Comments about ‘Lawmakers to BLM: Sending seized Nevada cattle to Utah 'imprudent and careless'’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, April 10 2014 7:20 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tooele, UT

This would have been a Concord and Lexington moment if Americans were of the same caliber as the founding Americans.

walden, VT

According to article four section 3 clause 2 of the US constitution- "The 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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." Therefore Mr. Bundy should address members of congress about this issue. It is apparent that Mr. Bundy wants to properly raise cattle and he seems sympathetic to the tortoise population. Cattle are not harmful to the desert tortoise and may even be symbiotic given that Mr.Bundy has grazed cattle for many years on land that contained desert tortoises. He has not paid the taxes imposed upon him to sustain the BLM management of the area. However, given that the management of this situation by the BLM has been quite embarrassing I would encourage the BLM to construct a report that illustrates their need to manage the area.

Murray, UT

What kind of comment is that from our governor :"the concern and safety of utahs herds". Talk about spineless... Really? That's all he's worried about in this?

Sally Smiles-a-Lot
Vernal, UT

I've been wondering if any of these cows have new calves that are being left without their mothers to care for them. It is calving season. I have also been reading that the desert tortoise is going to be destroyed by the government, but I don't know whether it is in this area, or somewhere else.

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

KUDOS to the DN (and KSL) for covering this story. For whatever reason I've found the local coverage of this confrontation sparse. Although the national media are covering it quite a bit.

After I got a chance to watch the video of the "federales" guarding the cattle access, I have to think that they are poorly trained in crowd control.

I don't know who's "right or wrong" on the issue, but its' quite obvious that this whole mess
has he distinct possibility of getting out of hand - fast.

Provo, UT

Our children were born in Bunkerville, we know these people. We watched many friends who had ranches lose them when the BLM used the tortoise as an excuse to drive them off land their great-grandfathers had legally used for grazing. Out of 53 ranches, Clive is the last one. All the others closed because of the new extreme fees and limits. I could write ten thousand words explaining the legalities of this but no room.

The government is now euthanizing the turtles used as their excuse. They have sold water rights and mining and oil rights and has to remove the last obstacle. Our relatives lost 150 yr old mining rights in Gold Butte that were then sold to the big boys.

Clive has repeatedly stated he would pay the state the fees but not the BLM who have no Constitutional authority over state land (this is not a territory so above citation wrong).

I have friends who have reported seeing the calves separated from mothers crying for relief. I know these salt of the earth people.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

"In a joint statement, Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee joined Reps. Rob Bishop, Jason Chaffetz and Chris Stewart in urging BLM director Neil Kornze to keep the cattle out of Utah."

The cattle lobby is obviously in charge here in Utah, gotta love being able to buy protection, what's the name for that?

Safety of the Utah Cattle population, the same ones who dump their cattle in the Uintahs and go look for them in the fall?

Provo, UT

UtahBlueDevil: Ever heard of the concept of "adverse possession?" You can, indeed, gain title to land that you are using, if no one objects to your use for a period of time--normally seven years. These guys have been there for a hundred years.

Saratoga, UT


For his part, Bundy maintains that his family's claim to the land predates the creation of the federal agencies he's been battling.

I wonder if this is a 14 Amendment issue: No person may be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law."

Mr. Bundy would seem to suggest that these agencies do not have authority since his "property" rights pre-date their existence - he is questioning the legitimacy of the authority not the fees.

logan, UT

Since when is freeloading a conservative principle? Now it is a "Concord or Lexington moment" to refuse to pay for use of the public's land for your personal business? You may disagree with the policy or management, but does that give you the right to set aside the rule of law?
Vanceone- Adverse possession can not be used on Federal Land.

Provo, UT

The rule of law gives the states the right over public lands in their domain. FDR changed that with policy and it was unconstitutional. The Feds have authority over territories as stated above but not states.

Clive paid his dues until 20 years ago when the Feds decided the tortoises (who cows do not hurt) took precedent. I watched as 52 other ranches in the area were forced to shut down. They couldn't afford the legal fees in a system that wanted them out so they could take the water and mining rights.

Clive offered to pay the fees to the state but the BLM said no. He is a very hard working, honest man.

logan, UT

JJ1094--It's ownership that matters. Who cares if the Federal Agency that is tasked with oversight management of that VALID ownership has changed 50 times. This only has bearing so he knows to whom he should make out the check to.

Alabama, AL

This is not his land and he paid the lease price before but now has decided not to . I think there is some point he is not telling about. Does he want to cause problems to make a point only he understands?

logan, UT

Sammy, Clive nor the county are the arbitrators of what is constitutional. That is the function of the judicial system. I said the same thing with Tim DeChristopher's little tirade.

Clive,Sammy and 52 other ranchers have disagreements on how the owner of the land from whom they lease access to run their private business has chosen to manage it. They may have valid complaints. For what ever reason the management processes have not reflected their interests. Does that give them the right to take what is not theirs? The public has property rights too.

Zion's bank best reflects my values. I am going to call my current bank that holds my mortgage and see if they are OK if I send my payments to Zions.

Provo, UT

Logan, your bank does not have a constitution.

logan, UT

SammyB, We are all blessed to live and operate under the protection of the same constitution. It's influence if felt by my bank and Clive's ranch.

Some just think their interpretation of how it applies trumps everything and everyone else.

The founders set up a system that provides relief when over-reaching abuses occur. It sounds like Clive and his colleagues have fought some court battles and did not like the outcome. It was claimed that these folks do not have the resources to advance their perceived claim to constitutional purity through the courts. May be so. However, these issues have been well litigated many times before. Utah is advancing a state's rights assault on federal supremacy that will eventually end up in the legal system. Perhaps that or other litigation will change things for Clive. That does not change the fact that for the last 20 years Clive has opted to engage in criminal activity. Just because you feel really, really passionate about something and you really, really think you are right it does not give you the right to ignore the law without consequences. Change the law!


No matter how many attest to Clive Bundy's character on these pages, the man didn't pay his grazing fees for 20 years & owes $1.1 million dollars. Who cares if your family has been doing something on land you don't own for 100 years. You didn't pay so now your cattle are rounded up. If you didn't like it be an individualist and buy your own land to graze your own cattle. Can't afford it? Shouldn't be in the business. Times change and we're not an agrarian society anymore. Why heart disease is the number one cause of death in that area and Dr's promote us eating plant based proteins anyway. So the ranch is going the way of the old Wild West, perhaps our arteries will be clearer due to it.
This whole business of Utah getting involved in where the cattle are going to be sold is cow manure.
Sagebrush rebellion renew?

Salt Lake City, UT

Hmmm... Seems like Harry Reid is wanting the land to put a Solar Energy plant on, to be built by a Chinese company. Many people out of work and he is farming out jobs to China. I hope the Bundy Family and supporters stand firm, the US is slowly, piece by piece, being sold out from under us.

Huntingdon, PA

No matter how some will try to spin it, this situation is really about an American citizen (in this case a Nevada cattle rancher) who refuses to comply with existing laws. If Mr. Bundy gets away with circumventing the law, then why should any other citizen be expected to comply? “Freedom” does not mean “free from obeying the law.” Mr. Bundy and his supporters are on the side of lawlessness and are using the American flag and freedom as a smoke screen to further their anti-government agenda. I support ranchers, except those that think they are above the law. Unfortunately Mr. Bundy, through his actions and words, is giving all ranchers a bad name.

Mcallen, TX

What is worse?

Our commander in chief taking tens of millions from tax payers for lavish vacations, or Mr. Bundy not paying grazing fees?

Oh the inequality, and wage gap.--Did our commander pay taxes on that money he took away from us?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments