In a situation that reads like a bad plot from an old western movie, officials with the Bureau of Land Management and Lake Mead National Recreation Area are hoping for a peaceful resolution of a cattle trespass dispute with a Nevada rancher that has lasted more than 20 years. It's a tense and tricky situation.
What's going on the desert northeast of Las Vegas?
The answer goes all the way back to the 1800s, when parts of the West were settled by ranchers who controlled vast areas of open range simply by securing relatively small tracts that included scarce and essential water sources'and then grazing their livestock on the adjoining land.
As more settlers looking for their own land arrived, open range was often overgrazed, disputes arose, and the resulting conflicts provided fodder for many a western novel and movie. Order was eventually secured by a combination of land surveys to define property lines, systems such as the Homestead Act to allow orderly transfer of public land to private ownership, and institutions such as courts and law enforcement to keep the peace.
Grazing Leases and the Bureau of Land Management
Public land which was not legally converted into private ownership remained in the public domain, and some ranchers continue to use public property to supplement their private range. Much of that public land is being managed today by the U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and that agency faces a challenging and often controversial task: "to manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield."
The BLM manages grazing permits on public land all across the West. BLM photo.
One of those "multiple uses" is grazing, and a dispute between a rancher named Cliven Bundy and the BLM over the use of land in southern Nevada has lasted for more than 20 years. The former grazing lease, known as the Bunkerville allotment, includes public land managed by both the BLM and National Park Service at Lake Mead National Recreation Area, with the BLM handling grazing issues for the NPS.
"Multiple Use" Can Lead to Conflicts
A mandate to manage large areas of land for such diverse uses as grazing, wildlife, recreation, mining, timber and energy development often leads to conflicts, and that's the case on the Bunkerville allotment.
Beginning in 1993, the BLM informed Mr. Bundy about limits on the number of cattle he could graze on the allotment in order to meet regulations to protect wildlife, particularly a threatened species, the desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy refused to accept the limits and stopped paying the required fees for his grazing permit ... but continued to run his cattle on the property.
The BLM subsequently cancelled the grazing permit, and in 1997, Clarke County, Nevada, purchased all the active grazing permits in the area to conserve them for wildlife needs. A tentative proposal was made to Mr. Bundy to compensate him for any stock water rights or range improvements he might have in his former allotment. He rejected the offer...and continued to run his cattle.
Failed Negotiations Lead To Court Cases
After further attempts to negotiate with Mr. Bundy failed, a series of court cases that extended up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction which permanently enjoined Mr. Bundy from grazing cattle on the Bunkerville allotment, and ordered him to remove all trespass cattle. He refused, despite notices that the livestock would be subject to impoundment and removal if they remained.
While the legal wrangling continued, the number of cattle in the area continued to grow. In 1999, the BLM was able to document 51 head of Bundy cattle on federal range in the allotment; by 2011, over 900 cattle were counted by a helicopter survey of the rugged terrain.
Mr. Bundy apparently concedes that he has never owned any of the land in question, but disputes the BLM's jurisdiction; he contends he has the right to continue to use the property, since his family has been doing so since the 1880s.
Damage to soil and vegetation from concentrated use by trespass cattle in the former Bunkerville Allotment. BLM photo.
The BLM Still Manages Lots of Grazing Permits
The BLM has taken pains to point out that it is not anti-grazing, noting that it "administers approximately 18,000 grazing permits and leases on 157 million acres of public lands..."Ranching continues throughout Southern Nevada on public and private lands," the agency notes. "BLM currently has three active grazing allotments on more than 100,000 acres of public lands in Southern Nevada."
Kirsten Cannon, spokeswoman for the Nevada BLM office in Reno, says, 'His cattle have been illegally trespassing on federal land for two decades and it's just unfair for those who ranch in compliance,' she said. 'We made repeated attempts to resolve this. The courts have ordered him to move his cattle. Now we've reached the last resort, which is impoundment.'
You can read a summary of the history of the dispute at this BLM link, and the agency, under increasing pressure from other local landowners and conservation groups, has decided it's time to remove the cattle and resolve the issue.
There's no doubt that Mr. Bundy has flouted the legal system for years, but you might wonder what else is at stake in this situation.
A Long List of Problems Caused by Trespass Livestock
The BLM cites a long list of problems caused by Mr. Bundy's cattle. Among the issues are damage by the cattle to springs and vegetation on public land and trampling of artifacts at cultural sites. Crops on adjacent private property have been damaged by foraging livestock, and residents of the communities of Bunkerville and Mesquite have complained about the impact of trespass cattle on city facilities, including the Mesquite Heritage Community Garden and the Mesquite golf course.
If you've even been around cattle which aren't accustomed to being "worked" regularly by humans, you'll understand the safety concerns for visitors and employees using the BLM and park lands in question. According to the BLM, "a State of Nevada employee at the Overton Wildlife Refuge has been attacked by a Bundy bull, and a feral cow was hit by an automobile within Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Cattle are frequently seen on public roads, including State Route 170, and pose a danger to vehicles and to members of the public traveling on public roads."
There have been other economic costs from the trespass livestock. The Nevada State Department of Wildlife has had to build extensive fences to protect state and federal lands in the Overton Wildlife Refuge from the cattle. The Walton Family Foundation had offered $400,000 for a matching grant to restore wildlife habitat in the area, but has withdrawn the funds until the trespass cattle have been removed. It's a reasonable decision; restoration efforts would be a waste of money as long as the cattle continue to roam and damage the area.
Two Decades of Waiting May Be Coming to an End
So, what's next?
These trespass cattle, removed off public land in northern Nevada, are being cared for until they are claimed and fines/impoundment fees are paid. BLM photo.
According to a statement from Lake Mead National Recreation Area, "The BLM and NPS have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially. Impoundment of cattle illegally grazing on public lands is an option of last resort. The BLM and NPS are working closely with local, state and federal officials to ensure the gather of unauthorized cattle occurs in a safe and orderly manner."
During what will undoubtedly be a challenging roundup, the area involved will be closed to public use from March 27 through May 12. The park website notes, "Only a small portion of the northern and eastern part of the park will be temporarily closed, and Echo Bay, Stewarts Point, Redstone and the hot springs along Northshore Road remain open." You can view a map of the area within the park involved in the closure at this link.
Bundy's Response
So, what's Mr. Bundy's reaction to the latest developments? That's a cause for concern, and at least part of the reason for the closure of the area to the public during the impending roundup.
A previous roundup scheduled for 2012 was cancelled due to fears of a violent confrontation with Bundy, and the BLM opted for one more try at a solution in the courts. That cancellation in turn brought threats of a lawsuit against the BLM from an environmental group, for failure to enforce court orders to remove the livestock. In 2013, the BLM prevailed once again in court.
Bundy's response to the numerous court orders to remove his cattle has been succinct. "At first I said, 'No,'" he told The Los Angeles Times last year, "Then I said, 'Hell, no.'"
"I've got to protect my property," Bundy told the Times. "If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."
The County Sheriff Urges A Peaceful Solution
It doesn't appear the county sheriff plans to intervene on the Bundys' behalf. According to Carol Bundy, the rancher's wife, 'We want him to step in and tell these federal characters that 'This is Clark County, Nevada, land and you have go through me to get these cattle.' But we have not heard a word.'
For his part, Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie understands the days of the 19th century range wars are long past. The Las Vegas Review-Journal quoted Gillespie as saying: 'I'm always concerned when there are situations like this where there is so much emotion. I hope calmer heads will prevail like they normally do. You're talking about rounding up cattle. You have to keep that in perspective. No drop of human blood is worth spilling over any cow, in my opinion.'
He absolutely right. Let's hope everyone else involved in this situation agrees.
Comments
Jim, i normally agree with your comments, but I am not sure I buy into the fact that all political leaders, elected or appointed, are cut from the same cloth. I have a high regard for our current President, his cabinet, and congress persons and senators form both sides of the chamber, not all, but many. I do think the root of the problem is the amazing amounts of money being poured into the elections process. We are almost back in the Robber Barons era, or the Roaring twenties in that the political process is up for sale to the highest bidder. History takes interesting turns, Was it in 1856 that Chief Justice Taney declared a human being property, we now have a Supreme Court that has ruled property is a human being. And this includes properties (corporations) right to free speech in political campaigns, ie money, almost in unlimited amounts. I think it is a sad day that the Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft has backed away from the Sherman Anti Trust Act, the Tillman Act, the Glass/Stigall Act, well I could go on and on. The republican progressives at the turn of the 20th century gave us many National Parks, Forests, Monuments, direct election of senators, progressive income tax legislation, and culminating, with President Wilson, a Women's right to vote. But I can not just blame the Republican Party, President Clinton gave us the free trade agreements resulting in the loss of over 5 million good paying american manufacturing jobs. Made in america is hard to find right now.
In any case, it is interesting to study history and speaking about how things change I remember a history class on early american presidents and how some competent and educated women at the time, led by Abigail Adams, pleaded with our founding fathers to make sure the "Constitutional" language stating "all men are created equal" be changed to all men and women or all natural persons are created equal. Abigail wrote her husband stating," John, remember the ladies". John Adams replied, 'Depend on it", the future president wrote to his wife" that we know better than to repeal our Masculine systems".
Change is difficult, it took the women 145 years to get the vote, and here we are again, even with the voting rights act of 1965, still trying to disenfranchise voters with whom we may disagree with. Thank you Jim for your posts, they are always informative.
All well said, Mr. Mackie.
Thank you, McQue. I was curious as to why Bundy wasn't jailed and his property seized. I would have thought that was the natural progression 19 years ago rather than now. I think the BLM acted badly/over-reacted due to a fear of violence at the hands of the militia. It had occurred before and been promised to occur again. Unfortunately, they are all human; deadly threats have a way of shaking one up. But, that is no excuse for their stupidity in a spring roundup the way they did. Both sides acting badly. I'm guessing some saw Waco in it and didn't want that to happen.
Nope, never said that.
As to Hamilton and the National Bank - who cares what Hamilton thought? Hamilton proposed a plan, the "British Plan" at the Constitutional Convention. That plan gave the central government a broader role. It was flatly rejected. Hamilton had little to do with the writing of the Constitution thereafter. Madison, the primary author of the Constitution had a plan with limited and enumerated powers. When the anti-federalist criticized the language because it could be interpreted as you would like to do now, Madison, the guy that wrote the document, responded that no, there is a reason the powers are listed. Those are the powers the government has and they are the only powers. Madison's version was signed and ratified.
Just make sure you pay for and obey the value judgements Rick makes.
More wisdom from the father of western freedom, Cliven Bundy:
"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro. [...]They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do. And because 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."
Classy guy. I can see why he's become a hero.
ecbuck,
Here is what you write now:
"As to Hamilton and the National Bank - who cares what Hamilton thought?"
Here is what you wrote previously:
"They did however, agree unanimously that the power of the national government be limited and as Madison wrote, both in the Constitution and the Federalist papers, the powers were limited to those enumerated."
Hamilton, whether you like it or not, was one of the Founding Fathers. So when you say they all unanimously thought X, you can't later say "Who cares what he thought?" Because what he thought was different from X, so they didn't all unanimously think X. Other founders agreed with him (Washington, Marshall, for two examples). It matters what they thought, too, if the argument being put forth is that the founders unanimously thought X, Y, or Z.
This is like Calvinball. You tell me I'm completely ignorant because I can't prove something, and when I prove it, you change the rules and say I didn't prove something I wasn't even asked to prove in the first place.
"Hamilton had little to do with the writing of the Constitution thereafter. Madison, the primary author of the Constitution had a plan with limited and enumerated powers. When the anti-federalist criticized the language because it could be interpreted as you would like to do now, Madison, the guy that wrote the document, responded that no, there is a reason the powers are listed. Those are the powers the government has and they are the only powers."
So originally we were told that all the Founders were on the same page about government power. Now we've shown that some of the Founders (including the country's first Secretary of the Treasury and the first President) weren't on the same page.
Yes, Madison was one of the primary authors of the Constitution (what he originally presented was modified significantly over the course of the debates, however; Madison wanted both chambers of the legislature apportioned based on population, and he was very disappointed that didn't happen, and he wanted a Council of Revision created, and that didn't happen -- the point is, it wasn't a work by one man, it was a work that was significantly altered through the process by the convention).
But Madison isn't the only person whose thoughts on the Constitution matter. Hamilton was a participant in the constitutional convention, too, as were plenty of other important figures. And many of them had differing interpretations about the text that they produced. Madison is not God, and we don't rigorously base all of our constitutional understanding upon what he thought about the text.
Hamilton left with a different interpretation. He made his case to Washington, and Washington agreed. And that interpretation was later taken to the Supreme Court in McCullough v. Maryland, and the Supreme Court agreed with Hamilton's interpretation as well. And that's the interpretation that is law today, and has been for over two hundred years. Your claim that modern society has "forgotten" what the Constitution is really about isn't true, you just want it to be about one thing and other people, back then as in today, don't agree. But you don't get to shut down debate by saying that all other modes of thought or interpretation are illegitimate because James Madison says so.
Seems like much of what many in the now crowd think is that the Constitution is whatever they think it should be. Not limited by what it actually states which has been the framework for, in reality, a very exceptional country. What's happening is people are really dumbing down, respectfully. Rick B, your statement about every President lies and just go with the one that does what you want really is chilling to me. Third world to my way of thinking. The Constitution is a framework to keep all parties inbounds. Something is going wildly wrong, by design. Keep believing the serial liar, don't think so. What does the end game look like in his world? Can he tell you/us, no.