Cliven Bundy on Faux News


Note: Original video was taken down off YouTube. This is from Cenk Uygur.

Via Media Matters:

Cliven Bundy, a cattle rancher in Nevada, has been fighting the government over grazing rights on public land for nearly a quarter century. In 1993, Bundy began refusing to pay government fees required to allow his cattle to exploit public lands. In 1998, the government issued a court order telling Bundy to remove his cows from the land, as part of an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise located there. And in July 2013, a federal court ordered Bundy to get his cattle off public land within 45 days or they would be confiscated. The confiscation began this month, and the cattle will be sold to pay off the $1 million in fees and trespassing fines Bundy owes.

Night after night on Faux News Channel, Sean Hannity sympathizes with Bundy’s claims against the government and cheerleads for a gun battle. Faux News goes ballistic about “takers” unless it’s a right-winger who’s trying to get something for free, and then suddenly not paying your own way is okay or even downright laudable.

UPDATE:
Nevada ‘range war’ protest growing in size after video of encounter with federal agents

UPDATE:
Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Descend On Nevada To Help Rancher Defy Court Order

This conflict arises out of rancher Cliven Bundy’s many years of illegally grazing his cattle on federal lands. In 1998, a federal court ordered Bundy to cease grazing his livestock on an area of federal land known as the Bunkerville Allotment, and required him to pay the federal government $200 per day per head of cattle remaining on federal lands. Around the time it issued this order, the court also commented that “[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy’s livestock.” Fifteen years later, Bundy continued to defy this court order.

Last October, the federal government returned to court and obtained a new order, providing that “Bundy shall remove his livestock from the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.” A third federal court order issued the same year explains that Bundy did not simply refuse to stop trespassing on federal lands — he actually expanded the range of his trespassing. According to the third order, “Bundy’s cattle have moved beyond the boundaries of the Bunkerville Allotment and are now trespassing on a broad swath of additional federal land (the “New Trespass Lands”), including public lands within the Gold Butte area that are administered by the BLM, and National Park System land within the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.” The third order also authorizes the federal government to “impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass.”

UPDATE:
Drudge Report Recklessly Hypes Confrontation Between Rancher And Federal Government

Drudge is now promoting an article from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ website Infowars.com that suggests BLM and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) are working together to take over the ranch so the Chinese government can turn it into a solar farm.

UPDATE:
Safety Concerns Force Feds To Pull Out In Illegal Cattle Grazing Dispute

UPDATE:
Three Ways That Nevada Rancher And His Right-Wing Militia Supporters Could Wind Up Behind Bars

UPDATE:
Nevada rancher calls on sheriffs to disarm federal agents in cattle dispute

UPDATE:
Militant Former Sheriff Planned To Put Women ‘Up At The Front’ If Violence Erupted In Rancher’s Showdown With Feds

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on April 12, 2014 - 1:52 am

    Why is this rancher bumping hips with Hannity? You would think theses guys are about as far away from each other as you can get.

  2. #2 by Larry Bergan on April 12, 2014 - 2:02 am

    Maybe Hannity plans to start a cattle ranch when he leaves New York.

  3. #4 by Larry Bergan on April 12, 2014 - 9:46 am

    Lordy, Lordy, Lordy!

  4. #5 by Larry Bergan on April 12, 2014 - 9:51 am

    And I thought I was crazy!

  5. #6 by PATSNYC on April 13, 2014 - 10:34 am

    Too bad media matters “forgot” to mention that Harry Reid (the only affiliated elected representative to remain silent) and his son Rory Reid have a financial interest in this. The Fed lands and the Bundy ranch are within the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone; an area promised to a China solar energy company EEN Energy Group which the Reids have private investments. Rory Reid is the CEO of EEN. Harry Reid used BLM to clear the land of the ranchers and force local ranchers to sell their property at reduced values; what good is a ranch without grazing lands.
    The cattle roundup, at taxpayer expense, was part of the private interest of the Reids to make way for the China company’s development of that land.
    Folks, all you have to do is google this stuff to find out for yourselves; but I guess that might require some work on your part. Can’t do that when all you have to do is allow media matters to spoon feed you its crap.

    • #7 by Richard Warnick on April 13, 2014 - 10:53 am

      You’re welcome to post links to your sources.

    • #8 by Anonymous on April 13, 2014 - 12:02 pm

      This Bundy fellah has been balking and loosing case after case for thirty years. Of course he’s just a simple anti-solar county folk.

    • #9 by Richard Warnick on April 13, 2014 - 12:56 pm

      Oops the source of the conspiracy theory is Alex Jones. Never mind!

  6. #11 by Larry Bergan on April 13, 2014 - 7:55 pm

    WHAT!

    The “feds”, will break state law to arrest people running legal marijuana dispensaries. but they pull out when faced with guns from illegal militant groups.

    We have become soft.

    This is just sad. :(

    I’m starting to think I might need a gun instead of a poster.

  7. #12 by Larry Bergan on April 13, 2014 - 8:06 pm

    Think of it! Millions and millions of Americans with guns vs a smattering of cowardly gun nuts.

  8. #13 by Larry Bergan on April 13, 2014 - 9:21 pm

    I’ve never been into guns, but my brother-in-law, (who wrote for Field and Stream), took me out shooting and must have paid a dollar to let me shoot a bullet at an empty coke can from about 25 yards away.

    That thing wasn’t a bullet, it was a missile.

    I shot, and the can didn’t move.

    When we got up close, it was obvious that I had hit the can, dead on.

    Come after me militias! Come after me!

    Ted Nugent is a dead man!

  9. #14 by Larry Bergan on April 13, 2014 - 9:26 pm

    Of course, I’m kidding. It was a lucky shot, but a true story.

    • #15 by Larry Bergan on April 14, 2014 - 9:31 pm

      Then again, Ted Nugent is bigger then a Coke can, and Utah is probably the easiest place to get a gun. :)

      Come after me, shitty pants!

  10. #17 by brewski on April 14, 2014 - 4:05 pm

    Obama is not in jail why?

    • #18 by Richard Warnick on April 14, 2014 - 6:37 pm

      I’m sorry that it looks like Bundy and his partners in crime will walk after making death threats against federal employees. Because our government is afraid of Faux News Channel.

      If you think you can prosecute the President for trying to round up some trespass cattle, that’s a non-starter.

        • #21 by Richard Warnick on April 15, 2014 - 3:22 am

          No violations of criminal law cited in the op-ed you linked to, brewski. Not one. And I think anybody in the Tea-GOP has lost the right to complain when President Obama occasionally finds a way around their unprecedented obstructionism.

          It’s downright laughable to talk about putting the current President behind bars after what the Bush administration got away with.

          • #22 by brewski on April 15, 2014 - 8:22 am

            Our constitution was created entirely to have checks and balances. Didn’t you have 7th grade civics? The American people voted for the GOP in 2010 for a reason. I am sorry you don’t like America or Americans.

          • #23 by Richard Warnick on April 15, 2014 - 8:31 am

            You wanted to know why President Obama isn’t in jail. The answer is, he hasn’t committed any crimes that anyone except powerless progressives are willing to recognize. The op-ed you linked to does not accuse the President of anything that’s punishable by imprisonment.

            The Tea-GOP had their moment of triumph in 2010 because they promised “jobs-jobs-jobs.” They totally lost the 2012 election because they didn’t deliver on their promise.

            Voters voted for jobs in 2010. The GOP delivered witch hunts

            More Americans voted for Democrats than Republicans in the 2012 House elections. Only gerrymandering enabled them to keep voting to repeal the ACA fifty times.

          • #24 by brewski on April 15, 2014 - 12:46 pm

            The GOP won in 2010 because of Obamacare. Period. They were elected to be obstructionist. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you get to waive the constitution away. What is it with you people and laws that you don’t like so much?

          • #25 by Richard Warnick on April 15, 2014 - 1:17 pm

            In 2010 the GOP said jobs-jobs-jobs would be their first and only priority. They kept saying “jobs-jobs-jobs” just like that, over and over. We are still waiting for that Republican jobs bill four years later. But they don’t even want to extend unemployment insurance for the people who lost their jobs due to austerity budgeting.

          • #26 by brewski on April 15, 2014 - 2:19 pm

            So much for obstructionism:

            The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act or “JOBS Act”, is a law intended to encourage funding of United States small businesses by easing various securities regulations. It passed with bipartisan support, and was signed into law by President Barack Obama on April 5, 2012.

            Got any more false memes?

          • #27 by Richard Warnick on April 15, 2014 - 5:29 pm

            That was nothing more than an election-year gimmick that didn’t solve the unemployment problem, which I note is still severe. Austerity budgeting cost millions of jobs at a time American needed MORE jobs. Middle-class wages have remained flat. The top 1 Percent have reaped 90 percent of the economic gains since 2009. And House Republicans are still refusing to extend unemployment insurance.

          • #28 by brewski on April 15, 2014 - 6:19 pm

            I actually know about this law quite a bit and have been to several conferences on it. It is probably the best law that has passed in years. There was broad support by the WH, GOP and most Dems. If only healthcare reform had been negotiated in such terms we would all be better off. But the corrupt thugs just had to pass that shit-pie of pork that their bundlers demanded. So better laws get passed in split governments than in monopoly governments. That’s your lesson.

            Unemployment is still severe? What? Obama keeps telling us how good it is. Are you calling him a lair? You must be racist.

          • #29 by Richard Warnick on April 15, 2014 - 7:06 pm

            Thanks for making me look. My perceptions may be skewed by the fact that several people I know have been searching for jobs without success for many months. But the Calculated Risk very depressing graph indicates that FINALLY we are almost out of the hole that Bush’s Great Recession put us in. Of course, the graph doesn’t show how many high-paying jobs have been replaced by poverty-level jobs (answer: a lot).

            BTW I think it’s hilarious that brewski flatly denies the existence of GOP obstructionism and economic sabotage.

          • #30 by brewski on April 15, 2014 - 9:14 pm

            I did not flatly deny GOP obstructionism. Quite the opposite. I said the GOP was elected in 2010 to obstruct and the constitution was designed to encourage it.

            I find it hilarious that you can’t read.

          • #31 by Nathan Erkkila on April 16, 2014 - 1:17 pm

            The constitution was not built to obstruct the passing of laws. Infact it does the opposite by allowing the document to be expanded upon instead of ending up having outdated laws such as the 3/5ths compromise and ending up having the document replaced after a revolt. The constitution instead made it so that no person or group has too much power. Obviously that has failed ever since 2011.

          • #32 by brewski on April 16, 2014 - 1:27 pm

            It takes three bodies to pass a law. Three. Not two. Not one. Three. All three have to agree. Period. End of story. Go back to the 7th grade and read it again. So if the American people voted in favor of a divided government in 2010 then it is not for you to question that result. The American people voted for divided government. If they wanted every piece of crap passed without question then Pelosi would still be speaker. They didn’t. She isn’t.

          • #33 by cav on April 16, 2014 - 1:35 pm

            And these ‘mythical American people only want to play by the rules. That’s why, peace, gun control, money out of elections, etc have done so well.

            Maybe corporation shaped ‘people’, not your day-to-day, powerless Jolene.

  11. #34 by cav on April 14, 2014 - 4:21 pm

    Prison Planet! We’re ALL inmates nao!

  12. #35 by Larry Bergan on April 14, 2014 - 7:49 pm

    For years, we have had swat teams in full military gear invading LEGAL drug dispensaries, but we can’t arrest a very small group of ILLEGAL, gun toting idiots who want to start a second civil war over a cattle rancher, because a fake “news” channel imported from England by a tabloid maven tells them to.

    I’m sorry, I did my share of LSD in the 70′s, but I’ve never seen anything like this!

  13. #36 by Reno Gal on April 14, 2014 - 8:20 pm

    Where is the media on researching the family “roots” of Cliven Bundy? If he claims his family has been in that are being Mormons for 100 years+ then his family may have been involved in the Mountain Meadow Massacre and practiced polygamy. Actually polygamy is still being practiced in that region that straddles the Utah/Nevada line between Mesquite and St. George.

  14. #37 by Larry Bergan on April 14, 2014 - 8:46 pm

    Well, I don’t know about Cliven Bundy’s roots. I hate to even bring this up, but if the “Branch Davidians” were my next door neighbors, I would have been happy to have Janet Reno show up and do something about it.

    Where is Janet when you need her in Utah?

    Who’s in charge here?

  15. #38 by Reno Gal on April 14, 2014 - 9:00 pm

    Does anybody know if Cliven Bundy owes the state of Nevada for his annual Head Tax (tax on each head of cattle)? That would be interesting.
    http://agri.nv.gov/Animals/Livestock/About/

  16. #39 by Larry Bergan on April 14, 2014 - 9:25 pm

    I’ll bet you anything, those militia guns weren’t even loaded, and the feds were in on the joke.

    Yes! Let’s go after this hokey farmer for not paying his taxes. That’s how they used to go after pot smokers, before they used the media to rile up the masses and ignore the constitution.

    • #40 by cav on April 14, 2014 - 10:19 pm

      If yer ever f*cking sheep in the Southran Nevada Desert, these guys are without doubt spying on you. Easily mistaken for sagebrush, especially between the ears.

      • #41 by Larry Bergan on April 14, 2014 - 10:59 pm

        cav:

        I think you’re mistaking sagebrush for tumbleweeds, but who am I to correct you?

  17. #42 by Reno Gal on April 14, 2014 - 9:43 pm

    Interesting family history related to the Bundy Ranch bunch. Mr. Bundy’s family in the maternal side were polygamists and one of his relatives was involved in the Mountain Meadow Massacre: Dudley Leavitt.

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

  18. #43 by Larry Bergan on April 14, 2014 - 9:59 pm

    Believe it or not, I was about to comment on Janet Reno’s brave actions before “Reno Gal” showed up.

    Is Gal really your last name Reno?

    Had to ask.

  19. #45 by Nathan Erkkila on April 16, 2014 - 2:28 pm

    brewski :

    It takes three bodies to pass a law. Three. Not two. Not one. Three. All three have to agree. Period. End of story. Go back to the 7th grade and read it again. So if the American people voted in favor of a divided government in 2010 then it is not for you to question that result. The American people voted for divided government. If they wanted every piece of crap passed without question then Pelosi would still be speaker. They didn’t. She isn’t.

    It actually takes 2 to make a law, 3 if you consider a chamber as one and one can rule it unconstitutional if it contradicts the said constitution. But that is a measure to make sure that one group doesn’t have a stranglehold on the government. Historically, laws have been passed all the time. If there was a problem, they would do something about it. It’s this stupid thing called “Logic.” Nowadays, it’s so hard to pass a bill, even lobbying groups are having problems and losing money because even their influence can’t get a bill passed. The constitution was made to limit power, but that said power didn’t account for sabotage because the founding fathers couldn’t predict that immature republican manchildren would throw a fit because they lost the presidential election twice.

    • #46 by brewski on April 16, 2014 - 3:51 pm

      Bodies = House + Senate + Executive
      Three.

      As for “logic”, the rest of your post didn’t exhibit any.

      • #47 by cav on April 16, 2014 - 6:25 pm

        Rumor has it that oftentimes the actual crafting of ‘legislation’ is done by the industry hoping to benefit from self-same legislation. So add ONE to that ‘bodies’ mix.

        And further rumor-mongering suggests that those powerful senators and congress-critters (gods among us) equally as often cannot find the time to actually read the proposed legislation before either thumbing it UP or down – depending on the mood of the moment and size of the check accompanying the bills. Consider taking away ONE from that bodies mix.

        Then…

        Profit.

  20. #48 by cav on April 16, 2014 - 2:48 pm

    I would suggest that, in this globalized sphere we’ve conjured up for ourselves, the U. S. Congress can tie itself in knots blocking each and every bit of proposed legislation (for good reasons or bad), and the biggest result will be (and has been), that the giant global corporations, who used to find ownership of the U. S. Government advantageous, have had to create work-arounds that put the ‘obstruction’ in the shitter where it no longer impedes their direction. That’s where the U. S. Government is at present.

  21. #50 by Larry Bergan on April 16, 2014 - 7:55 pm

    cav:

    Thanks for providing the link to a very interesting and pertinent conversation about the evolution of capitalism.

    I really hated to record Paul Krugman’s appearance and upload it to my little YouTube page, because I’m not worthy and I’m not sure if it’s allowed, but I don’t think anybody’s going to be looking for it on a blog about Cliven Bundy.

    He starts out by apologizing to fellow Nobel Prize winner, (Joseph Stiglitz), for interrupting his presentation which had to be kept very short, by nudging him not to try to explain what he was going to try to explain. It was a great moment, because his colleague laughed along with him. I wish I had started recording sooner.

    But here’s Krugman’s short take, and he’s the expert at keeping economic things succinct.

  22. #51 by cav on April 16, 2014 - 8:24 pm

    Thank you too Larry.

  23. #52 by Larry Bergan on April 16, 2014 - 9:39 pm

    You might say that Paul Krugman is the Carl Sagan of economics.

    My opinion.

    • #53 by brewski on April 16, 2014 - 9:48 pm

      Paul Krugman is the Sarah Palin of economics.

      • #54 by Larry Bergan on April 16, 2014 - 10:05 pm

        Stay down on the ranch brewski. The internet isn’t in your purview.

        Get a gun.

      • #55 by cav on April 16, 2014 - 10:23 pm

        Billions and billions of brewskis bluggering.

  24. #56 by brewski on April 16, 2014 - 10:43 pm

    Paul Krugman is going to be paid $25,000 per month for a non-teaching, non-supervisory position at College of the City of New York.

    Also included is a travel allowance and a graduate assistant to do all his work for him.

    And this is the guy who is lecturing us about fairness?

    Facts:
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1112846-4-9-14-mr10634-res.html#document/p3

  25. #57 by Larry Bergan on April 16, 2014 - 11:23 pm

    Wow!

    The man they call brewski has access to Paul Krugman’s E-mails and he comments on OUR blog…

    PLUS…

    brewski proclaims that Paul Krugman makes a fraction of what Rush – hillbilly heroin – Limbaugh makes in a day, in a year.

    Impressive!

  26. #59 by Richard Warnick on April 17, 2014 - 7:34 am

    Janet Reno put us back on topic, linking to a concise and interesting piece about the Property Clause and other relevant points in constitutional law. Some of this also applies to the bizarre politics of Utah, where our legislature claims to own all the public lands in the state in contradiction to the U.S. and Utah Constitutions.

    Of course brewski will quickly point out that Justin McAffee isn’t a constitutional lawyer. Which is irrelevant because none of this is rocket science.

  27. #60 by Richard Warnick on April 17, 2014 - 7:47 am

    If you have time, watch Rachel Maddow’s 26-minute summary of the Cliven Bundy madness. The insanity of the so-called “Sagebrush Rebellion” is still with us in Utah, too.

    Rachel notes that ordinarily you don’t get to point loaded firearms at the police and live to tell about it – what’s different about this time?

    • #62 by brewski on April 18, 2014 - 2:57 pm

      I read the “story” and looked for evidence that Bundy is a pampered millionaire and I found none. Or is this just another lie from you people? What is wrong with you people that you have such a hard time with such simple concepts like facts and truth? Is it really that hard for you or can’t you help yourself?

      I will wait for the evidence…..

      • #63 by Richard Warnick on April 19, 2014 - 12:02 pm

        I’ve never heard of a public land rancher who was not a millionaire. There is a simple explanation. The Taylor Grazing Act requires the holder of a federal grazing permit to own “base property” that’s big enough to maintain all his animals on. That usually means a million-dollar-plus ranch at today’s real estate prices.

        Cliven Bundy’s 900+ head of cattle by themselves are worth a half million dollars. If his base property is worth $500,000 then he’s a millionaire. Of course, he OWES the BLM over $1 million…

        • #64 by brewski on April 19, 2014 - 3:23 pm

          That is your speculation, but of course, the looney lefty article provided no such evidence. What is wrong with you people?

        • #65 by Richard Warnick on April 19, 2014 - 3:30 pm

          You call it “speculation.” Find me a non-millionaire rancher who has a public land grazing permit. Our western welfare ranchers are all members of the 1 Percent.

        • #66 by Reno Gal on April 19, 2014 - 3:42 pm

          Mr. Bundy most certainly is a millionaire.

          • #67 by brewski on April 19, 2014 - 6:49 pm

            Certainly?

            Got evidence or do you just like spouting off with no source or data, at all?

  28. #68 by Larry Bergan on April 19, 2014 - 12:50 am

    Harry Reid stands up, but I doubt you’ll see it on the alphabet channel “news”.

    Watch:

    Looks like he may have lost some sleep, but who wouldn’t?

  29. #69 by Larry Bergan on April 19, 2014 - 7:46 am

    Can Americans agree?

    Is what happened at Cliven Bundy’s “ranch”, domestic terrorism? Was the Oklahoma bombing, domestic terrorism?

    These are questions. I’m waiting for answers.

    • #70 by Richard Warnick on April 19, 2014 - 12:06 pm

      Nothing happened because the BLM backed off, even releasing the 400 head of cattle they had already rounded up. Sean Hannity was rooting for Waco/Ruby Ridge, but he was disappointed because the feds showed restraint.

      All the BLM has to do is place a lien on Bundy’s cows and he won’t be able to sell them. Whether that will resolve this , who knows? They guy is obviously beyond stubborn and he has gotten away with free grazing on our public lands for 20 years now.

      • #71 by Larry Bergan on April 19, 2014 - 12:37 pm

        Seems like rounding up 400 cattle and bringing them back is easier then lassoing a stubborn mule.

        If the Democrats could be that stubborn, we’d have something.

        I love what Harry Reid said!

  30. #72 by Reno Gal on April 19, 2014 - 3:42 pm

    Mr. Cliven Bundy is also a melon farmer. Only he farms on his own land instead of making a profit off the public’s land.

  31. #75 by Larry Bergan on April 20, 2014 - 2:57 pm

    When you think about the republican party, think about Ted Nugent. Somebody who crapped and peed his pant for two weeks to get out of serving in Viet Nam and purports to love the soldiers.

  32. #76 by Richard Warnick on April 20, 2014 - 10:05 pm

    Lawless Nevada Rancher Is Actually Getting An Amazing Deal From The Federal Government

    Grazing fees are set by Congress at $1.35 a month for a cow and a calf, well below the market rate for private range. Federal land livestock grazing programs cost $144 million/year to run but collect only $21 million annually in fees paid by ranchers.

    • #77 by brewski on April 20, 2014 - 10:16 pm

      Simple answer. Sell rangeland at auction. No reason for the Federal government to continue to own land which has no special uniqueness. No need for any “amazing deals”. Get the government out of the rangeland leasing business.

    • #78 by Richard Warnick on April 21, 2014 - 10:27 am

      The reason the Sagebrush Rebellion is a joke is because nobody, not a state government or a private owner, actually wants to bear the cost of owning and managing the public lands. If you offered to give it away for free they wouldn’t take it. It WAS free in the 19th Century and they didn’t take it!

      Greedy people and corporations want to privatize the resources, not the land itself.

      But I agree that the federal government ought to get out of the grazing business. Most people would rather see wild animals on our land than cows and sheep. Approximately 98 percent of livestock graze on private property. There’s no reason to subsidize millionaire ranchers like Bundy on our public lands.

      • #79 by brewski on April 21, 2014 - 11:16 am

        I know people who graze cattle on huge tracts of land near Kenosh and other areas in Utah. There is definitely a private market for that kind of rangeland.

        I agree that Bundy is totally in the wrong legally and what he says and does makes no sense. But should we be surprised by such lawlessness?

        Lawlessness begets lawlessness. Congress exempts themselves from laws. The President ignores his own laws. The AG tells state AG’s not to enforce the law. If you breed a culture of lawlessness then what do you expect?

        ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,”

        • #80 by Richard Warnick on April 21, 2014 - 11:44 am

          Of course, the good grazing and agricultural land from the public domain was privatized long ago. The BLM (formerly the General Land Office) retained what nobody wanted. It’s marginal rangeland, and most of it should not be open to grazing livestock.

          As for lawlessness, I actually agree with you in principle although we might disagree on specifics. Bundy, however, has been refusing to pay grazing fees for 20 years, and his theory that the federal government has no authority over him dates back to the 1840s Mormon migration.

          • #81 by brewski on April 21, 2014 - 12:39 pm

            There are government owned parcels of land all over the place which private owners would love to get their hands on, but the government owns them due to various historical accidents. I know for a fact there are government owned parcels surrounded on 4 sides by private landowners in the middle of ski resorts and other prime development land, including rangeland. Sure, most of it is crap land. But a lot of it is not. A whole lot of it is just sitting there for no reason other than history.
            In fact, the Feds use these parcels all the time for “swaps” so they can trade those government owned parcels for private parcels elsewhere where they want. Much of the base area of Snow Basin is a good example. Deer Valley has a lot of government owned land inside the resort and surrounded by condos on 4 sides. The feds have used these pieces as bartering chips to get some other concession they want. So is it incorrect to say that all good government land has been sold off.

          • #82 by Richard Warnick on April 21, 2014 - 9:56 pm

            Sure, if you want to talk about tiny parcels there is a legal mechanism for administrative land exchanges in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Beyond that, the Property Clause in the U.S. Constitution gives Congress wide powers over public lands.

            Some years ago there was a well-connected property owner in Hyde Park, Utah who was illegally using national forest land that was inside a wilderness area as if it was his private property. So then-Rep. Jim Hansen wrote legislation to give the guy five acres of our land for free, and subtract it from the wilderness and the National Forest System. Congress passed it, and it became law. Which makes me wonder if I too can get five acres without paying for it. ;-)

            Bundy and his band of outlaws are after 600,000 acres of our land. Gov. Herbert and his band of outlaws want to steal 30 million acres! There is a significant difference in scale.

          • #83 by brewski on April 22, 2014 - 7:22 am

            So you are retracting your sentence “The BLM (formerly the General Land Office) retained what nobody wanted.”?

          • #84 by Richard Warnick on April 22, 2014 - 7:36 am

            No. When public lands were free for the taking, the good agricultural land was taken and privatized already. You’re talking about something else.

          • #85 by brewski on April 22, 2014 - 7:45 am

            OK, so you admit that the BLM owns tons of valuable land for no reason other than so that they might be able to do swaps in the future.

            As for agricultural land, while it is true that a lot of BLM agricultural land is crap. There is plenty of it which is not. There is quite a lot of productive agricultural land all along I-15 that if auctioned today would be bought.

          • #86 by Richard Warnick on April 22, 2014 - 8:55 pm

            If some tiny little parcels have acquired value, then by all means swap them out. There are private lands that sit in the middle of wilderness areas and national parks that are waay over-valued because of proximity to federal land.

            I still say that if you offered Bundy actual ownership of “his ranch,” as he calls it, at no cost, he would not take it. Because then he would have to pay taxes on it and pay all the costs of management.

          • #87 by brewski on April 22, 2014 - 10:47 pm

            Thank you for being incredibly non-responsive.

          • #88 by Reno Gal on April 23, 2014 - 10:50 pm

  33. #89 by cav on April 22, 2014 - 9:16 am

    We”ve seen lands over-grazed, clear-cut, stripped, etc into a dead state.

    The question is and has been for a goodly long time: what is the best stewardship, who are the best stewards, even in the face of ‘My Free Speech’?

    Those who cannot by virtue of their position at the head of some corporate board whose task it is to extract ALL of any value from any plot in their purview are wrong for THAT job.

    Which is why ‘the government’ is involved. With the assumption they’ll be guided by the expertise and caring that the citizenry, dependent on the commons, might demand.

  34. #91 by cav on April 22, 2014 - 9:19 am

    edit

  35. #92 by Anonymous on April 22, 2014 - 10:49 am

    The feds shouldn’t own any land. If you want to peruse the worst environmental disasters you can see them all of federal or states lands licensed out, often to foreign corporations who are unattachable for the damages.

    As well if you are to entitle the feds to use our own tax dollars to buy lands that are privately held the inevitable will occur, the people will wind up landless in the country their forefathers built…paraphrased Jefferson quote.

    for an excellent example of this truth check out Vermont, small it may be, but the feds own very little of it, about 90% of the land is privately owned. About the cleanest state with no additions to the giant messes dumped upon states by polluters granted federal licenses. Act 250 in Vermont set the tone over 35 years ago or so.

    The west is the federal dumping ground, for toxic waste, playing with nuclear bombs and other worthless items. ( actually worse than worthless), and then kickback assignments which is about to be revealed surely to the dismay of Reid, and his criminal band of cronies.

    Waking up…it isn’t just for babies.

    The answer to your question is people who own lands are the best stewards, and that is proven over and over again, it is when the government owns land, or lands are held in common, that they are destroyed (see: tragedy of the commons) No one wishes to preside over a depreciating asset if they own it privately. Plain simple facts.

  36. #93 by Richard Warnick on April 23, 2014 - 7:14 am

    Is Cliven Bundy the New NRA Poster Child?

    If a “patriot” is someone who doesn’t recognize the government established by the U.S. Constitution, and who violently confronts it, then what exactly is a traitor?

  37. #94 by cav on April 23, 2014 - 2:05 pm

    Now, if the Paiutes weren’t so ‘whiteness’ deficient, they’d certainly have ancestral claims to the Nevada land that Bundy is grazing. Not some white family who showed up much, much later to take advantage of Manifest Destiny’s indigenous genocide.

    And word is – though the link has mysteriously disappeared – that The Bundys’ claims don’t go back anywhere near as far as he claims, but only to the 1940s

    • #100 by Larry Bergan on April 30, 2014 - 6:17 pm

      Yeah.

      I guess you could call that “a situation”

      If some guy with a gun stopped me to verify I lived in the area, I can guarantee there would be a situation. Unarmed on my behalf, but a situation nonetheless.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: