Bundy standoff
The Bundy standoff is a 20-year legal dispute between the United
States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and cattle rancher Cliven Bundy
in southeastern Nevada over unpaid grazing fees that eventually
developed into an armed confrontation between protesters and law
enforcement. The dispute began in 1993, when grazing rules were
changed and Bundy refused to pay the new bills to the US government
for his cattle grazing on BLM-administered lands near Bunkerville,
Nevada. In 1998, Bundy was prohibited from grazing his cattle on the
Bunkerville Allotment by the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada in United States v. Bundy.[2] In July 2013, the BLM
complaint was supplemented when federal judge Lloyd D. George ordered
that Bundy refrain from trespass on federally administered land in the
Gold Butte, Nevada, area in Clark County.[3]
In early April 2014, after years of violations of multiple court
orders, the BLM began rounding up all cattle that were trespassing on
the land. They were confronted by unarmed protesters supporting Bundy
who were blocking a local bridge. A group of the Bundy's family
supporters, some armed, confronted the BLM and requested the cattle
back. After negotiations under the same bridge, the BLM eventually
backed down and returned the cattle.
After making remarks about black people maybe being better off as
slaves than under government subsidies, Bundy was repudiated by
Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that had previously
supported him, forcefully condemning his remarks as racist.
Contents
1 Background
1.1 Cliven Bundy's worldviews
2 Grazing on US federal rangeland in Nevada
2.1 Federal rangeland laws
2.2 Federal rangeland grazing regulations
2.3 Federal rangeland regulatory changes in 1993
3 United States v. Bundy
3.1 Legal actions, 1998–2012
3.2 Legal actions, 2012–14
4 Court judgments against Bundy's claims
4.1 Claim of inherited grazing rights
4.2 Claim on states' rights
5 Bureau of Land Management actions
6 Confrontations and protests in April 2014
6.1 April 10 confrontations and protests
6.2 April 12 confrontations and suspension of roundup
7 Aftermath
7.1 Reactions by public officials
7.2 Reactions by media personalities
7.3 Reactions by Bundy and supporters
7.4 Legal and rule-of-law reactions
7.5 Political commentary reactions
7.6 Environmentalist reactions
7.7 Wild horse rangeland reactions
8 Bundy family background
8.1 Leavitt family connection
8.2 Abbott family connection
9 Similar federal grazing legal cases
9.1 United States v. Gardner
9.2 United States v. Hage
10 Notes
11 References
12 External links
Background[edit]
Some US government land in Nevada is managed by the BLM, which allows
stock grazing in some areas under certain permits and restrictions.[4]
Bundy grazed his cattle legally on an area of public domain land near
Bunkerville prior to 1993, but when grazing rules were changed in the
Gold Butte, Nevada, area in Clark County, he became locked in legal
battles with the US government.[5]
Bundy has since accumulated over $1 million of unpaid grazing fees and
court-ordered fines.[6][7]
Cliven Bundy's worldviews[edit]
Bundy does not recognize and will not submit to federal power,
claiming that he does not recognize or obey federal laws and denying
the legitimacy of the federal government: "I believe this is a
sovereign state of Nevada. And I abide by all Nevada state laws. But I
don't recognize the United States government as even existing."[8][9]
Bundy also denies the legitimacy of the federal court system, and
filed a motion to dismiss the BLM legal case by claiming the federal
courts have no jurisdiction because he is a "citizen of Nevada".[8]
Bundy also believes that grazing land in Nevada belongs only to
Nevada, not the federal government.[10] This is a contradiction,
because the Constitution contains the Property Clause and Enclave
Clause, both of which empower the federal government to manage and
control land within individual states.[citation needed]
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks anti-government and hate
groups, says that Bundy's views are closely aligned with the those of
the Posse Comitatus, who believe that county and state authority are
above the federal government, and that Jewish cabals of bankers
control national power. They also assert that self-ascribed "patriot"
groups are focused on secession, nullification, state sovereignty, and
the primacy of the 10th Amendment, and their views overlap with other
groups organized around hate.[11][12]
On April 19, 2014, Bundy spoke about witnessing a civil disturbance,
the 1965 Watts riots.[13] Bundy described his views about unhappiness
at that time and criticized what he saw as government interference and
its influence on African Americans. He recalled later seeing a public
housing project in North Las Vegas where some of the older residents
and the kids sat on the porch. He said:
“ I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro. They
didn't have nothing to do ... they were basically on government
subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they
put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick
cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves,
picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they
better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom.
They got less freedom.[6][14] ”
In reference to Mexican people, he said,
“ [t]hey come over here against our Constitution and cross our
borders, but they're here, and they're people ... Don't tell me they
don't work, and don't tell me they don't pay taxes. And don't tell me
they don't have better family structures than most of us white
people.[13] ”
Ben Swann questioned whether Bundy's "inarticulate" comments were
given a "truthful representation", and published a 3 minute 13 second
video segment that includes the comments preceding, and following, the
abbreviated quote published by Adam Nagourney of the New York
Times.[13][6]
Ranking Democratic Senator Harry Reid condemned the Bundy statement
and said Bundy had "revealed himself to be a hateful racist. But by
denigrating people who work hard and play by the rules while he
mooches off public land he also revealed himself to be a hypocrite...
It is the height of irresponsibility for any individual or entity in a
position of power or influence to glorify or romanticize such a
dangerous individual... For their part, national Republican leaders
could help show a united front against this kind of hateful, dangerous
extremism by publicly condemning Bundy."[15][16]
A number of Republican politicians and talk-show hosts who previously
had supported Bundy forcefully condemned his remarks as
racist,[17][18] including junior Nevada Senator Dean Heller, who
previously had described Bundy defenders as "patriots", and Senator
Rand Paul, who had also previously supported Bundy.[19][20] On April
23, Heller said through a spokesperson that he "completely disagrees
with Mr. Bundy's appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in
the most strenuous way".[6] Other conservative politicians who
distanced themselves from Bundy included Michael Steele and Reince
Priebus.[21]
Sean Hannity, who supported Bundy in his Fox News talk show,
interviewed Bundy several times,[22][23] and called him "a friend and
frequent guest of the show",[24] said that Bundy's remarks were
"beyond repugnant". Glenn Beck criticized Bundy's comments, saying
that the rancher is "unhinged from reality" and urged his supporters
to "end your relationship" with him.[25][26]
In followup interviews, Bundy defended his comments by saying "the
statement was right",[27] and reiterated his beliefs that blacks had
better family structure and were happier as slaves, but insisted that
his comments were born out of sympathy and not out of racism.[28]
Grazing on US federal rangeland in Nevada[edit]
Map of all federally owned land in the United States. The area in
yellow represents land managed by the Bureau of Land Management
Rangelands are distinguished from pasture lands because they grow
primarily native vegetation, rather than plants established by humans.
In 1848, the United States conquered a large expanse of land from
Mexico in what is now the southwestern region of the United States,
known as the Mexican Cession in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The
Nevada Territory, which was partitioned from the Utah Territory,
became a state in 1864 and later included the Bunkerville Allotment.
Since then, the US government has continuously owned land in
Nevada.[2][29] Federal rangelands in Nevada are managed principally by
either the Bureau of Land Management or the United States Forest
Service. Ranchers may lease or obtain permits to use portions of this
public rangeland and pay a fee based on the number and type of
livestock and the period for which they are on the land.[30]
Federal rangeland laws[edit]
Laws that apply to management of public land grazing include the
Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of
1978,[30] and the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.
In 1933, Edward T. Taylor, a Representative from Colorado,
reintroduced a bill to set up the grazing bureau or service in the
Department of Interior to administer range lands.[31] The Taylor
Grazing Act of 1934[a] regulates grazing on public lands (excluding in
Alaska) to improve rangeland conditions. The Grazing Service was
merged with the General Land Office in 1946 to form the Bureau of Land
Management.[citation needed]
Grazing was never established as a legal right in the United
States,[32] and the Taylor Grazing Act authorized only the permitted
use of lands designated as available for livestock grazing while
specifying that grazing permits "convey no right, title, or interest"
to such lands.[33]
Case studies by Phillip O. Foss on the role of local grazing advisory
committees established by the Taylor Grazing Act found that such
committees were often dominated by the same ranchers and cattlemen
whose activities were supposed to be regulated,[34][35][36] raising
questions as to whether grazing regulation had been "captured" by the
regulated interests.[citation needed]
Federal rangeland grazing regulations[edit]
The Bureau of Land Management manages about 167 million acres (676,000
km²) of publicly owned rangeland in the United States, with the United
States Forest Service managing approximately 95 million acres (380,000
km²) more.[30] Permittees on federal rangelands are required to pay a
fee, and the permit cannot exceed ten years but is renewable. Permits
can be revoked because of severe drought or other natural disasters
that deplete grazing lands.[citation needed]
Any US citizen or validly licensed business can apply for a BLM
grazing permit or lease. To do so, one must either buy or control
private property (known as "base property") that has been legally
recognized by the Bureau as having preference for the use of public
land grazing privileges, or acquire property that has the capability
to serve as base property and then apply to the BLM to transfer the
preference for grazing privileges from an existing base property to
the acquired property (which would become the new "base
property").[30]
Federal rangeland regulatory changes in 1993[edit]
The grazing rules for the land went through changes over the years,
including some updated grazing rules in 1993 in the Gold Butte and
Bunkerville land area of Nevada. Among other issues, the 1993 rules
were changed to protect the vulnerable desert tortoise.[citation
needed] Other rules included limits to the number of cattle allowed in
certain areas[37] to protect the lands from the severe overgrazing
caused by less regulation in previous years and to help the land
recover from recent wildfires.[38] Currently there are no grazing
permits on the Bunkerville allotment, and any livestock on that land
are there illegally.[citation needed] Bundy owns land previously
considered base property and paid AUM animal unit permit fees prior to
1993 for grazing on the nearby Bunkerville Allotment area.[citation
needed] Bundy asserts that the terms of land use changes in 1993
reduced his allowed cattle by 90%, capping it to about 150
animals.[citation needed]
United States v. Bundy[edit]
United States v Bundy
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Full case name UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CLIVEN BUNDY, Defendant.
Date decided July 9, 2013 (2013-07-09) and October 8, 2013 (2013-10-08)
Transcripts May 2012 -Complaint
June 2012 - Answer by Defendant
Dec 2012 - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
January 2013 - Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment and Defendant's Cross-Motion to Dismiss
February 2013 - Plaintiff's Reply in Further Support of its Summary
Judgment Motion and in Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion to
Dismiss
February 2013 - Defendant's Reply in Further Support of His
Cross-Motion to Dismiss; Evidentiary Hearing Requested
February 2013 - Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Request for
Evidentiary Hearing
February 2013 - Defendant's Reply in Further Support of Request for
Evidentiary Hearing
July 2013 - Court Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment and Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as Moot
Oct 2013 Court Order
Judge sitting 1. Lloyd D. George
2. Larry R. Hicks
Prosecutor(s) 1. Ignacia S. Moreno
2.Daniel G. Bogden
Defendant(s) Cliven Bundy, pro se
Case history
Prior actions 1998, order by same court
Case holding
Bundy permanently enjoined from trespass, Bundy shall remove livestock
within 45 days, US entitled to seize and impound cattle.
The case of United States v. Bundy played out over many years in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada. It involved
court orders, injunctions, and notices. Bundy argued pro se that the
land belongs to the state, while the Bureau of Land Management was
represented by the US Attorney's Office for Nevada and the United
States Department of Justice.[7] The court ruled that the land on
which Bundy was grazing his cattle was indeed owned by the federal
government, that he had not been paying to use it as he should have
been, that Bundy and his cattle were trespassing, and that the
government had the right to enforce the injunctions against trespass.
The court found that Bundy repeatedly violated the court orders and
continued to have his cattle trespass.[7][39]
Legal actions, 1998–2012[edit]
United States v. Bundy "arose out of Bundy’s unauthorized grazing of
his livestock on property owned by the United States and administered
by the Department of the Interior through the BLM and the National
Park Service."[citation needed] On November 3, 1998, United States
District Judge (USDJ) Johnnie B. Rawlinson "permanently enjoined
(Bundy) from grazing his livestock within the Bunkerville Allotment
('The Allotment'), and shall remove his livestock from this allotment
on or before November 30, 1998... (and) ordered that Plaintiff shall
be entitled to trespass damages from Bundy in the amount of $200.00
per day per head for any livestock belonging to Bundy remaining on the
Bunkerville Allotment after November 30, 1998."[2] Rawlinson stated
that "[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing
this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy’s
livestock."[2] This sentence was restated on October 8, 2013, by USDJ
Larry R. Hicks.[39] On September 17, 1999, after Bundy failed to
comply with the court's earlier order(s), the court issued another
order directing Bundy to comply with the 1998 permanent injunction and
modifying the trespass damages owed.[7][39][40]
Legal actions, 2012–14[edit]
The cattle expanded into additional public lands over the years. In
May 2012, the United States again initiated United States v. Bundy,[b]
seeking relief for Bundy's trespassing on a new set of additional
lands not covered by the original 1998 ruling: "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."[3] On December 21, 2012,
the United States moved for summary judgment in this new
case.[citation needed] This motion was granted in an order signed by
Senior USDJ Lloyd D. George on July 9, 2013.[3] The George court
ruling permanently enjoined Bundy and his cattle from trespassing on
the New Trespass Lands.[3] Another order was issued by the Hicks Court
on October 8, 2013, which stemmed from the earlier 1998 civil action
against Bundy. The orders allow the United States to "protect the ...
Bunkerville Allotment against ... trespass" by Bundy and "to seize and
remove to impound" any of his cattle that remain in those areas.[39]
Court judgments against Bundy's claims[edit]
The Cliven Bundy family owns a 160-acre farm southwest of Bunkerville,
which serves as headquarters and base property for the family's
ranching operation on nearby public domain lands. The farm property
was purchased by the Bundy family in 1948, after they moved from
Bundyville, Arizona, and Bundy has claimed that he inherited
"pre-emptive grazing rights" on public domain land because some of his
maternal grandmother's ancestors had kept cattle in the Virgin Valley
beginning in 1877.[7][41] Bundy alternatively argued in legal cases
that federal grazing rules infringe on his states' rights.[7]
Claim of inherited grazing rights[edit]
There appear to be no records of any inherited grazing rights,
pre-emptive rights, special rights, or grandfathered public domain
land use rights ever held by the Bundy family or Bundy's
ancestors.[citation needed] Bundy lost his special rights arguments in
the United States v. Bundy cases.[2] Bundy had only base property and
normal AUM grazing allotment permits, like the permits of thousands of
other ranchers throughout the western United States. The court found
that Bundy and his father actually first began grazing their cattle on
the Bunkerville Allotment in 1954, and used it for several years. They
paid for cattle grazing again from 1973 until 1993, when Bundy paid
the last grazing fees for his last grazing application for December 1,
1992, through February 28, 1993. On January 24, 1994, the BLM
delivered a Proposed Decision Order to Remove and Demand for Payment
to Bundy by placing it on the dashboard of Bundy's vehicle while he
was in the vehicle. BLM officials allege that Bundy became agitated,
walked out of his truck and accused the BLM of harassing him. He then
returned to his truck, threw the decision out of the window, and drove
away. One of Bundy's sons then picked up the decision, tore it into
pieces and threw it on the ground. On February 17, 1994, the BLM
issued a final decision canceling Bundy's ephemeral range grazing
permit. Bundy subsequently informed the BLM in several administrative
notices that he intended to graze cattle "pursuant to my vested
grazing rights." Bundy failed to demonstrate the existence of any such
special rights when given an opportunity to do so in court.[2]
Claim on states' rights[edit]
Bundy lost in US District Court on all his arguments regarding states'
rights and jurisdiction in the United States v. Bundy cases. He had
argued that the US District Court for the District of Nevada lacked
jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public lands
in question. The court ruled that "the public lands in Nevada are the
property of the United States because the United States has held title
to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the
United States."[2] Bundy argued that the Disclaimer Clause of the
Nevada Constitution carries no legal force. The clause states:[42]
Third. 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;
and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing
without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land
belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed
by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may
hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise
provided by the congress of the United States.
Bundy also argued that the United States' exercise of ownership over
public domain lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine, that the
Article Four Property Clause of the US Constitution applies only to
federal lands outside the borders of states, that the United States
based its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of
public domain lands on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to
trespass, and that Nevada's open range statute excuses Bundy's
trespass.[citation needed]
Bureau of Land Management actions[edit]
BLM Trespass Cattle Closure Map 04 11 2014
The BLM was tasked with environmental assessment[37] and various
enforcement issues regarding the cattle trespass injunctions. During
March–April 2014, it closed some areas of government lands during the
planning for roundup of the trespass cattle owned by Bundy. In early
April, "just before the roundup got underway, a survey conducted by
helicopter counted 908 head of cattle scattered across roughly 1,200
square miles of remote mountains and desert managed by the Bureau of
Land Management and the National Park Service."[43] The BLM stated on
its website:[5]
Cattle have been in trespass on public lands in southern Nevada for
more than two decades. This is unfair to the thousands of other
ranchers who graze livestock in compliance with federal laws and
regulations throughout the West. The Bureau of Land Management and the
National Park Service have made repeated attempts to resolve this
matter administratively and judicially. An impoundment of cattle
illegally grazing on public lands is now being conducted as a last
resort."
Government contractors using horses and a small helicopter succeeded
in penning almost 400 trespass cattle from April 5 to 9, 2014.
"According to state brand inspectors, almost 90 percent of the cattle
rounded up by midweek bore Bundy's brand. Of the remaining animals,
five belonged to a neighboring rancher, four were marked with brands
that couldn't be read, and the rest were slicks, a ranching term for
unmarked livestock."[43] On April 17, the BLM confirmed that a cow and
a bull owned by Bundy were put down for posing "a significant
threat".[44] A state brand inspector said the bull "might have got
frightened, but that's no reason to shoot a bull." Another said that
bulls sometimes charge at people, adding that it takes "a pretty
good-size weapon" to kill Bundy's breed of bull.[45] A page on the BLM
website, since removed, listed the impacts of trespass cattle owned by
Cliven Bundy. Among these are risks to people driving on roadways,
destruction of crops in private property, damage to community property
in Mesquite, negative impacts on city facilities in Bunkerville,
destruction of archaeological artifacts, and unauthorized reservoir
construction.[46] The regional off-site mitigation strategies of
non-governmental organizations are also delayed for the Dry Lake Solar
Energy Zone,[47] and a matching $400,000 grant from the Walton Family
Foundation to restore habitat for the Southwest Willow Flycatcher
along the Virgin River is delayed on the condition that trespass
cattle be removed by Bundy.[48]
After the roundup was suspended due to public safety concerns, BLM
spokesman Craig Leff said the agency would continue to try to resolve
the matter "administratively and judicially." Leff said, "The door
isn't closed. We'll figure out how to move forward with this," and
"The BLM and National Park Service did not cut any deal and negotiate
anything."[49]
Confrontations and protests in April 2014[edit]
In late March,[50] Bundy sent letters[51] entitled "Range War
Emergency Notice and Demand for Protection" to county, state, and
federal officials.[50][51] In media interviews, Bundy used the
language of the sovereign citizen movement as a rallying call,
beckoning support from members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain
Militia, and the Praetorian Guard.[52] In early April, armed
individuals and private militia members from across the United States
joined peaceful protesters against the trespass cattle roundup in what
has become known punningly as the Battle of Bunkerville.[7][53] BLM
enforcement agents were dispatched in response to what were seen as
threatening statements by Bundy, such as calling the events a "range
war".[54] There was no armed battle.
With many roads closed to ensure safety during the cattle removal,
designated First Amendment areas where protesters could safely
congregate or exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably
assemble were marked with signs and orange plastic fences adjacent to
the road.[55][56] On April 8, 2014, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval
issued a statement calling for the removal of the First Amendment
restrictions he described as offensive.[57] After stating that
peaceful protests had crossed into illegal activity, the federal
agencies allowed protesters to go anywhere on the public land as long
as they were peaceful.[58]
April 10 confrontations and protests[edit]
On April 10, protesters crowded around a convoy to find out why a BLM
truck was being used.[7] Bundy's sister was pushed to the ground by a
law enforcement officer.[59] One protestor struck a truck and blocked
it with his all-terrain vehicle. Officers protecting the civilian
truck driver had Tasers and police dogs. The protesters angrily
confronted the rangers. According to CNN, "Federal officials say a
police dog was kicked and officers were assaulted. Bundy family
members say they were thrown to the ground or jolted with a Taser."[7]
April 12 confrontations and suspension of roundup[edit]
On the morning of April 12, a heavily armed crowd rallied under a
banner that read "Liberty Freedom For God We Stand". Camouflaged
militiamen stood at attention, communicating with earpieces. Most had
signs, many of which chided "government thugs". Addressing the
protestors, Bundy said, "We definitely don't recognize [the BLM
director's] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing
power in any way," and "We're about ready to take the country over
with force!" After the BLM announced a suspension of the roundup,
Bundy suggested blocking a highway.[52] Armed protesters blocked a
portion of Interstate 15 for over two hours, causing traffic backups
for three miles in both directions.[60] Protesters also converged at
the mouth of Gold Butte, the preserve where the cattle were corralled,
where a tense, hour-long standoff ensued. BLM rangers warned over
loudspeakers that they were prepared to use tear gas.[52] Former
Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, who was with the protesters,
controversially said that they were "strategizing to put all the women
up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it's going to be
women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot
by these rogue federal officers".[61] Protestors took position on a
highway overpass, seemingly offering cover as horse-mounted wranglers
led protesters to face off against heavily equipped BLM rangers and
snipers.[52]
Las Vegas Metro Deputy Chief Tom Roberts defused the situation by
announcing that Bundy's cattle would be returned within 30
minutes.[52] The BLM announced that it would suspend the mass
roundup,[1][62] citing safety reasons. Clark County Sheriff Gillespie
mediated the agreement between the Bundy family and the BLM, saying,
"[W]hen a group of protesters threaten civil unrest or violence in
this county -- it is my job to step in and ensure the safety of
citizens."[60] BLM Director Neil Kornze said Saturday, "Based on
information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with
law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather
because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and
members of the public."[63]
BLM spokesman Craig Leff stated in an email that "The gather is over"
but that the agency planned to seek a solution "administratively and
judicially" and intended to pursue court action to collect more than
$1 million in back grazing fees owed by Bundy.[64]
Las Vegas police stated that business owners in Mesquite had received
threats because of the conflict.[63]
Aftermath[edit]
About 1,500 Bundy supporters attended a celebration on April 18, where
they ate Bundy beef, read cowboy poetry, and wore "domestic terrorist"
name tags,[6] referencing a comment made by Nevada Senator Harry
Reid.[65] Bundy said he would continue holding a daily news
conference.[6]
Reactions by public officials[edit]
On April 15, a group of Republican legislators, including
Representatives Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff), David Livingston (R-Peoria),
Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa), Senators Judy Burges (R-Sun City West), and
Kelli Ward (R-Lake Havasu City) traveled to Mesquite, Nevada, to
support Bundy in his standoff with the BLM.[66][67]
Public officials reacted to the confrontations and protests. Governor
Brian Sandoval sided with Bundy, saying "No cow justifies the
atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation
of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans. The BLM
needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act
accordingly."[54]
Arizona Representative Kelly Townsend said that the scenes at the
ranch amid the dispute gave her a "visceral reaction... It sounds
dramatic, but it reminded me of Tiananmen Square. I don’t recognize my
country at this point." Her colleague, Bob Thorpe of Flagstaff, said
that he was with about three dozen other state legislators to question
federal and Nevada officials.[68]
US Senator Dean Heller of Nevada complained of federal actions during
the standoff, saying, "I told him (BLM Director Neil Kornze) very
clearly that law-abiding Nevadans must not be penalized by an
over-reaching BLM".[54] After the resolution he stated, "emotions and
tensions are still near the boiling point."[60]
Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, who supported Bundy, aiding him
with his returned calves, said, "It's time for Nevada to stand up to
the federal government and demand the return of the BLM lands to the
people of Nevada."[64]
After the BLM left the area for safety concerns, Nevada's Senior
Senator to US Congress and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said,
"Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate
the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over."[69] Reid
also referred to the militia supporting Bundy as "domestic
terrorists".[65][70]
Reactions by media personalities[edit]
Media personalities have weighed in on the confrontations. During the
standoff, Bundy was interviewed (via remote link) by television host
Sean Hannity. Hannity stated that some fear events could wind up
mirroring the Waco siege and Ruby Ridge and said, "This is public
land, and it’s not being used, in my mind, and I'm not a rancher,
(but) I would think the federal government might be thankful because
you're cutting the lawn for free, and they're charging huge amounts of
money, right, to let your cattle graze there with these fees".[71]
Former Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL), now a talk radio show host and
Tea Party activist, also supported the protesters. Walsh, who traveled
to the area and stood by Bundy as the BLM released the cattle,
described the outcome as "talk radio, social media, grassroots
activists, and boots-on-the-ground patriots joined together... [and]
overcame the tyranny of big government." Walsh added, "we should be
smart enough to know that this isn't the end. The BLM could easily
show up again tomorrow, next week, or next month.... We must be
vigilant."[72]
Others such as Oliver Willis of Media Matters for America has referred
to Bundy's remarks as a "racist tirade".[73]
Reactions by Bundy and supporters[edit]
Some protesters termed the standoff as the Battle of Bunkerville,[74]
although there was actually no armed battle.
Some Tea Party Movement supporters expressed solidarity with the
Bundys, including three Southern Nevada Tea Party groups that
organized a protest outside Las Vegas police headquarters on April 11,
2014, claiming that Sheriff Doug Gillespie had failed in his duty to
protect Nevadans from abuse by the federal government.[75]
The Bundy family claimed victory on having its cattle returned.[76] In
an interview after the BLM's withdrawal, Sean Hannity asked Bundy if
he had a reply to Senator Harry Reid's comment that the situation was
not over. Bundy said, "I don't have a response for Harry Reid, but I
have a response for every county sheriff across the United States.
Disarm the federal bureaucrats."[69][77]
Legal and rule-of-law reactions[edit]
Atlantic reporter Matt Ford pointed out that Bundy's claim, "I abide
by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States
government as even existing," is at odds with Nevada's law,
specifically the state's constitution. Framed during the Civil War,
Nevada's constitution specifically mentions the rights of the federal
government, stating in Article 1, Section 2, "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...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."[78]
The Salt Lake City Tribune published an editorial on April 15 entitled
"Bundy is a lawbreaker, not a hero", in which it said, "Don't let him
get away with it" and "The only winner in this was a scofflaw who has
twice lost in the courts for running cattle where they don’t belong
and skipping out on grazing fees. Some 20,000 ranchers in Western
states abide by BLM regulations, so what makes Bundy special?" To sum
it up, the Tribune said, "When some manage to avoid justice by
extralegal means, the rule of law is weakened for all Americans."[79]
Some of Bundy's neighbors were not impressed by his actions.[80] "I
feel that the rule of law supersedes armed militias coming in from all
over the country to stand with a law-breaking rancher, which is what
he is", Mesquite resident Elaine Hurd told local television station
KLAS.[49][80]
Roger Taylor, a retired BLM district manager in Arizona, said the
agency's decision to release the cattle would have repercussions. "The
(agency) is going to be in a worse situation where they will have a
much more difficult time getting those cattle off the land and getting
Bundy in compliance with regulations," he said.[81]
Dallas Hyland, in his column in Utah's St. George News, wrote, "The
stand-down was necessary to prevent bloodshed, but it must be
recognized that if Bundy and a multitude of his supporters, militia
friends, and even family members who broke the law, are allowed to go
unpunished, anarchy will follow.[82][83] In the case of Bundy and the
Gold Butte designations, the government did it right. They continued
to do it right in the face of the lawless behavior of a rancher and
his militia henchmen."[82]
Political commentary reactions[edit]
David Damore, a political science professor at the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas, said that there is "a great ability on the part of
these folks to overlook the reality of how much the federal government
subsidized Nevada in terms of big projects – the Hoover Dam, the
mining subsidies. It's a welfare cowboy mindset."[52]
Brad Knickerbocker of the Christian Science Monitor saw the events as
echoing the Sagebrush Rebellion, a 1970s movement to transfer control
of public domain lands to the states.[84][85]
Environmentalist reactions[edit]
The nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity stated, "Despite having
no legal right to do so, cattle from Bundy's ranch have continued to
graze throughout the Gold Butte area, competing with tortoises for
food, hindering the ability of plants to recover from extensive
wildfires, trampling rare plants, damaging ancient American Indian
cultural sites and threatening the safety of recreationists."[5]
Rob Mrowka, also with the Center for Biological Diversity, said that
the BLM "is allowing a freeloading rancher and armed thugs to seize
hundreds of thousands of acres of the people's land as their own. It's
backing down in the face of threats and posturing of armed
sovereignists."[64]
Environmentalists held that the BLM's withdraw sent the wrong message
to law-abiding ranchers who do secure grazing permits and operate
within the law.[64]
Wild horse rangeland reactions[edit]
Supporters of wild horses, such as Bonnie Kohleriter, complain that
the government is favoring sheep and cattle by allowing them to feed
at taxpayer's expense and at the physical expense of mustangs sharing
the same overgrazed rangeland. Ranchers retort that the government is
not rounding up enough mustangs for removal and slaughter, as the
herds of these wild horses doubles every five years. Environmental
groups such as the Wildlife Society hold that both livestock and
mustangs are destroying the native habitat for native species.[64]
Bundy family background[edit]
The Bundy family purchased their farm outside of Bunkerville in 1948;
the farm would serve as headquarters and base property for their
ranching operation, which began in 1954, on federal land. They had
moved to the area from Bundyville, Arizona (near Mount Trumbull).
Cliven Bundy's father, David Bundy, was born in Bundyville in
1922.[86] David Bundy had married Margaret Bodel Jensen of
Bunkerville, and after starting a family in Arizona, they purchased
their property outside of Bunkerville in 1948.[41]
Cliven had argued in court that his "Mormon ancestors began working
the land in the 1880s".[87][88] This argument has basis in Cliven's
maternal grandmother's ancestral line, but not among his paternal or
other maternal lines. Cliven's mother's father, John Jensen, was born
in Utah, but her mother, Abigail Christina Abbott, was born in the
Bunkerville/Mesquite area. Abigail Christina Abbott's parents, both
born in Utah, were among early settlers of Bunkerville/Mesquite in the
1880s; this includes lines from the Leavitt and Abbott families. These
early families moved in and out of the area on several occasions, and
polygamous marriages meant some wives and their families were kept in
different towns. As such, there is no continuous line of family births
and habitation in Bunkerville/Mesquite from Cliven Bundy to the few
ancestors who settled the area.[41]
Leavitt family connection[edit]
Bundy's maternal family had some connection to Bunkerville through his
ancestor, Dudley Leavitt, a Canadian who moved to Utah after joining
the LDS Church.[c] After marrying wives in Utah in 1853, 1855, 1859,
1860, and 1872[89] and selling his Gunlock, Utah, property, he moved
to Bunkerville, Nevada. The original location he settled was south of
Mesquite, 2 1⁄2 miles (4.0 km) northeast of present-day Bunkerville.
The community was named after Edward Bunker, Sr., the leader of the
group of 23 men (the United Order) who originally agreed to move west.
All property was originally shared in common, which caused great
strife within the community. The communal property was then divided
up, with Dudley expressing displeasure at his small portion.[citation
needed] He then moved from the community across the river to Mesquite
by 1881. When the Virgin River flooded, he moved again and was
contracted to carry mail across a 180 miles (290 km) round-trip
distance from St. George, Utah, to St. Thomas, Nevada.[citation
needed] He placed his five families in various locations along the
route. The family of Mary Jane Leavitt (Cliven Bundy's
great-grandmother) was kept at Leavittville, Arizona.[90]
Abbott family connection[edit]
Cliven Bundy's great-great-grandfather was Myron Abbott.[89][d] He
left Ogden Canyon, Utah, to join Edward Bunker, Sr., in forming the
United Order, serving as teacher of the workers and as the second
counselor to Bunker, who was made bishop of the community.[91] After
the United Order dissolved, Abbott spent his time plowing and tending
farmland, in addition to transporting salt from St. Thomas to Santa
Clara, Utah.[92] His son, William Abbott, married Dudley Leavitt's
daughter Mary Jane Leavitt at the St. George Utah Temple in 1890;[91]
Cliven Bundy's maternal grandmother, Abigail Christina Abbott, was
their child. William Abbott traveled through the United States on
Mormon missions and served as the bishop of the Mesquite Ward from
1901 to 1927. He wrote the story of his family settling in Mesquite
and his missions across the United States in The Story of My Life, an
autobiography and family biography.[93]
Similar federal grazing legal cases[edit]
Several other legal cases in Nevada run parallel to the Bundy case.
They involve public domain lands that are controlled by federal
agencies and ranchers who were taken to court for cattle grazing
permit violations or trespass cattle.
United States v. Gardner[edit]
Cliff Gardner, a defendant in an illegal cattle grazing court case in
Nevada,[80] United States v. Gardner,[94] drew comparisons to his case
when he said, "I think Cliven is taking a stand not only for family
ranchers, but also for every freedom-loving American, for
everyone.[80] I’ve been trying to resolve these same types of issues
since 1984."[80] Gardner argued and lost on states' rights, similar to
Bundy,[2][80][94] and eventually served time for ignoring court orders
and contempt.[80] The Gardner case is cited in Bundy court filings. In
United States v. Gardner, decided in the District Court and later
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, the
Gardners did not contest that they grazed livestock without a permit,
nor the amount of the fee assessed. Instead, they asserted that the
Nevadan lands where they grazed did not belong to the United States,
and therefore the Forest Service did not have jurisdiction to regulate
use of the lands or levy fees for unauthorized activities within
them.[94] In March 2002, Cliff Gardner was sentenced to a month in a
Reno halfway house, along with a $5,000 fine and a year of
probation.[80]
United States v. Hage[edit]
Elko County commissioner, Nevada rancher, and conservative Republican
political activist Demar Dahl notes that Bundy might benefit from
following Nye County rancher Wayne Hage, who won a protracted battle
with the federal government by successfully arguing that he had the
right to graze his cows within two miles of water sources he
developed. In a similar case[95] to Bundy's, ranchers in 2007 were
sued by the Justice Department for trespassing on public domain lands
in Nevada.[95][96] The ranchers were alleged to have repeatedly grazed
livestock without federal permits, despite repeated trespass notices
from the BLM and the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service.[96]
In 2013, the court found in favor of the ranchers for all other
charges, including water rights,[95] grazing rights, and all but two
livestock trespass charges in United States v. Wayne Hage. In the
ruling, the judge said, "government officials ... 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."[97
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
--
No comments:
Post a Comment