Bunkerville, NV

[doetracks]

Anyone paying attention to what's happening there?

If not, you should.

[dalmore62single]

Just read it online. Interesting indeed, Who's Side You On?

[FAT POSSUM]

Talk to me Goose!

Ok, whats going on?:confused:

[CaberTosser]

The cattlemen grazing fee evaders rattling sabres? My favorite part of a video I watched was seeing a Bureau of land Management Dodge Power Wagon at the 0:35 mark

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-feds/story?id=23225314

More articles state that the cattleman Cliven Bundy had stopped paying the gazing fees around 1993 because his Mormon ancestors running cattle on that land predate the existence of the agency. Perhaps then Nevada should send over some indigenous people over to claim it from him, citing whom predates whom.

[doetracks]

Well, I don't think I would call them fee evaders. The allotment had apparently been purchased.

Here is the something from the daughter:

By SHIREE BUNDY COX:

I have had people ask me to explain my dad's stance on this BLM fight.

Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it.

There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.

These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the servival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.

These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights. Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management.

They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repaires and improvements of the ranches.

My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money's against the ranchers.

They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they're own grazing fees.

When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job.

He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn't work, they used the indangered species card.

You've already heard about the desert tortis. Well that didn't work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.

Now their desperate. It's come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.

Everything their doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

Now you may be saying," how sad, but what does this have to do with me?" Well, I'll tell you.

They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.

Next, it's Utah's turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.

Then there's the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn't paid them, those cattle do belong to him.

Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even exsisted.

Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad's signature on it.

They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker.

Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Aucion and sell them. All with our tax money.

They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.

See how slick they are?

[CaberTosser]

Well that changes things, provided its all on the up & up. Something such as that should be fairly well documented. What seems odd is if this is the BLM's MO, what is their motivation to such an end as to buy and close ranches? How does shuttering ranching in the region help the US economy?

[avb3]

Unless I'm understanding this wrong, is that not the same as a grazing lease?

If so, your going to lose it here if you stop paying also.

Sounds to me like a lot of barroom lawyer talk to me.

[brownbomber]

Don't see how the BLM would be involved unless it were public land, and the payments made were likely lease payments. Who knows?
The land of livin' right being free!

Or to see what duties the BLM carries out...
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

So they manage grazing rights/allotments on public land.
It's how you view it I guess. Maybe they figure the family has paid enough over the years or part of the anti fed crowd. Or part of the don't tell me what to do crowd.

[Ryry4]

Don't see how the BLM would be involved unless it were public land, and the payments made were likely lease payments. Who knows?
The land of livin' right being free!

Or to see what duties the BLM carries out...
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

So they manage grazing rights/allotments on public land.
It's how you view it I guess. Maybe they figure the family has paid enough over the years or part of the anti fed crowd. Or part of the don't tell me what to do crowd.

There's way more to this than lease payments.

[brownbomber]

Please elaborate, because right now they kinda look like .....

[Fisherpeak]

From another site I read(American one) that his land surrounded public land and so the BLM made a deal to give him equal ajoining land in return for a hunk so the public could acsess public land.He wasn`t allowing acsess before.He took the deal but refused to move his cattle off of what he still considers to be "his" land.

[Ryry4]

Please elaborate, because right now they kinda look like .....

It's about big government telling people what they can have. This guy's family has ranched that land since before the BLM existed, paid his dues until the BLM stopped using the money for what it was supposed to be used for (maintenance of roads etc) and Bundy started maintaining it himself. Now the feds are saying they have to kick the ranchers off because of the desert tortoise.

Are you aware that the BLM chased his cattle down with helicopters and then went out with backhoes and buried the carcasses? Or the the feds set up "free speech zones", where you have to be standing in to exercise free speech? Why was one of Clive Bundy's son's arrested on the highway for taking a picture?

http://conservativetribune.com/armed-feds-surround-rancher/

Here's a little video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA

Now, I didn't grow up on a ranch, but I didn't realize you needed tazers and K-9 units to round up cattle.

Do a quick search BrownBomber, plenty of video's and articles on the interweb to let you know what's going on.

The BLM is also in the process of taking approx 90,000 acres of land from ranchers along the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma.

[silverdoctor]

This is mainly about unappropriated lands and said lands belonging to the Federal government. They own alot of land in the USA, stems from territories becoming part of the US.


http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bfae553ef014e87f3e653970d-pi


Is it fair? Is it right? You decide.

[jett]

Bundy Standoff: Town Hall Meeting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0_SXrs4SkQ

[Pointerman]

Bundy Standoff: Town Hall Meeting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0_SXrs4SkQ

That ol boy has a good point......bigger thna Clive Bundy.

[Ryry4]

That ol boy has a good point......bigger thna Clive Bundy.

That's for sure.

[rugatika]

liberals have been inserting themselves into these gov't agencies for years now. Look what they did to the farmers in Southern California over some little minnow. Turned off all their water.

Remember this: http://www.humanevents.com/2012/04/17/house-blocks-epa-from-banning-lead-in-ammunition/
Or this: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/07/epa-formally-declares-co2-a-dangerous-pollutant/

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/11/red-river-rumble-blm-wants-to-seize-90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land/


http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04/09/nevadan-named-blm-chief/

[stringer]

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

[Pointerman]

While the world is watching Nevada the BLM is at in Texas for a second time.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/04/11/not-just-nevada-blm-land-grabbing-90000-deeded-acres-in-texas-too/

Something doesn't smell right about this organization.

[MrDave]

Sounds like he should have paid his grazing fees. $300000...that's a lot of money. Looking at both sides, he screwed up. Battling a crooked agency is impossible.

The I was here first argument doesn't work. Ask any Native American.
He should have used that money to get a better lawyer.

Changing land use is normal, someone will always have an excuse to do so. Seems like money buys politicians. Same as here.

[Ryry4]

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

Like I said, this is bigger than we think.

A little more food for thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgPVcDonhZs#aid=P-6D-7DPjIQ

[Grizzly Adams]

From what I've seen of Nevada, it ain't worth fighting over, not as agricultural land anyway. :D Here's the Red Rock shooting he refers to. Hardly the same kind of scenario.

http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/news/Nevada-Highway-Patrol-and-BLM-agents-involved-in-shooting-near-Red-Rock-245579691.html

Grizz

[brownbomber]

Sounds like he should have paid his grazing fees. $300000...that's a lot of money. Looking at both sides, he screwed up. Battling a crooked agency is impossible.

The I was here first argument doesn't work. Ask any Native American.
He should have used that money to get a better lawyer.

Changing land use is normal, someone will always have an excuse to do so. Seems like money buys politicians. Same as here.

Strange that in other threads "I was there first" is viewed as sacrilege. It's seen as a cop out and a crutch. But here it's foot stamping, finger wagging good time bashing the Feds :)
I can see clearly now it all makes sense, kinda brings a tear to your eye when your friendly everyday guy gets a rough go like that. He lived on the land, for generations, then the Feds came, told him what to do, changed his life, took his land.
Worlds biggest sad face emoji

[ksteed17]

From what I've seen of Nevada, it ain't worth fighting over, not as agricultural land anyway. :D

Grizz


Must've missed the Fallon area. 5 cuts of hay a year and awesome cantaloupe. :D

[Wild&Free]

Strange that in other threads "I was there first" is viewed as sacrilege. It's seen as a cop out and a crutch. But here it's foot stamping, finger wagging good time bashing the Feds :)
I can see clearly now it all makes sense, kinda brings a tear to your eye when your friendly everyday guy gets a rough go like that. He lived on the land, for generations, then the Feds came, told him what to do, changed his life, took his land.
Worlds biggest sad face emoji

the irony.

he should just move to the city and become like everyone else... why can't he just assimilate?

[brownbomber]

the irony.

he should just move to the city and become like everyone else... why can't he just assimilate?
Maybe pay his taxes like the rest of us.

How dare you!! How dare you sir!!! Tremble and point finger
Don't you ever ever make sense ever again !!
Think we are gonna be called liberals for saying fair is fair? Yup
But isn't it a pretty good reflection of the same situation?
No that's different.
Different how?
One of them actually used to own it.

Those stinking Feds are pretty shady

[rugatika]

Maybe pay his taxes like the rest of us.

How dare you!! How dare you sir!!! Tremble and point finger
Don't you ever ever make sense ever again !!
Think we are gonna be called liberals for saying fair is fair? Yup
But isn't it a pretty good reflection of the same situation?
No that's different.
Different how?
One of them actually used to own it.

Those stinking Feds are pretty shady

From what I gather, he was paying fees to the BLM for trail maintenance etc, then they quit doing that and he quit paying them the fees. He tried to pay them to the county instead but they refused. I get where you're going, it would be like if we were able to quit paying gas taxes that are "supposed" to go to road maintenance, but wind up in general revenue instead...paying for politicians holidays etc.


My hat's off to the guy for having the gumption to stand up to the feds, but looks like they are out to set a precedent, and unless he can get the sympathy of the public on his side, he will be screwed.

[Ryry4]

So I take it you boys agree with how the feds are going about this? Arresting people for trespassing on federal land, land which everyone is supposed to own. Just like Canadian Crown Land.

How about the chasing down of cattle with helicopters? No problems there. Have any of you asked yourself why the BLM has K-9 units?

Yup, nothing to see here. This isn't the first time the BLM has stepped all over a rancher and I'm sure it won't be the last.

[rugatika]

As much as I'm not a fan of Alex Jones, that infowars link is pretty interesting. It seems pretty coincidental that NV Senator Harry Reid's former advisor winds up as director of NV BLM, and the BLM is expropriating BLM land for use for solar farms, AND Harry Reid's son Rory is working with a Chinese solar company looking to start up solar farms. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the Bundy case or not, just seems coincidental.

[brownbomber]

No I know what they're doing is wrong, you can't justify what they are doing to this guy even if he is a law breaker. I'm more about the parallel that maybe others aren't seeing here. Why does the BLM have dog outfits?
Something like another means of holding back the people.??
Not saying there is nothing to see here, I'm saying the sympathy is funny as other people and groups have a rough go with govt and there is very little sympathy, but when it's somebody who's more like "one of us" we are putting on the flood pants so as keep the cuffs outta the tears.

[Ryry4]

As much as I'm not a fan of Alex Jones, that infowars link is pretty interesting. It seems pretty coincidental that NV Senator Harry Reid's former advisor winds up as director of NV BLM, and the BLM is expropriating BLM land for use for solar farms, AND Harry Reid's son Rory is working with a Chinese solar company looking to start up solar farms. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the Bundy case or not, just seems coincidental.

Interesting for sure. I don't believe in coincidences anymore.

[brownbomber]

Interesting for sure. I don't believe in coincidences anymore.

Funny how coincidences work sometimes. The connections seem a little odd at best

[Wild&Free]

No I know what they're doing is wrong, you can't justify what they are doing to this guy even if he is a law breaker. I'm more about the parallel that maybe others aren't seeing here. Why does the BLM have dog outfits?
Something like another means of holding back the people.??
Not saying there is nothing to see here, I'm saying the sympathy is funny as other people and groups have a rough go with govt and there is very little sympathy, but when it's somebody who's more like "one of us" we are putting on the flood pants so as keep the cuffs outta the tears.

all things being equal, this precedent is a couple hundred years old.

but it shouldn't continue, them damn liberals should treat people better.

[Redfrog]

Real live cowboys and liberals.:thinking-006:

[Ryry4]

They may have one the battle, I still think this is far from over though.

"Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie made an announcement moments ago and ordered BLM off the Bundy land. People from around the country that traveled to Nevada in support of states rights and property rights are rejoicing at the end to this federal land grab and overreach. It looks like the one person who has the authority to tell BLM to leave the premises and cease operations has done so."

[Ryry4]

Real live cowboys and liberals.:thinking-006:

Yup, militia showed up too.

[brownbomber]

Real live cowboys and liberals.:thinking-006:


Who ya calling a liberal

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/04/13/9e7upudu.jpg

That's the last guy that called me a liberal

Unless you meant the Feds lol

[Wild&Free]

Yup, militia showed up too.

militia + court of law > defacto courts and big gubbermint

it's a win for sure.


imminent domain will be next though.

[brownbomber]

It's so similar,
We were here a long time. We don't like how you are treading us. We will form our own government. We are a nation.
One side high fives way to stand up for yourself.
The other ends in a locked thread.

Hey how are ya hey how are ya

[Ryry4]

imminent domain will be next though.

Probably.

[Wild&Free]

Probably.

was it one of the Carolinas or was it Georgia where they used imminent domain for "economical development" that's an abandoned undeveloped suburb now with all residents forced to move away? battle should have started there.

[Redfrog]

"Hey how are ya hey how are ya"

You remind me of the guy with the jumper cables every where he went. always trying to start something.:)

[Ryry4]

was it one of the Carolinas or was it Georgia where they used imminent domain for "economical development" that's an abandoned undeveloped suburb now with all residents forced to move away? battle should have started there.

Not sure on that one.

[Wild&Free]

"Hey how are ya hey how are ya"

You remind me of the guy with the jumper cables every where he went. always trying to start something.:)

some people just need a boost to get going. but you already knew that.

[brownbomber]

"Hey how are ya hey how are ya"

You remind me of the guy with the jumper cables every where he went. always trying to start something.:)

I rarely try to start anything froggy, I usually walk away and you can see my post history to prove that. It's just a good oppurtunity to show the parallel struggle that nobody else is noticing. If anything I put up with a lot of stuff with little reply. Or am I just being a comedian nobody understands ?

[Redfrog]

I may be the only one who understoods your humor, or sees your POV.:)

[bison]

Here is anther one.


About Us
Advertise
Contact Us
Terms Of Use

Home
Politics
2A Rights
Entertainment
Religion
Today In History
Contact Us

FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!!
April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 21 comments
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.

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.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

Read more at WND

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/

[Pointerman]

This is the best explanation I have read on the reason why a person would not want to enter into a contract with the BLM and thus would not pay any grazing fees to them. Offer to pay to the county but not deal with the BLM. I did not write this so if you repost or copy and paste please credit the author.

Written By Kena Lytle Gloeckner

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy singlehandedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

Written By Kena Lytle Gloeckner