Welcome to Gaia! ::


Unholy Abomination

22,350 Points
  • Sunny Side Up 100
  • Abomination 100
  • Conventioneer 300
Old Blue Collar Joe
Lord Elwrind
Wait... killed 1000 whats? Turtles? Or am I misinterpreting?

WHAT?!

This whole article is confusing me.



its got a lot of bullshit phrasing in it.
The supposedly endangered desert tortoise, however, has had 1000 of their number killed by the feds to control their numbers.
The cattle that everyone is howling about? Guess what the desert tortoise eats? Yep. Cow s**t. So...the cattle are actually beneficial to them.
However, Reid's son is in cahoots with a chinese energy company, and if they can run Bundy off, the Reid clan stands to make millions again.
This is the same Reid currently being investigated for NOT disclosing a property sale and walking out the door tripling his money because he exerted pull to change zoning.
This is nothing to do with environmental protection. And remember this: Reid has also called all those that showed up to help Bundy against strong arm tactics a 'domestic terrorist'. The only domestic terrorist I see is the political whore that he is.


You are wrong about every single thing in this paragraph. The BLM has nothing to do with the turtle conservatory that was shut down, nor were they responsible for the turtles that were euthanized. Turtles do not eat "cow s**t." The cattle are not beneficial to the land - they are the exact opposite of beneficial. Harry Reid is not trying to take over Clive Bundy's ranch in some kind of hairbrained scheme to sell wind turbines to the Chinese.

Each and every single one of these dipshit conspiracy theories is completely full of s**t. This is why people like Alex Jones and other horseshit peddlers are dangerous - not because they're exposing some kind of hidden truth, but because when people - like you Joe - swallow the s**t they peddle, you end up making bad decisions.

In short, you're wrong because you're believing this conspiracy theory bullshit.

Shameless Hoarder

42,340 Points
  • Spirit Hoarder 500
  • Overstocked 200
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
This is long. I live in Las Vegas, NV. Local news gives more context and has been covering different angles of this for a long time. I've seen a lot of distortion in national media and it annoys and depresses me.

Lord Elwrind
If the tortoises are in constant decline, why the Feds kill 1000 of them? ...Instead of killing so many, why not disperse them?
I remember this because it was bandied about all through 2013. There are several factors in why the funding dried up, the population got too high, and a lot have to be euthanized if the facility shuts down
:
1. The funding was largely dependent on $550/acre fees on housing developers building in their habitat as Las Vegas crept into farther urban sprawl. Vegas was hit hard by the housing bubble bursting and those funds dried up.

2. The center is a partnership between the San Diego Zoo and multiple government agencies, some of whom have had other funding cut. I know there were multiple centers at some point but if I understand correctly they have been shutting down one by one over the years, each closure stressing the remaining centers.

3. The center in question is caring for more animals than it initially intended because irresponsible idiots keep either getting a license to own tortoises legally or grabbing tortoises from the desert illegally, breeding them in their back yards, spreading them around as pets or ending up with too many to handle on their own, and people then abandon those pets. A local paper cites ~1000 abandoned pet tortoises a year. Pet tortoises can bring diseases and genetic abnormalities in. That's eating up resources they initially intended to go toward research, rehabilitation, and release. In November legislation was enacted limiting pet owners to one tortoise at a time. It should have been done long ago. They're also looking into petitioning to get the tortoise de-listed before the conservation plan runs out in 2031, but that will incur an additional cost for more biologists to do researchy things and the economy hasn't recovered enough to warrant it. Right now the focus is on pooling the thoughts of all the states taking part in tortoise conservation to try to cut costs.

A selection from local papers:
01/2013: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/tortoise-center-wants-out-shelter-business
11/2013: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/clark-county-officials-lament-spending-157-million-desert-tortoises
12/2013: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/dec/03/county-officials-seek-cheaper-way-protect-desert-t/

And here's an AP article I can now only find republished on HuffPo:
08/2013: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/25/desert-tortoise_n_3813133.html
Quote:
scientists examined the facility's 1,400 inhabitants to find those hearty enough to release into the wild. Officials expect to euthanize more than half the animals in the coming months in preparation for closure at the end of 2014.
...Former pets make up the majority of the tortoises at the conservation center, where they spend their days staring down jackrabbits and ducking out of the sun into protective PVC piping tucked into the rocky desert floor. Most of these animals are not suitable for release, either infected with disease or otherwise too feeble to survive.


Also, since I saw it mentioned earlier that tortoises supposedly eat cow dung: Not sure how that would work. They're herbivores, not detritivores. They eat the plants the cattle eat, especially mesquite grass and wildflowers. New spring growth in plants is how they get most of their moisture. If they are spooked-- such as by cattle or herders and dogs traipsing about-- they dump their bladders as an alarm/defense, losing the vast majority of their fluid volume and endangering their lives.

Also, there was a program in California in which Ft. Irwin in the Mojave Desert wanted to expand and airlifted ~670 tortoises to another location. They suspended the program due to a high mortality rate. The hypothesis is that the western drought curbed plant growth and general moisture, which curbed the rodent population, which prompted coyotes to hunt tortoises, plus translocated tortoises seem to wander around a lot more in an attempt to find their lost burrows. So predators snag them as they wander about when they usually wouldn't be.
source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2008/10/army-suspends-r.html


Other salient points with citations:
1. re: The claim the BLM's the ones who started the armed aggression:
Las Vegas Sun article, 9/23/2013: 'Lone rancher is prepared to fight feds for land'
Now a showdown looms, one with a hint of possible violence. Officials say Bundy and his son are illegally running cattle in the 500,000-acre Gold Butte area, a habitat of the protected desert tortoise. In July, U.S. District Court Judge Lloyd George ruled that if Bundy did not remove his cattle by Aug. 23, they could be seized by the BLM. That hasn’t happened — yet — and the rancher insists his cattle aren’t going anywhere. He acknowledges that he keeps firearms at his ranch and has vowed to “do whatever it takes” to defend his animals from seizure.

“I’ve got to protect my property,” Bundy said as Arden steered several cattle inside an elongated pen. “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.”
...
His defiance led to visits by Department of Homeland Security officials and local sheriff’s deputies, who interviewed Bundy’s neighbors to determine any possible threat.
...
Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie visited the rancher last year but has resisted enforcing federal deadlines, declining to put his deputies in danger over a herd of cattle. Gillespie called Bundy in September with the names of a few lawyers to contact.
...
Collins added that Nevada officials are studying whether to petition the federal government for local control over a wide swath of land that includes the area Bundy is fighting over. “Cliven doesn’t want to be a martyr — the guy who shot it out with the feds, Waco-style,” he said. “I just hope the government isn’t stupid enough to go pick a fight with him.”
...
Bundy admitted his own spread runs to just 160 acres, far less than he needs to keep 500 head of cattle alive.
...
Carol Bundy said her husband is not a violent man, just a person who will protect what he owns. For that matter, so is she. “I’ve got a shotgun,” she said. “It’s loaded and I know how to use it. We’re ready to do what we have to do, but we’d rather win this in the court of public opinion.” source: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/sep/23/lone-rancher-prepared-fight-feds-land/
Bundy's been singing six ways from Sunday that he'll offer armed resistance for months now. Sending suits in to politely ask that he give them his cattle without defense is ridiculous.

2. I've poked around for local news on the wind turbine angle. I can't find anything more recent than 2011. The Nevada angle does not seem to be for a wind turbine farm but for an assembly factory to make turbines for a farm in Texas. Last I can find they had a temporary facility in Henderson (FYI: a southeast suburb of Las Vegas).
Quote:
A-Power plans to construct its first US turbine assembly facility, which is expected to be located in Nevada. A-Power is currently leasing a 36,000 square foot temporary facility in Henderson, Nevada. A-Power is seeking to assemble wind turbines in the United States that are intended to supply Spinning Star Energy LLC's ("Spinning Star" ) proposed wind energy power plant in west Texas and to other future customers in North and South America. A-Power presently expects that it will need to secure external financing for the wind turbine assembly facility. The availability of such external financing is not assured. source: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/a-power-chairman-jinxiang-lu-updates-us-senator-harry-reid-on-planned-wind-turbine-assembly-plant-in-nevada-120962999.html

The only article I can find with more detail is from 2010. They want to build a 320,000-square-foot facility. If that was all laid out in a single story that would be only ~7.35 acres. It's not like they want to build a city. Anything I can find says a site has not been chosen.

Congress let the Production Tax Credit for wind power expire at the end of 2013 so some wind projects got squeezed hard-- if construction hadn't begun by 1/1/14, they couldn't get the credit which cut their available finances. So in the absence of more recent evidence of progress I question whether the venture remained solvent. It was so built up in the press as a source of jobs that letting news of it being scuttled die quietly is something I can see happen.
source: http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US13F

3. A local CBS affiliate went digging to fact check Bundy's "my family's been here since before the federal government therefor he has a right to stay" type declarations.
* The ranch is in Bunkerville.
* The Bundys who originally came out west settled in a town in Mohave County, AZ as early as 1900 and are credited with the foundation of Bundyville aka Trumbull in AZ. His grandfather was born in NE. His father was born in AZ and lived there until the 1940s.
* No Bundys were in Bunkerville in the 1930s and 1940s, but his grandparents the Jensens lived and had a farm in nearby Mesquite. His grandmother is listed in a census as born in NV in 1901, but I can't find anything that says where. Lived in Mesquite though.
* Federal grazing districts were initiated in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.
* The Las Vegas area grazing district was established in 1936.
* The BLM was established in 1946, the year Cliven was born.
* Bundy's parents purchased the ranch in question in 1948.

* The earliest construction of the ranch was in 1951.
* The Bundys didn't start grazing cattle in the contested land until 1954
* While the article is unclear when they started paying grazing fees, they did so until 1993.
* His ranch is 160 acres. The federal land is 500k acres. He has valid claim to the 160 on his deed, not the 500k the feds control.
sources: http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny

The sentiment I'm personally running into in Vegas is "Bundy is an entitled, tax-dodging idiot playing chicken with the feds. This situation is a ticking time bomb."

Essentially: If you don't want to pay grazing fees to someone then don't build up a herd of cattle larger than you can support with land you lawfully own.


{{{edit to correct the size of the federal land from 500 acres to 500k acres}}}

Nyadriel's King

Apocalyptic Shapeshifter

49,200 Points
  • Luminary Melee Champion 200
  • Brick Breaker 50
  • Waffles! 25
Corinn
-snipped for simplicity-


aannnndddd this is why I ask dumb questions. mrgreen

Fashionable Genius

2,300 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Member 100
Chibi Halo
          Here's the thing kids, and this is why in this bit of news I'd rather see straight up as close to unbiased as possible reporting of the facts with no personal political views pushing it to one extreme or the other, they were threatening the lives of state and federal employees. This scares me to no end. These were people just doing the job they're being paid to do and told by their bosses where to go and how to get there. Bundy and Fox News, especially Hannity, are riling up the extremists in Nevada and somebody simply doing the job they were paid to do will end up dead because they work for the state or the federal government. Is my good friend who lives in Nevada and works for the Fish and Wildlife department going to have to carry a pistol and wear body armor every time she goes out to the lakes and rivers in Nevada to inspect the health and numbers of our nation's fish now? Is this what we have to look forward to, every federal employee working in Nevada, no matter what job it is they have, going to work in body armor with armed escorts? I know that's a very extreme situation but with the way Bundy has been running off at the mouth on Hannity's show and Hannity telling people to show up at Bundy's house armed with their rifles and some of them ready to shoot to kill it's looking more and more like the likely scenario. My friend is a simple marine biologist living in Las Vegas not anyone who can enforce the laws of the federal government or the state of Nevada. I don't want to see her life threatened by people like this if where she has to do her work backs up to some anti-government spouting extremist's property.



Took about 4 pages but FINALLY some sobering reality.

Sure this may seem... political... because Fox News and other conservative media are trying to make this Bundy guy some champion hero, but when people are pointing guns at each other... thats a whole other level.

Imagine if we had standoffs like that in Congress, itself.

Either way, Bundy and his supporters were pointing guns at Americans doing their job.

Fashionable Genius

2,300 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Member 100
Corinn

The sentiment I'm personally running into in Vegas is "Bundy is an entitled, tax-dodging idiot playing chicken with the feds. This situation is a ticking time bomb."

Essentially: If you don't want to pay grazing fees to someone then don't build up a herd of cattle larger than you can support with land you lawfully own.


The story should end here complete with justice served to Bundy and those who felt a need to point guns to "defend" this guy.

Time-traveling Senshi

Niji no Jojishi
Chibi Halo
          Here's the thing kids, and this is why in this bit of news I'd rather see straight up as close to unbiased as possible reporting of the facts with no personal political views pushing it to one extreme or the other, they were threatening the lives of state and federal employees. This scares me to no end. These were people just doing the job they're being paid to do and told by their bosses where to go and how to get there. Bundy and Fox News, especially Hannity, are riling up the extremists in Nevada and somebody simply doing the job they were paid to do will end up dead because they work for the state or the federal government. Is my good friend who lives in Nevada and works for the Fish and Wildlife department going to have to carry a pistol and wear body armor every time she goes out to the lakes and rivers in Nevada to inspect the health and numbers of our nation's fish now? Is this what we have to look forward to, every federal employee working in Nevada, no matter what job it is they have, going to work in body armor with armed escorts? I know that's a very extreme situation but with the way Bundy has been running off at the mouth on Hannity's show and Hannity telling people to show up at Bundy's house armed with their rifles and some of them ready to shoot to kill it's looking more and more like the likely scenario. My friend is a simple marine biologist living in Las Vegas not anyone who can enforce the laws of the federal government or the state of Nevada. I don't want to see her life threatened by people like this if where she has to do her work backs up to some anti-government spouting extremist's property.



Took about 4 pages but FINALLY some sobering reality.

Sure this may seem... political... because Fox News and other conservative media are trying to make this Bundy guy some champion hero, but when people are pointing guns at each other... thats a whole other level.

Imagine if we had standoffs like that in Congress, itself.

Either way, Bundy and his supporters were pointing guns at Americans doing their job.


          Yeah and when you read what Corinn posted from local Vegas papers and news channels you get the real story on this. Thing is, Hannity doesn't want to report the real story. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Bachman don't want to acknowledge the real story. The extreme fringe groups out there don't want to admit the real story exists. They want to believe he's some descendent of old west settlers who have been ranching that land for over one hundred years and had the land snatched up from him all because it pushes their agenda. He claims he follows state law but that's not one bit true because he has said several times the only law he listens to is that of the county sheriff. That's what people like that believe in. They don't acknowledge the state or federal governments at all. The highest authority to them is the county sheriff and it's something that has been going on since Washington was in office and people in Western Pennsylvania didn't want to pay a federal alcohol production tax. This fight is nothing new but the fact that it's being done in the age of Social Media is.

Shameless Hoarder

42,340 Points
  • Spirit Hoarder 500
  • Overstocked 200
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
Lord Elwrind
Corinn
-snipped for simplicity-


aannnndddd this is why I ask dumb questions. mrgreen


It's not dumb to ask questions like that. Given the absence of context in most of the national media it sounds preposterous-- it's like being given the first and last pages of a story but nothing in between. It's a legitimate question in the face of shoddy reporting. Good on you for asking, in my opinion. 3nodding

Friendly Citizen

4,750 Points
  • Junior Trader 100
  • Wall Street 200
  • Trader 100
Shama_okami
Even if the rest of the situation didn't make this guy nothing more than a criminal, anyone who says they are going to use women as human shields specifically because if they get shot it will look bad on the news looses all claims at being the good guy.


This was my thought on it as well.

Shameless Hoarder

42,340 Points
  • Spirit Hoarder 500
  • Overstocked 200
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
I found some additional locally-sourced articles and information.

First, a note on the two local papers:
Usually, the Review-Journal tends to lean libertarian and the Sun tends to lean a bit left. While both are staffed independently, they have a joint operating agreement in which the Sun scaled down its print reporting and is now distributed with the Review-Journal as if it was a section of it. The web sites are independent as far as I know.

Here's a Review-Journal article that presents a good, cohesive summary of the land issues. There is a good timeline after the main article.
selected excerpts
...“Clearly the (Bureau of Land Management) owns this land. The federal government has never doled it out to him or his predecessors and has maintained authority over it since it was Mexican land. Before that, it was Native American land,” he said.
...
Cole co-authored an April 14 article about Bundy with Western Watersheds Project director Ralph Maughan for The Wildlife News, the project’s publication. Titled “Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing,” the article notes that when Nevada became a state in 1864, “its citizens gave up all claims to unappropriated federal land.” ... The article doesn’t mention historical footnotes to the state constitution that document the repeal of the so-called “disclaimer clause” in 1996, when 56 percent of Nevada voters ratified striking the part that gave dominion over the lands to the federal government. But the Legislature’s calling for federal consent of the amendment has not been recognized by Congress or the courts.

Forty years before that, in 1956, Nevada voters amended the state constitution to allow taxation of federal lands if Congress ever consents to it.
...
Dozens of armed militias who had traveled from as far away as Alaska and Alabama conducted foot and motorized patrols — sometimes standing three abreast while gripping a roll bar in the back of a four-wheel drive vehicle...
...
CLIVEN BUNDY TIMELINE
...
1951
■ Bundy’s parents move their family into the newly constructed Bunkerville ranch house.

1954
■ Cliven’s father, David Ammon Bundy, begins grazing cattle with his 8-year-old son on the Bunkerville allotment near the farm he purchased in 1949. Cliven’s mother, Bodel Jensen Bundy, had homesteaded land near Mesquite. David and Bodel Bundy had moved their family from Mount Trumbull, Ariz., where David was born in 1922.

1973
■ Cliven Bundy pays grazing fees to the BLM for the next 20 years.

1993
■ The BLM modifies Bundy’s grazing permit by reducing the size allowed for his herd to 150 and restricts where his cattle can graze in the Gold Butte area. He refuses the permit and stops paying grazing fees. The BLM cancels his permit.


1994
■ The BLM issues an order requiring Bundy to remove his cattle.

1995
■ The BLM issues another order requiring Bundy to remove his cattle.

1996
■ Nevada Legislature and voters, seeking to take control of federal land in the state, repeal the so-called Disclaimer Clause of the state’s 1864 constitution that had declared people in the territory "disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands."

(((note: US Congress and courts have not recognized this. This is a legitimate legal angle someone can pursue. Not sure if courts might throw that out based on the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, “Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” I will link the relevant state constitutional clause and a related court case below.)))

1998
■ U.S. District Court of Nevada issues an order to stop Bundy from grazing cattle on the Bunkerville allotment.

1999
■ The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the District Court’s permanent injunction.

2008
■ The Interior Board of Land Appeals hears Bundy’s appeal of the BLM’s cancellation of his range improvement authorizations and affirms the BLM’s decision.

2011
■ The BLM sends a cease-and-desist order to Bundy and a notice of intent to gather his cattle.

2012
■ The BLM conducts aerial surveys of the Gold Butte area and prepares to round up 500 to 900 cattle but suspends the operation indefinitely in April 2012 out of safety concerns for people involved with the roundup.

2013
■ The U.S. District Court of Nevada in July orders Bundy to remove his cattle from public land within 45 days and says the U.S. can seize and impound any remaining cattle.

■ The court reaffirms in October that Bundy has no legal right to graze the federal land and, again, directs him to remove his cattle within 45 days, ordering Bundy not to interfere with an impoundment action.

source: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/environmentalists-bunkerville-rancher-bundy-freeloading


There is a legitimate question to be considered on the issue of state vs. federal control of lands, especially as NV passed a state constitutional amendment striking their disclaimer clause and it hasn't been acknowledged-- I can't really find any litigation on it either but I am admittedly not amazing at hunting down state court cases. Please share any legal links you can find that I haven't.

Nevada State Constitution, Ordinance (the part before the Preamble saying the laws it's laying down to meet requirements for admission into the Union):

this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:
...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.

[Amended in 1956 and 1996. ...The second amendment (removing the disclaimer clause from the ordinance) was proposed and passed by the 1993 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1995 legislature; and approved and ratified by the people at the 1996 general election, effective on the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary. See: Statutes of Nevada 1993, p. 3136; Statutes of Nevada 1995, p. 2917.]


The subject of state control is being brought to the fore by GOP elected officials from big ranching states. There needs to be more debate about it I think. I see pros and cons for each view but acknowledge I am not working with a lot of data. See a brief article on the issue here: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-and-west/western-gop-officials-let-states-run-public-lands


Here is a court case that is likely considered precedent for the Bundy situation.
United States v. Gardner
107 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1997)
brief: http://www.elawreview.org/summaries/natural_resources/forests/united_states_v_gardner.html
It deals with NV cattle ranchers and the Forest Service and went through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It's an interesting legal question tied up in the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which gave the feds title to the lands in the Mexican Cession, Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, the Equal Footing doctrine, the Tenth Amendment, and the Property Clause of the US Constitution. Reading the brief I see a couple places where the logic seems a bit off to me and I wonder (1) What legal context I don't have and (2) whether the ruling would be different if tried today. I doubt it but the last time Bundy got his appeal to the 9th Circuit (which ruled against him) was in 1999. If he got it to today's SCOTUS... I don't know how it would go.

For more on the land laws, here's an article the first Review-Journal article referenced.
excerpts from Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing
...Bundy also claims that it his “right” to graze these BLM public lands. This is not the case. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 specifically states that the issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land.
...
In Public Lands Council v. Babbitt the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the new grazing regulations promulgated by the Department of Interior under former Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt to conform to Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and found:
Quote:
The words “so far as consistent with the purposes . . . of this subchapter” and the warning that “issuance of a permit” creates no “right, title, interest or estate” make clear that the ranchers’ interest in permit stability cannot be absolute; and that the Secretary is free reasonably to determine just how, and the extent to which, “grazing privileges” shall be safeguarded, in light of the Act’s basic purposes. Of course, those purposes include “stabiliz[ing] the livestock industry,” but they also include “stop[ping] injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration,” and “provid[ing] for th[e] orderly use, improvement, and development” of the public range.
...
Inasmuch as they used (such as pointed) weapons to cause the government back down, it can be considered an armed insurrection. What about Bundy’s claim that his forebears bought the land he is now accused of trespass grazing upon? This land was once Mexican land, and was won by the United States after the Mexican-American War. It is part of what is known as the “Mexican Cession.” All of Nevada, California, Arizona and most of New Mexico were part of the Cession. Much of this land was privatized under various grants and laws such as the Homestead Act and the Desert Lands Act, plus mining claims. Several million acres were granted to Nevada for state lands, but those lands that were not privatized have always been Mexican lands or United States lands owned by the U.S. government. Before the Taylor Grazing Act, these government lands were called “the public domain.” They could be privatized, as mentioned, under the Homestead Act and such, but the acreage allowed per homesteader was limited to 160 acres. There were no 158,000 acre homestead privatizations and certainly no 750,000 acre privatizations. Livestock owners ran their livestock freely without a permit on the public domain. They didn’t even need a home base of property (a ranch). The result was disaster because the operator to find green grass and eat it first won out, promoting very bad grazing practices. That was the reason for Taylor Grazing Act — ranchers and others could see the public domain system led to disaster on the ground. Therefore, the more powerful ranchers with “base” private property received grazing permits. This got rid of the landless livestock operators. Taylor Grazing was administered on the ground by the U.S. Grazing Service. Now, ranchers with grazing permits had to pay a grazing fee to use their permits. Bundy’s ancestors probably got one of these grazing permits, but they most certainly did not buy the land. That was not possible. The public domain was not for sale and ranchers generally did not want it. After all, if they owned it, they would owe local property tax.
source: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/14/cliven-bundy-has-no-claim-to-federal-land-and-grazing/



Aaaand I'll finish up with a press release and letter from Congressman Steven Horsford to Sherriff Gillespie to look into the situation more because there are creepy allegations about the remaining milita.
Horsford Urges Sheriff Gillespie To Investigate Armed Militia Presence In Bunkerville
April 27, 2014

Sheriff Douglas C. Gillespie
Clark County Sheriff’s Department
400 S. Martin L. BLVD
Las Vegas, NV 89106

Dear Sheriff Gillespie,

I am writing to bring your attention to the ongoing situation in northeastern Clark County which has caused many of my constituents to fear for their safety.

Residents of Bunkerville and the surrounding area have expressed concern over the continual presence of multiple out-of-state, armed militia groups that have remained in the community since the BLM halted its actions to impound the cattle of Cliven Bundy earlier this month.

My constituents have expressed concern that members of these armed militia groups:

1. Have set up checkpoints where residents are required to prove they live in the area before being allowed to pass;
2. Have established a persistent presence along federal highways and state and county roads; and
3. Have established an armed presence in or around community areas including local churches, school, and other community locations.


We must respect individual constitutional liberties, but the residents of and visitors to Clark County should not be expected to live under the persistent watch of an armed militia. Their continual presence has made residents feel unsafe and maligned a quiet community’s peaceful reputation.

Residents have expressed their desire to see these groups leave their community. I appreciate the responsiveness and accessibility you and your office have provided during this difficult time for those directly impacted by the situation. I urge you to investigate these reports and to work with local leaders to ensure that their concerns are addressed in a manner that allows the community to move forward without incident.

Sincerely,

Steven Horsford
Member of Congress


raggedy grrl

I can't reply to you because your PMs are disabled. Thank you though.

Yuki_Windira's Husband

Invisible Hunter

13,800 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Marathon 300
  • Forum Sophomore 300
Still waiting for more information regarding the media blackout and no fly zone a few weeks ago...

Shameless Hoarder

42,340 Points
  • Spirit Hoarder 500
  • Overstocked 200
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
JamesWN
Still waiting for more information regarding the media blackout and no fly zone a few weeks ago...


Any articles I can find even mentioning such things also includes so much bogus information ("The Bundys and their ancestors have operated the same ranch in the Bunkerville area for over 150 years..." when it was bought in 1948, etc.) that I doubt it. The Review-Journal has been good about following this and they lean libertarian so it seems like something they'd have a field day with. I've been impressed by how even-handed the RJ's been actually.

If it happened, I can see the sense in establishing a no-fly zone before the cattle-grab, though.
1. There would already be helicopters there. Cross-traffic could be an issue if the BLM choppers had to maneuver suddenly.
2. Bundy had been all but threatening armed resistance to any attempt to seize cattle since last summer. He was taken seriously enough that the sheriff and Homeland Security looked into him. Having unrelated choppers in the air could be a risk if they thought his supporters' armed resistance might be aimed at the helicopters.
3. Feds were aware that some very adamant anti-government militia was coming out to support Bundy. Designating a no-fly zone could give them warning if one of them managed to get creative with a private aircraft, as with the citizen who crashed a small plane into an IRS building.

If by media blackout you mean designating press areas/1st Amendment zones, I can see the reason in that too: The feds had a legitimate wariness that it could get ugly. Reporters caught in crossfire is not something anyone wants to happen. If gunfire was exchanged and reporters were hit then we'd be raging over why they were allowed there, why they weren't safe.

A lot of what people have been wringing their hands over in this situation is stuff that seems like sensible public safety measures around a flashpoint that could have gotten very ugly very quickly. I mean, people were saying he could go all Waco-- specifically bringing up Waco-- back in September, before anyone in the national media knew who he was. There was a threat of calling up militia from the get-go. I don't see why it's so shocking that the feds would come armed for bear and in lockdown mode.

{{{edited to pluralize the word "article"}}}

Yuki_Windira's Husband

Invisible Hunter

13,800 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Marathon 300
  • Forum Sophomore 300
Corinn
JamesWN
Still waiting for more information regarding the media blackout and no fly zone a few weeks ago...


Any article I can find even mentioning such things also includes so much bogus information ("The Bundys and their ancestors have operated the same ranch in the Bunkerville area for over 150 years..." when it was bought in 1948, etc.) that I doubt it. The Review-Journal has been good about following this and they lean libertarian so it seems like something they'd have a field day with. I've been impressed by how even-handed the RJ's been actually.

If it happened, I can see the sense in establishing a no-fly zone before the cattle-grab, though.
1. There would already be helicopters there. Cross-traffic could be an issue if the BLM choppers had to maneuver suddenly.
2. Bundy had been all but threatening armed resistance to any attempt to seize cattle since last summer. He was taken seriously enough that the sheriff and Homeland Security looked into him. Having unrelated choppers in the air could be a risk if they thought his supporters' armed resistance might be aimed at the helicopters.
3. Feds were aware that some very adamant anti-government militia was coming out to support Bundy. Designating a no-fly zone could give them warning if one of them managed to get creative with a private aircraft, as with the citizen who crashed a small plane into an IRS building.

If by media blackout you mean designating press areas/1st Amendment zones, I can see the reason in that too: The feds had a legitimate wariness that it could get ugly. Reporters caught in crossfire is not something anyone wants to happen. If gunfire was exchanged and reporters were hit then we'd be raging over why they were allowed there, why they weren't safe.

A lot of what people have been wringing their hands over in this situation is stuff that seems like sensible public safety measures around a flashpoint that could have gotten very ugly very quickly. I mean, people were saying he could go all Waco-- specifically bringing up Waco-- back in September, before anyone in the national media knew who he was. There was a threat of calling up militia from the get-go. I don't see why it's so shocking that the feds would come armed for bear and in lockdown mode.


Don't get me started on the "First Amendment Zones". Whoever came up with that bullshit needs their head slammed into the pavement a couple dozen times.

And more what I'm talking about is individuals having their streaming feeds cut and being unable to livestream images. Most people had to switch to cell phones just to talk about what was going on there.

Perfect set up for government shitbags to gun people down and then cover it up if you ask me. stare

Shameless Hoarder

42,340 Points
  • Spirit Hoarder 500
  • Overstocked 200
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
JamesWN
Corinn
JamesWN
Still waiting for more information regarding the media blackout and no fly zone a few weeks ago...


Any article I can find even mentioning such things also includes so much bogus information ("The Bundys and their ancestors have operated the same ranch in the Bunkerville area for over 150 years..." when it was bought in 1948, etc.) that I doubt it. The Review-Journal has been good about following this and they lean libertarian so it seems like something they'd have a field day with. I've been impressed by how even-handed the RJ's been actually.

If it happened, I can see the sense in establishing a no-fly zone before the cattle-grab, though.
1. There would already be helicopters there. Cross-traffic could be an issue if the BLM choppers had to maneuver suddenly.
2. Bundy had been all but threatening armed resistance to any attempt to seize cattle since last summer. He was taken seriously enough that the sheriff and Homeland Security looked into him. Having unrelated choppers in the air could be a risk if they thought his supporters' armed resistance might be aimed at the helicopters.
3. Feds were aware that some very adamant anti-government militia was coming out to support Bundy. Designating a no-fly zone could give them warning if one of them managed to get creative with a private aircraft, as with the citizen who crashed a small plane into an IRS building.

If by media blackout you mean designating press areas/1st Amendment zones, I can see the reason in that too: The feds had a legitimate wariness that it could get ugly. Reporters caught in crossfire is not something anyone wants to happen. If gunfire was exchanged and reporters were hit then we'd be raging over why they were allowed there, why they weren't safe.

A lot of what people have been wringing their hands over in this situation is stuff that seems like sensible public safety measures around a flashpoint that could have gotten very ugly very quickly. I mean, people were saying he could go all Waco-- specifically bringing up Waco-- back in September, before anyone in the national media knew who he was. There was a threat of calling up militia from the get-go. I don't see why it's so shocking that the feds would come armed for bear and in lockdown mode.


Don't get me started on the "First Amendment Zones". Whoever came up with that bullshit needs their head slammed into the pavement a couple dozen times.

And more what I'm talking about is individuals having their streaming feeds cut and being unable to livestream images. Most people had to switch to cell phones just to talk about what was going on there.

Perfect set up for government shitbags to gun people down and then cover it up if you ask me. stare

I've already said why I think they were a workable compromise for public safety, so whatever.

Streaming through what kind of service? If you're talking like wifi or 4G or something... you know that ranch is in the middle of the damn desert, right? (GoogleMap of location per coordinates @ Wikipedia) Bunkerville is maybe 5-6 miles away from the ranch, but that's a tiny unincorporated town with a population around 1300-- I went to a high school with that many students. There aren't enough people there to merit a major installation. As far as I know there's not much infrastructure that far from Mesquite. (I could be wrong.) I've lost even the ability to make a cell phone call in the desert. They probably only got cell phone signals because the terrain is so flat between the ranch and Mesquite-- had they been 20-25 miles south Virgin Peak could have interfered with the signals from Mesquite; Overton would be across flat terrain but that's a lot smaller than Mesquite so I am unsure of its infrastructure. The sheer unprecedented load of data traffic may have had that sort of effect. It's like how sometimes personal internet can crawl because someone else in your service area is hogging all the bandwidth for major downloads or videos or whatever. You tell the company and they reallocate resources, or like when cell phone services crash during a critical emergency due to unprecedented high traffic. That network wasn't intended to support that many drains on its resources.

Bundy wouldn't have given them reason to come in aggressively if he hadn't been alluding to "doing anything it takes" and calling up a militia for months. In a way that had people thinking "potential Waco" in September. I mean, come on.

Lord Elwrind's Queen

Dangerous Fairy

55,065 Points
  • Waffles! 25
  • Team Poison Master 250
  • Winged 100
JamesWN
Corinn
JamesWN
Still waiting for more information regarding the media blackout and no fly zone a few weeks ago...


Any article I can find even mentioning such things also includes so much bogus information ("The Bundys and their ancestors have operated the same ranch in the Bunkerville area for over 150 years..." when it was bought in 1948, etc.) that I doubt it. The Review-Journal has been good about following this and they lean libertarian so it seems like something they'd have a field day with. I've been impressed by how even-handed the RJ's been actually.

If it happened, I can see the sense in establishing a no-fly zone before the cattle-grab, though.
1. There would already be helicopters there. Cross-traffic could be an issue if the BLM choppers had to maneuver suddenly.
2. Bundy had been all but threatening armed resistance to any attempt to seize cattle since last summer. He was taken seriously enough that the sheriff and Homeland Security looked into him. Having unrelated choppers in the air could be a risk if they thought his supporters' armed resistance might be aimed at the helicopters.
3. Feds were aware that some very adamant anti-government militia was coming out to support Bundy. Designating a no-fly zone could give them warning if one of them managed to get creative with a private aircraft, as with the citizen who crashed a small plane into an IRS building.

If by media blackout you mean designating press areas/1st Amendment zones, I can see the reason in that too: The feds had a legitimate wariness that it could get ugly. Reporters caught in crossfire is not something anyone wants to happen. If gunfire was exchanged and reporters were hit then we'd be raging over why they were allowed there, why they weren't safe.

A lot of what people have been wringing their hands over in this situation is stuff that seems like sensible public safety measures around a flashpoint that could have gotten very ugly very quickly. I mean, people were saying he could go all Waco-- specifically bringing up Waco-- back in September, before anyone in the national media knew who he was. There was a threat of calling up militia from the get-go. I don't see why it's so shocking that the feds would come armed for bear and in lockdown mode.


Don't get me started on the "First Amendment Zones". Whoever came up with that bullshit needs their head slammed into the pavement a couple dozen times.

And more what I'm talking about is individuals having their streaming feeds cut and being unable to livestream images. Most people had to switch to cell phones just to talk about what was going on there.

Perfect set up for government shitbags to gun people down and then cover it up if you ask me. stare


I can see the reason for this in this way

A media blackout such as this keeps things quiet for a time so as NOT to escalate the situation. People are like grasshoppers. Happy little beings until they start to rub up against each other and start getting angry and then become a plague of locusts.
The blackout is a way to try and keep things under control and peaceful. News does still get out when people talk on the cells, as you pointed out. So there is a stream of information coming through.

The other reason for the blackout is to give time for both sides to wrangle through on a legal level. News will break when something major happens.

Just sit back and wait and dont worry too much about it. It's okay to have a conversation. Just dont get paranoid just because things get quiet on the news-front. Bide your time.

Unholy Abomination

22,350 Points
  • Sunny Side Up 100
  • Abomination 100
  • Conventioneer 300
JamesWN
Still waiting for more information regarding the media blackout and no fly zone a few weeks ago...


That's probably because there was no media blackout and no fly zone in the first place.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum