He owns a piece of land. He is letting his cattle graze on land that doesn't belong to him. It's like he's making this into a human rights issue. Also, one of the guys asked those "militia" people to put down their guns but they are ignoring him. I'd get the hell out of dodge before the firefight starts.
My government tis o' thee, sweet land of liberty …. Facetiously speaking, the Federal Goverment on the domestic front is gonna be spoiling for a face-saving ass kicking of that cowpuncher after being laughed out of Crimea. Grab some popcorn, this might be shaping up to be Janet Reno, (Nevada 2.0).
I think the 1st amendment thing going on is that their have been protesters who have been beat on by whatever law enforcement agency is there. Whether they earned it or not is unclear to me.
I have no idea how legit this source is but this sounds serious I heard the feds backed off earlier today, then I saw this. It could be old news, I'm having a hard time figuring that out. This is supposedly a live feed: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/thepetesantillishow edit: Seems like nothing but a bunch of fucking traffic to me. Saw this image posted ... supposedly people standing ground against feds?
These are the applicable BLM regulations. The question is does he have a permit or has he been using the land illegally? should be fairly easy to determine who's right- http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html
I'm pretty sure that he's breaking the law. From what I understand this guys position is that he does not recognize the authority of the BLM. Apparently there are a lot of folks that agree with him.
The government usually wins on these issues. They have tools to win the battle away from the battlefield.
He has not paid his grazing fees for over 20 years and there have been numerous court orders for him to pay. Apparently he feels the land belongs to Nevada not the Fed. but it is unclear if he is paying Nevada anything.
Here is the position of the Bundy's, which makes a lot more sense to me now. http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...e-bundy-cox-stand-with-cliven-and-carol-bundy
Makes a bit more sense than what I had posted that I read elsewhere. I don't think they have grounds for arrest as this should be a civil issue and unless the court finds him in contempt I don't think he can be arrested. Just like someone generally can not be arrested for building code violations. Of course someone with more knowledge than me on the subject may let us know otherwise. The one problem I see with their contention that they shouldn't have to pay because the BLM stopped upkeep on his ranch. Based on that fact any landlord has the right to change lease agreements when the lease is up so it is hard to say if he is in the wrong for not paying or if BLM is wrong for not living up to an agreement. He can just keep the cattle on his own land and pay for feed for them if he does not feel the grazing fees are fair. I keep reading that they were grazing on land he felt was his but based on this letter it is not clear if they feel it is their land but why would they have previously paid a fee to graze on their own land. In 1993 he was paying $1.35 for a cow/calf pair to graze, not sure if that is a month or a year but that seems pretty damn cheap. I'm sure feeding them on his own would be a lot more expensive and they wanted improvements for his ranch to also be taken care of with that money? Granted she mentions the preemptive rights and if there was a previous agreement to keep the same cost in place while also taking care of the ranch then he is in the right but this has been to court multiple times so something tells me that is not the case. I am still pretty confused on the matter since we don't have access to all the previous documents and agreements.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html Grazing rights aren't perpetual, they come in ten year allotments. So every ten years the BLM decides whether or not to continue a lease based on the conditions in play, other uses of the land, WHETHER THE PERMITTEE HAS PAID HIS LEASE FEE, etc. This guy stopped paying his lease fees 20 years ago. The only question I have is why it has taken the BLM so long to drive him off the public land that he is grazing for free at the taxpayer's expense. Think about it. The permittee's position is apparently that he has some kind of perpetual lease on the grazing rights. He doesn't. Then he decides not to pay the fees and the problem becomes easy to resolve.
What's next, drillers and miners refusing to pay their leases? Open access to cutting the forests on federal land? Sand mining on our national seashores? I know a small island in the middle of New York harbor with tons of copper sheeting on it and an iron frame holding it up; do the feds really think they can keep me from mining it?
I was thinking along these lines but what not familiar enough with the grazing agreements. I can't imagine what Bundy tried to argue in the previous hearings.
