Government Sponsored Terrorism

Cliven Bundy ain’t moving his cattle from the reported 600,000 acres of Nevada range they have grazed on for years. He also refuses to pay the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) the fees they charge for allowing the cattle to graze. He has also attracted volunteers some armed, to help protect his ranch from being terrorized by the BLM. Nevada Senator Harry Reid calls them “domestic terrorists.”

The government claims Bundy owes $1 million in grazing fees. Bundy says he isn’t going to pay. He has claimed, “My family has preemptive, adjudicated livestock water rights filed with the state of Nevada. They were established in 1877 when the first pioneers entered the valley. Among those first pioneers were my grandparents from my mother’s side. My father either bought or inherited his Nevada state livestock water rights and I, in turn, have done the same.”

The BLM had had enough and decided to take Bundy’s cattle that roamed the government’s range. Reports vary, but anywhere from 900 to 1000 head were gathered by the BLM and driven to pens for eventual disposal. In the process, six head reportedly died or were killed. The BLM admits to six dead cattle. Four had been “euthanized”, including one bull deemed too dangerous to handle. The remaining two unbranded dead cattle, a bull, and cow are said to have simply died during the roundup. They were all found buried in a mass grave. Bundy claims they were driven to death running from BLM helicopters.

Bundy’s claim to ancestral grazing rights under state authority seems to stand on shaky ground. A deed filed in Clark County, Nevada, on January 5, 1948 lists Raoul and Ruth Leavitt as owners of the property where the Bundy ranch now stands. Cliven Bundy claims to have inherited the grazing and water rights from grandmother, Ruth Leavitt.

The Bureau of Land Management was created in 1946 – the same year Clive Bundy was born. Although I have not been able to ascertain exactly when the land now claimed by Bundy for grazing was sold to the BLM, it stands to reason that rights derived earlier than 1948 would be hard or impossible to establish. Bundy claims the ranch has been in his family since 1870 and has been grazing family cattle with permission of the State of Nevada.

Suffice to say that Bundy’s ancestral claim is a bit more than murky. In any event, at some point, the land was sold to the government .Whether taken by eminent domain or actually sold for profit, the land Bundy’s cattle are now grazing on belongs to the US government. Bundy can only show private ownership for the immediate160 acres where his ranch stands.

I come from a ranching family. My relatives own one of the largest ranches in Arizona, and yes, the cattle graze on some BLM property, for which they pay grazing fees. I find it hard to sympathize with some who grazes his herd on government land without paying, as other ranchers are required. Still, I have several problems with the government in this case.

Yes, the government has been patient with Mr. Bundy. This dispute has been reportedly going on since 1994. The heavy-handed action taken by the government at this time is totally unwarranted. Confiscation of Mr. Bundy’s livestock without compensation is a blatant violation of his rights guaranteed by the 4^th amendment to the US Constitution. The subsequent killing of at least six cattle without compensation is nothing short of theft and terrorist tactics on the part of the BLM.

But the problems go even deeper. I have witnessed the heavy-handed tactics used by our government in the process of “acquiring” private property for government use (or non-use). The threat to use eminent domain proceedings is always intimidating for most property owners, especially when the property they have improved and paid taxes on for years is destined to be part of a National Park, Wilderness, Federal Reserve, or BLM acquisition.

Of course, the government is required to pay the least amount possible for property. This often results in a scheme called “checker boarding.” In order to pick up a property at a bargain basement price agents will pay fair prices for surrounding properties, thereby land-locking one property that they can claim is now worthless and pick it up for next-to-nothing. It may sound absurd, but I have seen it happen.

The final issue I have is the amount of land being taken every year by the government and placed out of bounds for the citizens who now own it and paid for it. Parks should be places where people can go for recreation. If the government takes the land, it should be for the benefit of the people, not placed off-limits to all uses. I have little problem with charging reasonable use fees, but the land should be used or left in the hands of the private owners.

In the West, private landowners are under attack by continual massive land grabs for expansion of National Parks, National Monuments, and National Wilderness areas. Much of this action could be attributed to the United Nations policy of relocating people from urban areas into jammed cities. The infamous UN agenda 21—now accepted policy – calls this “sustainable development.”

It now appears the government may have backed off their planned confiscation of Bundy’s cattle, despite Nevada Senator, Harry Reid’s diatribe and liable against those assisting Bundy. What is clear is that the terrorists here are actually our own government.