Jolley: The feds have been bundied

 Resize text         Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

Just when you thought range wars were a thing of the distant past, a battle between cattle barons and sheep herders that was a staple of those old black and white Hollywood westerns that gave us the young John Wayne, along comes Clive Bundy.  His white hat firmly atop his grey-haired head, he hitched up his blue jeans, saw red and said "Oh hell, no!" when the Bureau of Land Management came to collect on a debt. "Your cattle or your money," they said.

An overheated Bundy actually suggested a “range war” if BLM tried to round up his stock, calling them “cattle thieves.”  His bluster worked. Galloping down out of the Rockies to help Bundy fend off the evil clutches of big government was a citizen's mob of well-armed freedom fighters, second amendment types who suddenly had what they thought was good reason to load up their weapons and face down an overreaching arm of the hated feds in Washington. 

For those of you who know some of the more arcane bits of America's earliest dustups with any kind of government, this was reminiscent of the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. George Washington initiated the first use of the Militia Law of 1792 which set a precedent for the use of a well-regulated militia to "execute the laws of the union and suppress insurrections."  Washington was asserting the right of the federal government to enforce order in one state with troops raised in other states. 

The problem faced by the BLM cowboys charged with gathering Bundy's cows?  They weren't a well-regulated militia and they were seriously outgunned. It was painfully obvious that executing their orders to round up Bundy's herd would mean blood be shed and hell would be paid.  The feds, readily aware of the still raw feelings after Ruby Ridge and Waco, scanned the scene, blinked and stepped back. 

Neil Kornze, the blinking BLM Director, said, “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.”  The citizen's mob prematurely but enthusiastically celebrated a victory. It was just a battle, not the war.

The government will not go quietly. Bundy still owes more than $1 million in fees dating back to 1993 for his use of public land.  The courts have ruled twice that the debt is justified. Just last year, a federal judge enjoined him from grazing his cattle on federal land.  He promptly ignored the order. The BLM insists he has to pay up or forfeit his cattle, claiming it's only fair given that 16,000 ranchers in Western states follow the rules.  There is a big bill still to be paid and a precedent of non-payment that will not be allowed to stand. 

Bundy's defense is based on his belief that the land is family property that his ancestors have worked since settling in that area over 130 years ago.  He claims that his ownership predates the formation of the BLM, giving him rights that predate and trump the federal government's involvement. He says he only owes about $300,000, still a sizeable unpaid debt.  And there is one other problem, Nevada became a state in 1864, approximately 20 years before Bundy's Mormon ancestors claimed the land.  The area wasn't an untamed territory anymore, its citizens had already agreed to abide by the laws, rules and regs of a federal government a distant 2400 miles away.

Bundy’s fight has many right wing pundits and media outlets rallying to his cause. A Google search turns up support from Alex Jones’ Infowars, Pete Santelli’s Internet radio show, the Drudge Report and Glenn Beck’s The Blaze. All of them are playing the angle of a lone cattlemen fighting against unwarranted government encroachment.  Other media are writing about his unpaid debt and his willingness to use public lands for private gain.  Harry Reid's possible involvement for personal gain has been mentioned by both sides.  One breathless,  hair-on-fire report claims that the U.N.'s nonbinding Agenda 21 is the secret driving force.

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, fearing that some gun-toting hot head would fire the first shot, urged calm, peace and tranquility. “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,” he said.

It's time to step back from this precipice and reflect on several issues.  The federal government owns about two thirds of the land in the 12 western states and over 85% of Nevada.  As the landlord of record, they rent some public lands for private use - grazing cattle, for instance.  Do they have the right to control the use of leased land? 

They've allowed Bundy's debt, be it a million dollars or three hundred thousand is irrelevant, to accrue for two decades.  It should have been collected or dismissed long ago. Bundy is also grazing far more cattle than the land will support, doing serious damage to the ecosystem.  What should be a reasonable penalty for ignoring the limits to which he had agreed long ago?

Let's pay attention to Governor Sandoval, though.  No cow is worth gun fire and violent death.  Let's place all the issues on the table and discuss them calmly.  If you're too angry to talk rationally and your hair is on fire, please take your guns and go home.

Prev 1 2 Next All

Comments (6) Leave a comment 

e-Mail (required)


characters left

Kentucky  |  April, 15, 2014 at 12:04 PM

A nice, balanced opinion from Chuck - thanks for your moderation. It seems to me that Bundy has very little legal leg to stand on. His treatment of the land also seems problematic from several angles. Most specifically, if you are overworking land that in the end is not yours to inherit then what right do you have to it? He would say an historical right, but as Chuck has made it clear, that is a narrow interpretation of the law. In the end, we all realize that when we use something belonging to someone else, we have to pay for it and treat it with respect. It doesn't seem Bundy cares about who the land actually belongs to - us and future generations, not just the government. And for all those law-abiding lessees of BLM land, thanks for doing what is expected of you and accepting a law that, whether you like it or not, is still what all the rest of us are doing every day by being normal law-abiding citizens.

Joane Pappas White    
Price, Utah  |  April, 16, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Robert -- are you a lawyer? Before you, an eastern living under an entirely different property and water law system, make comments about a western rancher's case, you might want to ask yourself why the BLM ignored Mr. Bundy's conduct for 20+ years? Also, why they suddenly "woke up" and took action. You might also want to read the 104 page ruling of the federal appellate court in Hage v. U.S., which found the actions of the BLM and Forest Service criminal. Bundy and Hage are companion cases. The BLM back off Bundy because they were getting their butts kicked in the courts. They suddenly came back to life because Dirty Harry Reid needed Bundy Ranch for his personal deal with the Chinese and he got his senior adviser, Neil Kronze appointed as head of the BLM in 2013 for just that purpose. Many other ranchers in the West are facing the same kind of overreaching agency actions concerning their 150 year old ranches. Those of you whose states got their constitutional distributions do not. When 75% of your state is control (not owned) by the the U.S., you will have a stake in the game. Until then, do your homework before you jump in and defend Dirty Harry! Joane Pappas White Lady J Land & Livestock Attorney at Law Price, Utah

Texas  |  April, 16, 2014 at 08:43 AM

You forgot to mention the Reid connection to the land, the Reid connection to Kornze, the Reid connection to the Chinese, or the Reid connection to the bloodshed that would have followed. And you forgot to mention that the feds pulled out the DAY AFTER the Reid connection was exposed on And you forgot to mention that the courts involved work for the Gay Mafia, no jury was involved, and due process was not allowed. And you forgot to mention the definition of "Militia", every able body. According to the 2nd Amendment, the only Constitutional Authority left in the land is the Militia.

Kentucky  |  April, 16, 2014 at 09:18 AM

Sadly, Sam's reply misses all my points (and proves a previous post on the value of honest dialogue). Militias? Gay Mafia? No dialogue possible there I reckon....

Craig A. Moore    
Billings, MT  |  April, 16, 2014 at 12:18 PM

What I find baffling is on how many stories I am hearing on "what is really going on and why". I think all the reporters on this need to go back to reporting what "IS" happening and not what they think is going on. And I also think it a bit inappropriate for the police that is talking to the people at the gate to be looking like a special ops fresh out of Afghanistan.

Kansas  |  April, 17, 2014 at 09:53 AM

I'm standing with Robert on this one. The discussion should be held calmly and rationally. Sam is way out of line and he's exposed himself with his hate-filled rant and his conveniently forgotten second amendment statement that forgets the part about 'a well-regulated militia.' Let's try to separate 'well-regulated' and 'mob action.' Joane is a lawyer who would deny Robert his considered and thoughtful opinion by lighting her hair on fire and quoting highly questionable points.

AG10 Series Silage Defacers

Loosen silage while maintaining a smooth, compacted bunker space resulting in better feed and less waste. This unique tool pierces, ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight