tax – was not passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate (in that order) then the tax is unconstitutional.

    There are still lots of unanswered questions regarding this issue, and it would be terribly helpful if you can fill in some of those blanks.


    • Dan McMartin

      You hit the nail on the head. I’m not sure who “owns” the land or who has historical rights. That’s the question. If Bundy is being belligerent because the Feds have LEGAL authority to do what they are doing and he doesn’t like it, then he needs to back off. But if the Feds are improperly “taking” his land without due process or compensation, Bundy has an argument no matter what the courts have said. This wouldn’t be the first time government courts have sided against the law and Constitution (hello, Obamacare’s individual mandate?)

      In any case, there are other ways to handle this besides armed government agents. Short of an immediate threat to life and property or in self-defense, the government should never take up arms against citizens. That is the most disturbing part of this. Cattle grazing illegally doesn’t warrant this kind of reaction…ever!

      • Anonymous

        seems that the state owns the land and the BLM just “manages” it, but it managed all of the ranchers, except Bundy, out of business. Only later on did the BLM use the “endangered” tortoise as an excuse to drive the remaining ranchers off the land. The tortoise isn’t actually endangered and the BLM has no problems making exceptions for cronies of Harry Reid.

  • John Fahlsing

    Per Diane Botti comments. It is not the Tortise, the cattle or Bundy read this article on BLM’s site dated 3-14 http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2014/March/BLM_Seeks_Public_Interest_for_Solar_Energy_Development_in_the_Dry_Lake_Solar_Energy_Zone.html

  • Anonymous

    The cattle ranchers have come under attack for a long time. Another case of of getting rid of the family operation in place of big business that collaberates with govt. And red meat is no longer “sustainable”.
    When govt owns the land, there is no freedom. Not to mention land is a real asset unlike notes.
    Under communism, there is no private ownership. They are coming for the land using trumped up regulations to either force you out or starve you out.

    The Betrayal of America:

  • MacDaddyWatch

    We all thought Ukraine was getting a pretty raw deal inflicted on them by Russia. And now we see the very same criminal occupation in Nevada that turns out to be an inside job engineered by none other than Sen. Harry Reid.

    Reid learned a lot from Putin…if you want it, show force and then grab it. Case closed.

  • Jason Adams

    Just one question… Who owns BLM land? Harry Reid, the federal government, or the people of the United States? If it is the people then who do you want using it some cattle rancher (an American) or Harry Reid and the Chinese? Stuff the laws where the sun don’t shine and think about it! We can sort the grazing fees out later. Heck maybe Bundy would agree to manage this area and save us a boat load of money paying BLM land management cronies. Heck the Nevada state government could even act as oversight of the management they have a vested interest in this land. But that kind of makes sense doesn’t it so that rules this approach out.

    How about having the BLM sell all the land it manages to help pay down the National debt. The federal government isn’t supposed to own land for the purpose of raising tortoises.

    • Onepoint

      Well then it should be the state of Nevada in the fight over the ownership, and they are not.

      And FWIW BLM has had auctions for land in the past, but in cases of remote areas land locked by private land, it sometimes didn’t sell, because its far cheaper to lease it than own it.

  • Kevin LaBonte

    why didn’t it go to court?

    • Anonymous

      It did and he lost. Rightfully.

  • Robert R. Lionshield

    what your not saying pat and stu;
    is that he had paid his fees to government ,but only to his the home state. he paid his fees to his home state ,and not to federal government , stu.

    • Onepoint

      Nevada didn’t own the land and were not entitled to the fees from it, if he paid that to them. If Nevada had title to the land this would even be an issue right now. He did in fact pay the BLM lease fees originally up until they decided to not renew grazing leases, and then all of the sudden he came up with the claim it was not federal land. He is in the wrong in this no matter how you look at it.

      • Tyler Casey

        If he is in the wrong for saying the land belongs to Nevada, then shouldn’t the Feds be “in the wrong” for illegitimate arbitration of grazing leases? You say “no matter how you look at it”His family has used that same land since before the BLM was {invented} by the federal government…Nevada(state) has been “seized” by the federal government CONTRADICTING the expressed [retained] RIGHTS of the state as written in the CONSTITUTION<——–trumps federal law……no matter how you look at it.

        • Onepoint

          So you support squatters rights? That would be the only avenue for him.

          He used it, by his own agreement to the BLM, he only paid for a specific use, not ownership. An owner can decide to let others use their property, or decide not to. The Federal govt owned the land by treaty before Nevada existed. You would have to show a reversion of title back from the state to fed to show cause of original right.

          This is simple, if you believe by constitutional law the state declares who owns it, what does the deed and title in the county court house say? If it says the US govt owns it, you have no case at all.

          The fact is in this case, the state itself is not contending ownership, and an individual cannot take up a legal case for a state, or any other entity or person for that matter with no vested interest or harm. Bundy can only petition the court to hear a case pertaining to the lease. His lease rights only extend to the grass, so long as those are up for lease. The BLM ended the lease allotment. That is what the court ruled already.

          I am a landowner and rancher as well. When I 1st heard about this, I was cheering him on, but when I started to look into the facts, I realized it was not a case of infringed rights at all. The last thing I want is having a court rule I lose my property rights because I leased it to someone for a few years.

      • Bruce Carlson

        Look up Hage vs United States

        • Onepoint

          Have you read it? The Hage case was primarily about abridgment of existing water rights, not so much the grazing lease. It also was about the fed delaying and conspiracy to deprive the court to hear the case causing undo loss.

          Bundy has had his day in court, and he lost.

          • Bruce Carlson

            look up a video on Vimeo / Interviewing Mr. Hage. he describes, in a few hours, the tactics and means at which the BLM and others went to try and get him off his land. It may not be an identical case with Mr. Bundy, but his act of stopping payment has everything to do with the tactics employed by BLM (refer to video). Hage held on where others could not and won. He provided historic documents proving deed and water right and he also proved underhanded methods by the Government in trying to take his land. Again, this shows how the government works if it wants what you have.

          • Onepoint

            That is the point right there, Hage had historical grandfathered water rights. Bundy only ever had rights for a grazing allotment lease, and why the court ruled against him to start with. He has no standing to contest the ownership.

            I completely agree that if the govt wants your stuff or you, they can get it through whatever means it takes, but in this particular case they don’t have to be inventive since continued use through mutual consent is not equivalent to ownership.

    • unocelestial1

      State did not accept it as it was not their fees.

  • DenisetheCelt

    How do you people like Communism?

    • The truth sometimes hurts

      You dolt! This started 20 years ago.

    • John Billings

      Educate yourself. You sound like a moron.

  • tom

    When Rory and Harry got outed together Obama took two iReggie burgers.

  • RhetoricalQuestion

    One thing a lot of these stories fails to mention, both objective and pro-Bundy, is that the Federal government is not chartered to establish protections against wildlife, much less a species that the same BLM claimed only a year prior that they were too broke to protect and decided to kill the species to reduce population.

  • Bully Pulpit

    Herding, grazing animals protect the soil and fight climate change. Science proves it but it doesn’t work for the “environmentalists” or the federal governments narrative to deplete and destroy our drying land.
    Share this! Stop the government from taking advantage of the uninformed. Inform the public!

  • Sane Shackleford

    Who actually owns the land??

  • Roger Dodger

    He should be in jail. The cattle belong to the US. That simple. That land belongs to all US citizens not some jerk on a ranch in Nevada. He owns 150 acres why does he need to steal from the rest of us?

    • Bruce Carlson

      Look up Hage vs United States, this will tell you how the law about water rights, grazing rights and the corruption of the government works. The US government went to untold ends to discredit and undermine Mr Hageand his ranch operations to the point of local government agents being fired. This one case shows the true motive of the BLM.

    • Mark

      Ignorance is bliss, or so I’m told. That simple! It always amaze’s me that no matter the need for intelligent conversation regarding protecting our freedom and rights in this great country of ours, some obtuse ignoramus always seems to pop up their head and begins spewing out complete nonsense in the hope of getting noticed. The cattle belongs to the U.S.? Really, just like “If you have a business…you didn’t build it, the government did”? Dearest Roger Dodger, I’m quite positive that you’ll search and search for a self perceived adequate response to this reply, but no matter how hard or deep you dig, there will always be those of us who simply get it, who really get “America”,and it is about high time that those of us that fit that bill, true patriots indeed, take the reigns from an overstepping and power grabbing government. As once stated in part by Neil deGrasse Tyson “…it’s about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers”. My Dearest Rodger Dodger, are you getting this? Sincerely doubt it.

    • nick

      Artful Dodger you are not.

  • John W.

    He was paying grazing fees to the BLM as per agreement, until it became clear that their goal wasn’t to help manage the land-which the fees were supposed to be paying for; it was to drive him and his operation off of the land, as they had every other rancher in Clark County. Just because it is “our” (i.e. Federal) land doesn’t make it o-k for them to curtail his ability to make a living. As for the desert tortoise-nothing he was doing put this supposedly endangered creature at risk. That was all the doing of the BLM-who euthanized at least 1000 of them, and redrew the boundaries of the tortoise management area to suit Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid’s 2010 campaign manager, Harvey Whittemore, in his plans to develop the area. (Whittemore later spent two years in prison for campaign finance law violations). Prior to Federal efforts to destroy ranching in the area (often on behalf of special interests such as developers, “alternative energy entrepreneurs,” (who themselves have of late gorged themselves at the Federal trough via “green energy” loans, after which they go belly-up at taxpayers expense), etc. It’s worth noting that Harry Reid’s son, a lead lawyer with a powerful Nevada law firm who negotiated a major land deal for one of these “green energy” outfits, was previously the Clark County Commissioner.
    Before you start talking about how a hard-working rancher should be in jail, and how his cattle “belong to the US,” take the time to inform yourself as to the background-and the legendary corruption in high places-which precipitated this confrontation, which fortunately ended without bloodshed. Oh-and “First Amendment Zones??” Last time I looked, America was a First Amendment Zone. It’s a sign of the times-and not an encouraging one-that anyone could entertain the idea of setting aside a “First Amendment Zone.”

    • nick

      Thanks for your post. Would you be so kind as to explain to me, how the BLM still has entre to the ranch if the BLM had long ago sold the grazing rights to Clark County. Did the County and theBLM have an agreement written into that sale stipulating BLM as a police agent?


    • William Carr

      Actually, I HAVE taken the time to inform myself, so I know you’re wrong.

      Bundy paid Reagans’ Grazing Fees. And he paid them to H.W. Bush as well.

      But the moment Clinton was elected Bundy decided not to pay, and freeload.

      “Just because it is “our” (i.e. Federal) land doesn’t make it o-k for them to curtail his ability to make a living.”

      Actually, Bundy is a Melon Farmer. He uses water from the nearby river to irrigate melons, and they’re supposed to be pretty good.

      So his cattle operation is a sideline. It’s made him a multi-millionaire, especially as he pays nothing to feed and water the cows, but it’s a sideline.

      If cattle was his REAL business he’d graze them on his own land and buy feed for them like we do in the Midwest.

      “As for the desert tortoise-nothing he was doing put this supposedly endangered creature at risk.”

      Golden Butte is desert. It’s arid, there’s little vegetation, and unmanaged cattle will graze it down to nubs in jig time.

      Overgrazing would wipe out the endangered species that live there.

      The BLM didn’t “euthanize” ANY Desert Tortoises.

      That myth comes from the Las Vegas shelter that took in PET tortoises.

      They lost their funding, likely due to the Sequester. So they had to re-home the rescued pet tortoises. Some were very old, and a few were sick.

      Tortoises are very vulnerable to some diseases, and the sick ones had to be put to sleep rather than spread the disease to their new home.

      But get this straight; these were NOT Desert Tortoises, they were abandoned pets.

      “ It’s worth noting that Harry Reid’s son, a lead lawyer with a powerful Nevada law firm who negotiated a major land deal for one of these “green energy” outfits, was previously the Clark County Commissioner.”

      It’s worth noting that the ENN Solar Farm deal fell through last June; the project is kaput.

      So the conspiracy meme that Bundy’s land was about to be seized for the “Chinese Solar Plant” was dead on arrival.

      “It’s a sign of the times-and not an encouraging one-that anyone could entertain the idea of setting aside a “First Amendment Zone.””

      You need to know the history.

      Bundy was sued for trespassing his cattle on Federal land, and lost. He appealed, and lost.

      There were three judgements against him, ordering him to vacate Federal Land or have his cattle seized.

      The BLM left the matter in the Courts. But time went by, and Bundy didn’t comply.

      So the BLM was SUED by an environmental group for not doing their job, and THEY lost.

      In 2012, they obeyed the Court Order and went out to put the trespassing cattle off Federal land.

      They were driven off by men with rifles.

      Sound familiar?

      They were sued AGAIN for not doing their job, and this time they went with enough agents to secure the area.

      They put Sentries on the ridgetops to discourage lunatics with rifles from shooting at Federal Agents.

      The brought dogs on leashes to discourage lunatics from attacking the agents personally.

      And then they started to go to work, rounding up the strays.

      Keep in mind, they haven’t stepped FOOT on Bundy’s Melon Farm.

      This was all on Federal Land, not Bundy’s lawful property.

      The “protestors” rushed out to cause a confrontation. So the BLM put up a fenced area on Federal Land and said “go stand over there, we’re working”.

      The protestors shouted, raged, and were warned back twice.

      Finally one of them pushed to get in a BLM Agents’ face and he let the dog bark Bundy Junior off.

      Bundy Junior kicked the dog.

      The riot went off right on schedule. The Bundys needed something to get other lunatics there to back them up.

      Nobody was injured, although Mark Bundy was arrested for assault.

      When the Separatist loonies showed up, and they put their families out in front of their trucks as Human Shields, the BLM agent in charge realized he was dealing with bona-fide lunatics.

      He pulled back, with the perfect excuse for the Federal Judge who sent him.

      Now, the loonies are crowing, and running around like they own the place.

      The local populace complained to their Representative and said they want these guys gone.

      After a while, the lunatics will run out of beer money and disperse.

      The Court will simply put a lien on Bundy’s Melon Farm, then sell it at auction.

  • Richard

    It is the BLM, not Cliven Bundy, who is in violation of the law and the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.

    The clause, known as the Enclave Clause,
    authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under
    specific and limited conditions, namely “for the erection of forts,
    magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and not,
    as the feds now insist, to protect an endangered tortoise.

    The Founders were opposed to providing a
    centralized federal government with unlimited authority to purchase and,
    as is routinely the case today, seize state and private land.

    During the federal convention debates in September, 1787, Elbridge Gerry,
    who later went on to serve as vice president under James Madison,
    contended federal purchase of land “might be made use of to enslave any
    particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds
    proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience.”

    In order to make certain the federal
    government did not abuse the Enclave Clause, the words “Consent of the
    Legislature of the State” were added.

    • Anonymous


      1) What is now the State of Nevada first
      came under Federal control in 1848, when it was ceded to the US by
      Mexico under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the
      US-Mexican War. So, it was “Federal land” before the State of Nevada
      ever existed.

      2) When Nevada enacted its first Constitution in 1864, it explicitly
      surrendered title and right to all unappropriated land in the territory
      to the Federal Government. The specific language is, “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; […]” So, it remained
      “Federal land” after the State of Nevada joined the US.

      3) By Bundy’s own admission, his ancestors didn’t show up in the area until the 1880s.

      So, unless Bundy can show clear title/rights to the land that predate
      1864 (either granted to his ancestors or purchased by them from someone
      who held a clear ‘appropriation’), he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
      Bundy has tried multiple claims:

      * that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution (quoted above) carries no legal force,

      * that the Property Clause of the US Constitution applies only to federal lands outside the borders of states,

      * that the US exercise of ownership over federal lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine,

      * that the US is wrongfully basing its authority to sanction Bundy on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass, and

      * that Nevada’s “Open Range” statute excuses Bundy’s trespass on federal lands,

      and every argument has been shot down by the courts. (Oh, and he also
      argued that cattle observed in trespass bearing his brand might not be

      As I said, everyone wringing their hands over this (or attempting to
      manufacture outrage) is counting on the general public not to know or
      understand the history and details…”

      • missek

        But it was [Amended in 1956. Proposed and passed by the 1953 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1955 legislature; approved and ratified by the people at the 1956 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1953, p. 718; Statutes of Nevada
        1955, p. 926.]

  • Richard

    It is the BLM, not Cliven Bundy, who is in violation of the law and the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.

    The clause, known as the Enclave Clause,
    authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under
    specific and limited conditions, namely “for the erection of forts,
    magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and not,
    as the feds now insist, to protect an endangered tortoise.

    The Founders were opposed to providing a
    centralized federal government with unlimited authority to purchase and,
    as is routinely the case today, seize state and private land.

    During the federal convention debates in September, 1787, Elbridge Gerry,
    who later went on to serve as vice president under James Madison,
    contended federal purchase of land “might be made use of to enslave any
    particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds
    proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience.”

    In order to make certain the federal
    government did not abuse the Enclave Clause, the words “Consent of the
    Legislature of the State” were added.

    • William Carr

      Nope. The clause you cite is the one authorizing establishing Washington D.C.

      And the Federal Government didn’t “buy up” the land in Nevada, Nevada CEDED that land to the Federal Government in their Constitution.

      “The Founders were opposed to providing a centralized federal government”

      The original government in America was the Articles of Confederation.

      It FAILED so badly that the Founders had to get together in 1789 and establish the Constitution, which DOES include a strong Federal Government.

  • OrangeandBrown

    All I know is, Harry Reid got a lot of “splaining” to do..

  • Guest

    OMG. There is so much bad information being passed as fact here it’s stupid. Does anyone read the article above? The first post below refers people to Dana whose story conflicts with the above. If we can’t agree on the facts, there can be no progress.
    Bundy does not own the land, the United States owns the land since before Nevada was even a state.
    He stopped paying the rent in 1993. Bundy has lost three court cases in three courts over this.
    Bundy can’t pay rent to whomever he chooses, he made a legal contract and must pay as directed and to whom.
    Bundy doesn’t want to pay anyone which is how this started in 1993. He just can’t say I think the feds are illegitimate and not pay, the world doesn’t work that way. Could you do that with your rent check?
    Reid had nothing to do with this. The solar station everyone associates with him and his son has already been built 100 miles away from the Bundy Ranch.
    The tortoise was brought up by others and not the BLM. Screw the tortoise, cattle don’t eat tortoise, they are vegetarians.
    Before you shoot off your mouth about rights why are you supporting someone who mooched off others when we want to people to take care of themselves.

    • missek

      Cows eats the vegitation the same as the tortoise, but that don’t really matter because as of 2012 the tortoise has been over running Clark county they are no longer an endangered species. proving with the cattle it had no impact on the tortoise.

      • William Carr

        The Desert Tortoise is still officially “Threatened”.

        And since all the OTHER legitimate Ranchers sold their Grazing permits to Clark County, the strain on Golden Butte from overgrazing diminished considerably.

        Other than Bundy, of course.

        If ALL the cattle had been removed and the Desert Tortoise had continued to decline you could say the cattle had no impact.

  • ShermB

    Wayne Hage was a rancher in Nye Co, Nv.. just west and north of Clark County. If you study his story, it will shed background light on the basis for the ranchers and farmers position of overbearance by the Federal Governtment, and the taking of their property i.e. grazing rights and water rights .


    • missek

      Good story. thanks

    • William Carr

      Hage’s property was not taken.

      He insisted that the Federal Government couldn’t own land, and that he owned more than the 7,000 acres he legitimately purchased in 1978.

      Hage found a Judge that was dumb enough to agree with him, but that decision was overturned in 2012 and his Estate won’t get a penny of that award.

      This isn’t “overbearance”. This is a very few Ranchers insisting that the Federal Land they squat on belongs to them.

      Then the Courts get involved, and it takes 20 years to straighten it out.

  • ShermB

    Media-Suppressed Nevada Case History Shines Truth on Government Ranch invaders

    • missek

      Produced by: Bureau of Land Management March 2014

      The final Solar Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar
      Energy Zone (PDF)
      “The Gold Butte ACEC is preliminarily recommended as the best recipient location for regional mitigation from the Dry Lake SEZ.”

      In fine print in the document..
      “Unavoidable hydrologic impacts may occur due to changes in drainage and recharge patterns. Potential impacts to water availability will be mitigated onsite through the implementation of a net neutral use policy (water rights must be purchased)

      • nick

        Your’e onto something. It must be about the water, Thats the BIG problem out west everywhere, deliberate water deprivation according to farmers in calfornia I know .Lotta Oranges and produce comin into the supermarkets from Australia and South Africa.

        Some say Its not about solar, but rare earth metals which also makes sense. Cattle and energy have never been a big problem together in the past. Maybe the real money isnt the solar or the fracking but in the Whole Mix.

        • William Carr


          The problem is you’re mixing and matching references from water management AT a solar power plant, with the “mitigation zone” set aside for endangered species.

          Photovoltaic Farms don’t use water. But Concentrating Solar Plants do; other than the one in Spain, that is.

          The Spanish Solar Plant uses hot air rather than water.

          The best way to recycle all the steam from a Concentrating Solar Plant is to inject it underground.

          The cool temperatures condense the steam back to drinkable water, and then it gets sucked up to be re-used in the Solar Boiler.

          That’s what THIS means:

          “Unavoidable hydrologic impacts may occur due to changes in drainage and recharge patterns.”

  • ShermB

    Nevada Sheriff Tony DeMeo’s ‘Swat Team’ ~ Stops Federal Government: Feds Engaging In Illegal Confiscation Of Cattle And Water Rights Of County Property Owner.
    October 19, 2011


    • missek

      Produced by: Bureau of Land Management March 2014

      The final Solar Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar
      Energy Zone (PDF)
      “The Gold Butte ACEC is preliminarily recommended as the best recipient location for regional mitigation from the Dry Lake SEZ.”

      In fine print in the document..
      “Unavoidable hydrologic impacts may occur due to changes in drainage and recharge patterns. Potential impacts to water availability will be mitigated onsite through the implementation of a net neutral use policy (water rights must be purchased)

      This document is what I have been trying to get people to see to help me understand it but I keep getting blocked.(water rights must be purchased) sure sounds fishy to me

      • William Carr

        The “Mitigation Strategy” means that Golden Butte is designated as the preserve for any native species displaced by development in Southern Nevada.

        So endangered species might be re-homed there.

        At worst, it’s fig leaf, saying “well, if endangered species are inconvenienced by development, we’ve got a safe home for them in Golden Butte so they won’t go extinct.”

        The “Water Rights” portion you read is about the actual Solar Energy facility in southern Nevada; if they use Concentrating Solar then they need water, and will have to work on recycling all the water they can.

        That’s what the “net neutral” part meant.

  • Anonymous

    Who actually “owns” America’s land? A deeper look at the Bundy Ranch crisis


  • Anonymous

    As it turns out, Bundy does not own the land, which is near his 150-acre
    ranch, and has not paid grazing fees since 1993. Bundy says he does not
    recognize the federal government’s claim to the property but believes
    he is entitled to use the land for grazing because his family has done
    exactly that for decades – even before the BLM was formed.

    This is the problem. These people think they are above the law.

    • missek

      BTW we all are entitled to use that land if we are dumb enough to use it. but why isn’t he entitled?

      And Bundy is right in a way. According to gold butte history and documents….http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/desert-tortoise-03-25-2014.html
      Clark county purchased the grazing leases from the BLM for $375,000 Dec 1998 for the desert turtles.
      So you’re saying he should recognize the federal government’s claim to the property when federal government sold it to the county?
      Is the federal government going to give back that $375,000 to the county??? NO

      This is no different then the native Americans claiming they should get the land back. they expect ever American to give them their homes, their land. for FREE.
      The native Americans still to this day receive payments for mineral and water and land and timber rights. Are they going to pay back that money? NO! They want to TAKE it without any repayment. Just like the federal government does. That is thief. using public land without permission is trespassing not thief.

      Bundy tried to pay the county they refused payments, he made the mistake in not pushing it. So he does owe the county. But the BLM is requesting Bundy to pay $1.2 mill in back grazing fees to the federal government .
      Seriously would you pay the BLM $1.2 mill on land that don’t belong to them????

      • nick

        I’m reading this part of the story,(Clark County Grazing leases) for the first time here in your post. Did the County have some sort of agreement rider with the Feds In It’s purchase, maintaining BLM Police Powers Authority.?

        Thanks for the info.

      • William Carr

        You misunderstood.

        Clark County purchased the grazing permits and “retired” them.

        They don’t own the land, the Federal Government does.

        Clark County used taxpayer money to buy out the leases still held by local Ranchers to soften the blow when Golden Butte was declared a wildlife preserve.

        Bundy claimed he tried to pay Clark County his Grazing Fees.

        Assuming this wasn’t a lie… Clark County doesn’t own that land, can’t collect Reagan’s grazing fees on it, and neither can the State of Nevada.

        Try to get this straight: it’s Federal Government Property.

  • http://www.pinkpanthersblog.com/ cowboyneok

    Uh, the Native Americans owned that land before the federal government, so if Mr. Bundy wins on the assertion his ancestors owned the land, they need to immediately vacate and turn it back over to the Native Americans who have an even stronger claim to ownership. Ya know, I lived out west when my parents had a private ranch. For every so-called victim there are countless ranchers that graze their cattle on their own private lands and don’t use FEDERAL LANDS to graze their cattle and if they do they build the cost of it into any minor loss of selling those cattle at livestock auctions. I have a big problem with these right wing militias that don’t think they should contribute. Half of them don’t pay their taxes, yet rely on food stamps to feed their families while pulling STUNTS like running their cattle on federal lands.

  • Montesquieu

    Your antidote to the illusions conjured up by clowns like Bill Maher and Jonathan Leibowitz: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878

  • Anonymous

    He a dead beat!!! Breaking the laws…

  • Mark Nif

    I am no fan of Harry Reid, the Feds, or Obama, but Snopes.com claims the Harry Reid China connection to Bundy Ranch is baloney! http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

  • Rob theisen

    I love it
    that Harry Reid makes this statement, “Senate Majority Leader Reid,
    D-Nev., told Reno-based KRNV: “It’s not over. We can’t have, in America,
    people that violate the law and just walk away from it. So it’s not
    over.” And then he turns around and
    passes a bill that grants amnesty to 12 to 20 million illegals who broke at
    least one law getting here. He wants to
    give those criminals a pass; not only that, but he wants them to have
    citizenship or work permits which will allow them to take more and better
    American jobs away from Americans.
    Apparently this rule of law he is talking about only needs to be
    enforced when it is to Harry Reid’s benefit.

    I also can’t think building a solar farm will be very good for the Turtles either.

    • unocelestial1

      Solar farm is built.

      • missek

        Wow that was fast. LOL.. Produced by: Bureau of Land Management
        March 2014
        The final Solar Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (PDF)
        “The Gold Butte ACEC is preliminarily recommended as the best recipient location for regional mitigation from the Dry Lake SEZ.”

        You do know they have more then one area and state purposed zones for solar energy facilities don’t you? There is 4 in southern Nevada and there is Arizona, Utah Colorado and New Mexico and 2 purposed zones in California. the largest one Riverside East (Palm Springs–South Coast/Riverside) 147,910 acres. I feel sorry for anyone that lives in that area if the BLM decide to do that one.

        • William Carr

          Why do you feel sorry for them?

          Farmers have discovered that wind power makes a nice “windfall” profit for them when the Market wobbles. They graze cows or raise crops underneath the turbines.

          Putting in a Solar Farm will still let you graze sheep, for example, in between the panels.

          The sheer amount of MONEY to be made is awesome; either farmers leasing their land or selling the most arid parts of it.

          In the actual ENN Solar Farm site, there was NO protest at the possibility of selling 6,000 acres of private land for the now-defunct Solar Farm.

      • William Carr

        Nope. The ENN Solar Farm fell through last June.

        The whole project was scrapped and the land is no longer optioned for sale.

        The site was outside Laughlin, 180 miles from Bunkerville.

        The Golden Butte area was NEVER intended for a solar farm.

        In fact, it was specified as a “Mitigation Zone” to re-home endangered species that might be displaced from potential solar farms in the future.

  • Helen Love

    This isn’t brain surgery, the BLM is an enforcement agency of the Federal Government. The Federal Government took possession of the land through the Guadelupe Hildago treaty with Mexico in 1848 – The US won a war then paid $15 Million for the land – The boundries for the Nevada Territory ( U.S.Possesion) were drawn for the first time in 1861 then it was inducted as a State by President Lincoln in 1864. The first Mormon settlers arrived (I think) while the State was still a Federal Territory thinking they were in Utah – But even if they didn’t Mr Bundy says his Family settled in 1877-..And even if we want to ignore all the previous history and all the documented facts on the provenence of ownership. The States Rights argument is dead in the water according to the Contistution of Nevada State..IE: Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
    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 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.

    • William Carr

      Of course, you show that to the Separatists, and they say the Nevada Constitution is invalid.

    • Tyler Casey

      All political power is inherent in {God}. The one, and most important [thing] missing from your monologue….Capitalizing the [a] in “Authority”…..how….sacrilegious?….Helen, love, your post humors me. You are so well versed in legalistic literacy, yet you abstain from the fundamental purpose for which the [C]onstitution was written: To free men from tyranny of other men. By using the {law} to enact “lawlessness” on the people that created [set law] is Irony of a Higher Power………..put aside your political postulations, and lay down that which divides you against your countrymen—the Devil is at work in the powers that be and wicked men in Washington are being pulled as puppets on strings in their lust for power…. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/12/bombshell-harry-reid-behind-bundy-cattle-ranch-scandal-according-to-purged-documents-112136

      • Helen Love

        The Constitution is a living Document, it was meant to grow as the Nation Grows. But if you want to ignore two hundred years of Amendments, Redefinitions and Challenges in the Highest Courts of the Land and stick to a strict interpretation of the original script, I hope you are a White Man and own land ’cause if you aren’t, you don’t have a voice. I kinda like it the way it is. And ,with your permission, I’ll recap what actually happened in this particular case. Several Groups of American taxpayers lobbied Congress to protect the delicate flora and fauna ,as well as some ancient,irreplaceable, artifacts in specific sections of the desert. This wasn’t an easy project. It took time and money and years of dedication.But, in the end the system worked – the allotments were purchased and ceded to the National Park System…Even then this ‘Overreaching Government’ didn’t move to force the issue. The Government fiddled around for twenty YEARS, giving Mr Bundy every opportunity to prove his case and he failed. He does not own that land, it belongs to the American People who fought to protect it. Having failed in court, he took his case to the People with this media blitz and he has failed again. All the loud voices have been heard all the arguments have been expressed and discussed and he’s given the Late Night Comedians fodder for weeks of routines.And worse, perhaps, from the perspective of the Militants and Separatists, he has turned the cause into a caricature akin to an old Political Cartoon. His support is falling away and no one new is rushing to his aid. Even his own neighbors are screaming for the Government to go in and blast him out of there ..Given MY ‘druthers, I’d retire Mr Bundy’s brand( So he couldn’t sell his cattle) and just let him sit there and rot. Like almost everyone else,I feel this whole thing is an irritant I could do without :) Mr Casey, if you really want to be amused, just wait til the Burning Man Bunch moves in. That’s going to be a real hoot. ..I’m just very glad that this isn’t MY Circus and they aren’t MY monkeys – It belongs to you and all your Buddies who had the misfortune of choosing Mr Bundy as your Poster Boy. As for me, I just want that Old Man to get his club footed cattle out of MY National Park, immediately!

        • Tyler Casey

          You did not address anything I posted. What are you talking about–taxpayers lobbied to protect flora and fauna? Artifacts? Please show me how this is related. [What is the Burning Man Bunch]? The Constitution can grow up one coast and down the other, but that still doesn’t explain your inability to recognize that the power in the government is endowed by God and not by [men] (be they white, black, or magenta)…..I would also like for you to explain why you can’t have your park and Mr. Bundy can still have land to graze on? Do some research for me dear, and see if there was ever any proposal to manage the land to the benefit of EVERYONE…..My grandfather is a cattle rancher in TX and owns twice as many cattle as this guy did. I’ve grown up visiting the farm since I was a boy and I KNOW what the cows DO TO THE LAND–(I know many other ranchers too who raise different breeds)–so when you ramble on about “precious” flowers and clay pots being some kind of [sacred] national treasure–you won’t get an ounce of sympathy from me–The BLM could have worked out a way better deal than to tell him to gth and to take his cows with’em….Here’s some {living} language for you to chew on: Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity… What gives YOU the right to take this man’s “blessings” and “liberties” away from him??? General welfare argument?….well, if and only if it “ensures domestic tranquility”….. the point is, you can’t (as the government) arbitrarily enforce law (or invent on bias) to deprave a citizen of his {life and property} w/o severe and unintended consequences to BOTH parties—-you say this is an irritant you could do w/o- I agree…….but making Bundy out to be the problem is an intellectual….(I’ll use your favorite color)….WHITE WASH…….the Feds and the bureaucracy and w/e this National Park stuff is are 10 times more accountable for the fallout: They are the [elected] SERVANTS of the people and we allocate knowledge and wisdom and taxes to them so they can MAKE SOLUTIONS so things LIKE THIS don’t happen…..If the Government is so high and mighty to you, then why can’t they propose an agreement that works for YOU and Mr. Bundy??? YOU DONT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE this and THAT is why, PPL like me get so a n g r y at ppl like you….I’m not here to defend Bundy for not paying taxes–but I’m not gonna accept a government that makes him pay when I KNOW he shouldn’t……

          • Helen Love

            i apologize, I thought since you are commenting on this thread, that you knew the background for the current conflict…Mr Bundy’s Father purchased a 160 acre tract ( family ranch) in 1948. They began Ranching in the late 50’s (1958, I believe – but I could be wrong) . They applied for and received permission to graze their cattle on a couple of allotments, The Bunkerville allotment is the one under question at the moment. They paid the AUM regularly until 1993 when the Bunkerville allotment was ceded to the National Park System and Mr Bundy was told to remove his cattle from that area. Mr Bundy didn’t move his cattle and actually increased the size of his herd. He is running, he says, about 900 head of cattle on land capable of supporting about 150.And when he was served with a demand (Official Paperwork) to concede to the laws, he started his adventures in the legal system. He tested his arguments in two full suits and, when he lost, he challenged the decisions in several appeals which he also lost. And STILL the BLM sat on its hands until it was faced with the threat of a law suit by the Sierra Club and the office of ecological diversity (at least I think that’s the name of it – it’s a nasty collection of environmentalists and attorneys and they rarely fail in the courts). So the BLM warned Mr Bundy that they were going to come in and move his cattle if he wouldn’t…and when they showed up, The Bundy’s started this Media Mess. Mr Bundy first said his Family had been ranching since the 1800’s and when that was proven to be a lie, he said he had been paying the County, but that turned out to be a lie as well – he had tried but the County does not own the land and they refused to take any money. Now he is saying he doesn’t recognize the Federal Government while he wraps himself in an American Flag and claims to be fighting for a Freedom which has nothing to do with the Millions of dollars he has earned by grazing his cattle on the free land..it isn’t a matter of taxes, Mr Bundy pays his taxes on his home ranch. He just hasn’t paid the ‘rent’ on the allotments since 1993. I have no problem with Honest Ranchers running cattle on their own land, some of my best friends are Ranchers and I’ve even been press-ganged into helping round up calves a couple of times- though to be honest I wasn’t any help and I think I was ‘invited’ mostly so they could laugh at my efforts :) I am objecting to the loss of our heritage. There are ancient petroglyphs in that area that cannot be replaced or repaired and they are already damaged. The wildlife has all but disappeared in their quest to rid the land of every living thing to clear the grazing for themselves. If we do not set aside land to protect pieces our past, we will have nothing to leave to our children. I DO believe in God and my well used Bible is sitting here on the desk along with Le Morte d’ Arthur and my Thesaurus. And My Bible tells me we are supposed to be stewards of the land, and care for Gods creations. Mr Bundy knew from the very beginning that this land was not his. He was only renting the grazing rights. And like any other renter, when the place is sold, he is going to have to make other arrangements, either cut back the size of his herd or find another piece of land for grazing…As I said before, that allotment was legally purchased, the allotment was retired and it now belongs to the National Park System, whether Mr Bundy likes it or not.

          • Tyler Casey

            Mrs Love, you need to cite or link your {facts}…like where the National park system, Sierra club, and him not paying taxes fit into this…….help me out here!

          • Helen Love

            I’m sorry, I have no idea where Taxes are involved in this :) I’ve never read anything, anyplace that says Mr. Bundy hasn’t paid his taxes. The complaint is that he hasn’t paid the AUM (rent per head for grazing) for over twenty years on land that isn’t available anymore for grazing. IMO it is a side issue as we have probably invested more in trying to move those cattle than he owes. The issue is Trespassing and the damage those cattle have done to a Federally protected area. Maybe this will help. It’s the Court Order. http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-US-v.-Bundy-7-9-13.pdf . And a report with lots of links so you can verify these things for yourself. I’m still looking for a true copy of the Notice of Intent sent by the Sierra Club to the BLM there are plenty of mentions of it, and I’ve seen the notice, but it’s a matter of plowing through all the misinformation being published to find the official stuff :) http://www.factandmyth.com/conspiracy-theory/cliven-bundys-cattle-and-the-federal-land-grab

  • P W
  • Anonymous

    Why does federal government get to confiscate land supposedly for a turle or smelt and then sell things off that land like they are some for-profit business? They’re not a business, they dont have the same regulations or obligations so why are they the largest land owner in USA?

    • William Carr

      Well, first; it’s the Federal Government’s property, as Ceded to the Federal Government by the States.

      You can’t “confiscate” what you already own.

      The Federal Government leases the land for grazing, mining, and oil exploration where appropriate; it’s good for the Economy.

      Asking why the Federal Government is the largest land owner is like asking why the dollar bill is green. Because that’s how it worked out. Everything’s legal and legit.

      BTW, the dollar bill is green because only that green ink was resistant to being bleached out and counterfeited.

      • Tyler Casey

        Law is dead when those who legislate are lawless…I don’t know you, but I’d guess you work for the government–judging from your comments–maybe you don’t, and you just simply have a differing argument–w/e your cause is for defending the actions of the BLM I want you to [understand] something about {reality}———>When people put their trust (and taxes) into the government, they are due–and should expect a return. Now this Bundy fella, sure–he probably is what you might call “rough around the edges” and a ‘legal’ argument could be made against him….BUT in the REAL WORLD there are “spiritual” {laws} at work: Consider the law of the harvest; you reap what you sow…. This is what you need to understand: What happened at this ranch between the feds and the “people gathered” is {an example} of the consequences that arise from [evil] men who are in [places of power]. The unpaid taxes where never considered a problem “worth” the federal resources—not until one who was in power took action to increase his wealth (greed)…Dirty Harry Reid is just beginning to reap (here on earth) the consequences of his lust for power and control….mark my words, Sir William Carr, the man of lawlessness is upon us all and mere human laws cannot stop him…

  • James Oman

    Why does this moron get to graze his cattle for free and his neighbors do not?

  • Stranger_In_A_Strange_Land

    We know the BLM has been dealing with many ranchers similarly over the last several decades (Bundy, Hage, Laney in NM, 49 of the 52 in Bundy’s area, etc.). By virtue that many went under, we also know that these tactics were brutally effective. Since we know the BLM engaged in conspiracy, fraud, racketeering and other nefarious methods to deprive at least one of their rights, we are reasonably assured they deprived them all of their rights with these same illegal methods.


    “In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”

    Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

    The BLM’s use of illegal tactics to strip rights is the core, underlying issue that needs to be investigated and prosecuted, and amends made to all of the people they have trampled.

  • Sovereign Mary

    “In January, 2002, Judge Smith handed down a 35-page Final Opinion, holding that Hage “by the preponderance of evidence” had demonstrated that he had vested water rights for livestock grazing on his allotments and these were compensable property rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, any attempt by the federal government to block access to the use of that property means the U.S. must give just compensation for the taking.

    Six years later, the final phase of litigation has been completed. The judge determined that several “takings” had occurred and calculated how much is owed to the Plaintiffs – or, rather, to their estates.

    Sadly, because the 17-year lawsuit dragged on so long, neither Hage, nor two
    other leading participants in the ongoing battle, are able to taste the fruits of victory. The rancher who had fought so long and hard, died at his home at Pine Creek Ranch, exactly two years ago to the day – on June 5, 2006 — from a sudden recurrence of the cancer which he thought he had overcome. His first wife Jean, who fought at his side from the very beginning, suffered a fatal heart attack and stroke in 1996, brought on by the stress of the case.”

    • William Carr

      Oh, dear God.

      Did you think we couldn’t look UP the Fifth Amendment?

      “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

      FIRST, it has to BE private property.

      Hage owned 7,000 acres. He squatted on much more land that was of course, FEDERAL land.

      And he called that his “Ranch”. It wasn’t.

      He bought his 7,000 acres in 1978, and that was fine, he owned that.

      But the Homesteading Act ended in 1976, two years earlier.

      No longer could people “make improvements” to a limited amount of Federal Land and then ask the Government to GIVE it to them.

      Hage was another of those “Sagebrush” lunatics that thought they could nullify the Government by pretending the US owns the mineral rights but the grazing and water rights belong to whoever gets there first.

      Furthermore, the Hage Ruling was reversed in 2012, and further appeal was denied.

      Most Ranchers are honest folk and wouldn’t dream of pushing their cattle onto Federal land without paying Grazing Fees.

      But you still find a few that want to enrich themselves by simply ignoring the Law the rest of us live by.

      They want to raise hundreds of head of cattle more than they have land for, and by damn, they’re not going to pay Reagan’s Grazing Fees !

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.