Thread: Bundy Ranch

US senator joins critics of federal cattle roundup
April 9, 2014 7:22 PM ET.
By KEN RITTER

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A Republican U.S. senator added his voice Wednesday to critics of a federal cattle roundup fought by a Nevada rancher who claims longstanding grazing rights on remote public rangeland about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas

Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada said he told new U.S. Bureau of Land Management chief Neil Kornze in Washington, D.C., that law-abiding Nevadans shouldn't be penalized by an "overreaching" agency.

Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval pointed earlier to what he called "an atmosphere of intimidation," resulting from the roundup and said he believed constitutional rights were being trampled.

Heller said he heard from local officials, residents and the Nevada Cattlemen's Association and remained "extremely concerned about the size of this closure and disruptions with access to roads, water and electrical infrastructure."

The federal government has shut down a scenic but windswept area about half the size of the state of Delaware to round up about 900 cattle it says are trespassing.

BLM and National Park Service officials didn't immediately respond Wednesday to criticisms of the roundup that started Saturday and prompted the closure of the 1,200-square-mile area through May 12.

It's seen by some as the latest battle over state and federal land rights in a state with deep roots in those disputes, including the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and '80s. Nevada, where various federal agencies manage or control more than 80 percent of the land, is among several Western states where ranchers have challenged federal land ownership.

The current showdown pits rancher Cliven Bundy's claims of ancestral rights to graze his cows on open range against federal claims that the cattle are trespassing on arid and fragile habitat of the endangered desert tortoise. Bundy has said he owns about 500 branded cattle on the range and claims the other 400 targeted for roundup are his, too.

BLM and Park Service officials see threats in Bundy's promise to "do whatever it takes" to protect his property and in his characterization that the dispute constitutes a "range war."

U.S. Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, noted that BLM officials were enforcing federal court orders that Bundy remove his animals. The legal battle has been waged for decades.

Kornze, the new BLM chief, is familiar with the area. He's a natural resource manager who grew up in Elko, Nev., and served previously as a senior adviser to Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid aide Kristen Orthman said her boss "hopes the trespassing cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved."

Sandoval, a former state attorney general and federal district court judge, weighed in late Tuesday after several days of media coverage about blocked roads and armed federal agents fanning out around Bundy's ranch while contractors using helicopters and vehicles herd cows into portable pens in rugged and remote areas.

"No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans," the governor said in a statement.

Sandoval said he was most offended that armed federal officials have tried to corral people protesting the roundup into a fenced-in "First Amendment area" south of the resort city of Mesquite.

The site "tramples upon Nevadans' fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution" and should be dismantled, Sandoval said.

BLM spokeswoman Kirsten Cannon and Park Service spokeswoman Christie Vanover have told reporters during daily conference calls that free-speech areas were established so agents could ensure the safety of contractors, protesters, the rancher and his supporters.

The dispute between Bundy and the federal government dates to 1993, when land managers cited concern for the federally protected tortoise and capped his herd at 150 animals on a 250-square-mile rangeland allotment. Officials later revoked Bundy's grazing rights completely.

Cannon said Bundy racked up more than $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees over the years while disregarding several court orders to remove his animals.

Bundy estimates the unpaid fees total about $300,000. He notes that his Mormon family's 19th century melon farm and ranch operation in surrounding areas predates creation of the BLM in 1946.

Since the cattle roundup began Saturday, there has been one arrest.

Bundy's son, Dave Bundy, 37, was taken into custody Sunday as he watched the roundup from State Route 170. He was released Monday with bruises on his face and a citation accusing him of refusing to disperse and resisting arrest. A court date has not been set.

His mother, Carol Bundy, alleged that her son was roughed up by BLM police.

Meanwhile, federal officials say 277 cows have been collected. Cannon said state veterinarian and brand identification officials will determine what becomes of the impounded cattle.

http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...ocid=ansmony11

Feds to Stand Down from Bundy Ranch in Nevada

By Gina Cassini on April 12, 2014

The Bureau of Land Management has announced it would not enforce a court order to remove Cliven Bundy’s cattle and was pulling out of the area., defusing the nearly week-long siege on the Nevada ranch.

The BLM made the announcement Saturday morning, a week after rangers started gathering the animals from land near Gold Butte.

The agency says it is “concerned about the safety of its employees and the public”. Earlier this week, BLM officers with attack dogs and supporters of the Bundy family were involved in a nasty confrontation. Cliven Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy, was tased twice by federal agents. A pregnant woman was also thrown to the ground by an officer.

This stand down order is happening with curious rapidity after a website exposed the possible inside dealing between Nevada Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, his son Rory, and a Chinese company in order to make a $5 billion deal for a massive solar farm on a portion of the Bundy Ranch.

Neither Reid’s office nor the BLM have responded to Top Right News for these charges at press time.

As tension increased, thousands of militia members from as far away as New Hampshire had descended on the Ranch to support the Bundy family and prevent another Ruby Ridge or Waco from occurring on their watch.

The situation became quite dramatic Friday night, as authorities disabled cellular towers near the siege, and the FAA ordered a no-fly zone over the area — presumably to prevent local news helicopters from getting close.

But this morning the sheer numbers of outside allies to the Bundys and the massive exposure of the situation and the Reid-China connection seems to have forced the BLMs hand.

Top Right News. has learned that the deal to end the gather was brokered by Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie.

According to sources, the BLM wants to proceed with the sale of the cattle already gathered during the roundup but is reportedly willing to share the revenue from the sale with Bundy. Sheriff Gillespie has been negotiating with Bundy behind the scenes for months reached a tentative agreement Friday night, though Bundy insisted the sheriff come to his ranch to finalize the arrangement face-to-face.

The two men meet Saturday to discuss the agreement prior to a public announcement.

In its statement, the BLM said its actions this past week were progress in enforcing two court orders to remove the trespassing cattle from public land.

The agency director also asked that everyone involved in the dispute remain peaceful and law-abiding.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=2453

HISTORY is being made today! BLM surrenders to armed Americans and releases all the Bundy family's cattle. BLM announces stand down and intent to exit the area. Huge armed standoff with Americans on horseback, blocking BLM vehicles and demanding the cattle! Mainstream media almost completely ignores history in the making

- Full report at Natural News: http://www.naturalnews.com/044695_BL...t_tyranny.html

FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH
Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!!
April 12, 2014

When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other.

Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property.

Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived.

Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service.

Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board.

Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.”

His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.”

Last hope for ranchers?

Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States.

Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution.

The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=nm”>Gila and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas.

Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water.

Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government.

In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights.

Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.”

Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co.

Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain.

Forest Service stepped in

When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes.

The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.”

The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment.

Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government.

Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations.

Problems from outset

Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985.

The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch.

The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement.

When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land.

Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s.

They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government.

They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land.

Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights.

(continues)

Ridding the West of ranchers

For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states.

Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus.

The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans.

Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor.Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government.

Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project.

Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives.

Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project.

The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land.

Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.”

The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights.

Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build.

He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back.

These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.c...ent-land-grab/

I still don't trust that the BLM will just walk away. I think they are going to wait till the Bundys are alone and strike, the pile of low life cowards that the government is. And if that does happen, there will be a civil war, Americans are sick and tired of this tyranny!

..

It is not over, they are regrouping and re-enforcing, they did not expect this reaction from the citizens.

..

Now onto the next farmer who was served papers on Saturday,,, http://www.americasfreedomfighters.c...ent-land-grab/

...

Part of the Problem.....it got very little coverage on national media.

EXCLUSIVE: The REAL Truth Behind Bundy Ranch Land-Grab in Nevada
http://www.occupycorporatism.com/hom...d-grab-nevada/

Endangered tortoise used as justification to assault Nevada rancher’s property rights.
Endangered tortoises face BLM euthanization “because that’s the sensible thing to do.”

Before Nevada Cattle Rancher Standoff, BLM Killed Hundreds of Endangered Desert Tortoises





(by Adam Salazar, Infowars.com) -- Months before the heated contention between the Bureau of Land Management and Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, purportedly over protecting an endangered species of desert tortoise, the BLM was euthanizing the tortoises in droves.

On Saturday, the BLM, with the help of helicopters, low-flying aircraft and hired cowboys, began rounding up Bundy’s cattle, and forbade him from interfering with the operation, as Bundy announced he was prepared to weather a full-on assault.

“My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed,” Bundy said.

The BLM says they’re moving in, not to encroach on the man’s property rights, but because Bundy didn’t pay “grazing fees,” which the Bureau has imposed on land developers “who disturb tortoise habitat on public land,” according to the Associated Press.

Throughout the housing boom in the 2000s, the Bureau was earning enough to fund the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center (DTCC) in southern Las Vegas, a habitat “created in 1991 to house wild desert tortoises removed from the path of development and to use those tortoises to aid recovery of the species.” Its operating budget was about $1 million per year.

But the recession that followed dwindled the number of developers, and in turn funds for the DTCC.

So, facing the prospect of shutting their doors, the DTCC began releasing healthier turtles into the wild, and euthanizing some of the sick ones.

From the AP, August 25, 2013: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...cs&ir=politics

Back at the conservation center, a large refrigerator labeled “carcass freezer” hummed in the desert sun as scientists examined the facility’s 1,400 inhabitants to find those hearty enough to release into the wild. Officials expect to euthanize more than half the animals in the coming months in preparation for closure at the end of 2014.

“It’s the lesser of two evils, but it’s still evil,” Roy Averill-Murray, tortoise recovery coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service desert, told the AP.

Averill-Murray estimated 50 to 60 percent of the facility’s 1,400 tortoises were stricken with disease and could not be housed near healthy tortoises. Others were “too feeble to survive,” according to the AP, and could not be adopted out.

“The ones that don’t get better and that are sick and suffering will probably be euthanized because that’s the sensible thing to do,” Allyson Walsh, associate director for the San Diego Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research, said.

News that the tortoises were going to be set free or killed spurred people around the world to contact the refuge in attempts to adopt death row tortoises, and donations began flowing in hopes to keep the DTCC afloat, but the BLM estimated it wouldn’t be enough to sustain it overall.

“Although it’s wonderful that people want to give money, it won’t change the outcome for the Desert Conservation Center,” BLM Communications Chief Erica Haspiel-Szlosek stated. “There just isn’t money to keep it going, nor is it really the best use of conservation funds.”

The tortoises’ average 100-year life span also doesn’t exactly make them the most ideal pets.

Despite the imminent closing of the DTCC’s doors due to lack of funding, the BLM has gone on to round up about 234 of rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle at gunpoint claiming they’re helping protect the tortoise and also claiming he owes them over $1 million in grazing fees.

At the same time, seizing and impounding all 908 of Bundy’s cattle would cost the government an estimated$3 million, a figure that would keep the DTCC thriving for another three years.

Interestingly, the BLM is also facing a lawsuit from various environmental groups suing on the grounds that the bureau “has failed to track the effects of a wide range of human activities in the California desert on the tortoise..”

All of this illustrates how the BLM’s dispute with Mr. Bundy has nothing to do with saving or protecting tortoises (most of which were given to the facility by people who owned them as pets, and which the BLM is either killing or releasing into the wild – animals raised in captivity don’t usually fare well in the wild) as they claim, and everything to do with making an example out of Mr. Bundy for having the gall to stand up for his property, bullying him into submission by brute force.

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines...sert-tortoises

Nevada Militia To Feds: ‘Control Our Borders, Not Our Ranchers’ - CBS Las Vegas


The rural Nevada showdown between federal government officials and militia members protecting rancher Cliven Bundy has evolved into a battle of government “tyranny,” with many newly arriving militiamen rolling in to draw a line in the dirt about 70 miles northeast of Las Vegas


LAS VEGAS (CBS LAS VEGAS/AP) — The rural Nevada showdown between federal government officials and militia members protecting rancher Cliven Bundy has evolved into a battle of government “tyranny,” with many newly arriving militiamen rolling in to draw a line in the dirt about 70 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Many with camouflage clothing and burly beards, the militiamen coming from as far as Montana are being welcomed by Bundy’s local family and friends who have already set up camp on the sun-scorched plot of land to protest the Bureau of Land Management’s controlling of the 150 miles of desert where Bundy says his family has ranched for decades – long before the BLM was created.

“They’re here to protect Cliven’s family and home,” Lynn Brown, one of Bundy’s daughters, told the Las Vegas Sun.

Tensions boiled over earlier this week, with a series of online videos showing agents using stun guns, German Shepherds, and reports that agents knocked one of Bundy’s daughters to the ground in attacks some are labeling “brutal.”

The standoff has mobilized Operation Mutual Aid, a national militia that draws members from California to Missouri, to “set up camp” to defend the property from what they say is a fight for freedom.

“This is a better education than being in school! I’m glad I brought you. I’m a good mom,” Ilona Ence, a 49-year-old mother from St. George and Bundy relative who brought her four teenage children to the ranch, told the Las Vegas Sun. “They’re learning about the Constitution.”

Ence’s teenage sons posted up a sign on the land voicing their opinion of what the federal government officials should be doing: “CONTROL OUR BORDERS! NOT OUR RANCHERS!”

Other protesters set up “Free Speech Zones” near the closed-off federal land. Another sign reads, “TYRANNY IS ALIVE” and “WHERE’S THE JUSTICE?”

Images of the forced cattle roundup on a rural Nevada range have sent ripples through the West, prompting elected officials in several states to weigh in, militia members to mobilize and federal land managers to reshape elements of the operation. Videos posted to YouTube and various conservative media outlets are equating the event to the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex. that left 76 dead in 1993.

Bureau of Land Management officials dismantled designated protest areas as the fight over Cliven Bundy’s cattle widened into a debate about states’ rights and federal land-use policy. Federal officials say Bundy has racked up more than $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees over the years while disregarding several court orders to remove his animals.

Nevada state Assemblywoman Michele Fiore said Friday that people are standing up for important land rights.

The Republican from Las Vegas says she’s horrified that BLM police used stun guns on one of Bundy’s sons during a Wednesday confrontation on a state highway.

Several Republican lawmakers from Arizona say they plan to travel to the site to protest what they call government heavy-handedness.

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04...KJcwA.facebook