EDITORIAL: Nevada rancher does not deserve praise or support

Posted 4/22/14

Not to mention facing criminal charges.

Those are obvious cases. You can’t use property, or take services, and then decline to pay for them. It’s just that simple.

That’s why we’re having a hard time understanding why people support …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

EDITORIAL: Nevada rancher does not deserve praise or support

Posted

If you moved into a vacant home that you didn’t own, and refused to leave it when ordered to do so, you’d be wrong.

If you didn’t pay your utility bill because you disagreed with a government policy, you’d be wrong. If you then threatened to shoot a cop who accompanied the utility worker who came to shut off your service, you’d be extremely wrong.

Not to mention facing criminal charges.

Those are obvious cases. You can’t use property, or take services, and then decline to pay for them. It’s just that simple.

That’s why we’re having a hard time understanding why people support Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. He has been grazing cattle on 90 miles of federally owned land, without a permit, for more than 20 years.

In addition, he has declined to pay the fees for the land his cattle have been using. Bundy admits he owes around $300,000; the feds claim the bill is more than $1 million.

Bundy and his two sons became media sensations two weeks ago when their long-running dispute with the Bureau of Land Management, which, in concert with the U.S. Forest Service, manages grazing on public lands in 16 western states, including both Nevada and Wyoming. It has issued 18,000 grazing permits on 157 million acres and those ranchers pay their bill.

The present fee is $1.35 per month for a cow-calf pair, a rate far, far below the price a rancher would pay to graze animals on privately held land.

The elder Bundy has said he does not recognize the authority of the United States government. To him, it simply does not legally exist. That’s his opinion, but it is far from reality.

He somehow believes the land belongs to Nevada, which reached territorial status in 1861 and was made a state in 1864. In the Nevada Constitution, the state expressly states that it “must disclaim all rights to unappropriated public land in Nevada” and designate them as federal land.

To this day, more than 80 percent of land in the state is owned by the federal government, including the land where the Bundys are running their cattle.

The family have kept cattle there since the mid-19th century, Cliven Bundy said. When the feds designated the desert tortoise as a threatened animal in 1990, and sought to end grazing in select areas including the land in question in 1993, a battle was joined with the Bundys.

It dragged on, with few noticing, for more than two decades. Meanwhile, the BLM sought a court order, which it obtained, to get the Bundy cattle off the land. The Bundys refused to budge.

The BLM seized the cattle two weeks ago, and that made national news. Soon, heavily armed militia members and others who despise the federal government were at the scene. The media and the public paid rapt attention.

On April 11-12, there was a very real threat of violence, sparked by federal officers who used a taser on one of Bundy’s sons and the family’s statements before and after that event. Cliven Bundy openly declared it a “range war.”

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed. The BLM returned the cattle and removed its personnel. It was better to allow someone to break the law than it was to risk bloodshed or the loss of life.

But that shouldn’t mean the Bundys have won. Many of their neighbors, who get permits and pay their fees, do not support them and are not pleased about armed people hunkered down in the area all because someone wants something for free.

The Nevada Cattlemen’s Association has not supported the rampant law-breaking. It issued a statement last week that expressed sympathy for the Bundys and said the government is at times too heavy-handed in its approach. We agree with that.

We applaud the Nevada cattlemen for this comment: “In accordance with the rule of law, we must use the system set forth in our Constitution to change those laws and regulations. Nevada Cattlemen’s Association does not condone actions that are outside the law in which citizens take the law into their own hands.”

We don’t think anyone should.

The BLM should have realized it could not force the issue. Bringing in armed federal agents only feeds the fear and paranoia that drives such anti-government behavior. It needs to come up with a smarter, safer way to end this matter, removing the trespassing cattle from the federal land and the Bundys and their armed allies from the media glare.

Comments