Published: Wednesday, April 30 2014 10:46 a.m. MDT
The “Conservative” rancher, Clive Bundy, and his friends in Nevada
are “ordinary looking people” according to the article.The people with drawn weapons, itchy fingers, a seething hatred for Federal
authority, and an intent to intimidate Federal Employees, are regarded by the
author as “ordinary looking people.”I suppose that
depends on what you’re used to seeing and accepting. To me, they are not
“ordinary looking people.”Is it reasonable for
individuals and states to DEMAND land from the Federal Government. The answer
is NO.“We the People of the United States” own that
Federal Land. And “We the People” do NOT negotiate or compromise
with Terrorists.Get used to it.BTW, “Conservative
Patriot” is a metonymy too. It means "potential domestic
terrorist." Why? . . . Because facts are facts.
Where is the outcry against BLM's Putin actions? When the
politicians controlling the Government withheld the land promised to Western
States for joining the Union, that dishonest act created friction between
justice and greed and endless disputes.Cliven Bundy is no racist -
clearly does not have a lawyer's clever tongue to express his view that
family life in poverty is better than a broken family caused by government
handouts.BLM seized Shoshone former Chief Raymond Yowell's 132
cows and is garnishing 15% ofhis $1,150 Social Security checks. Chief
Raymond Yowell has a jaded view of white man's government. Luckily, he
used the word white, or he'd be classified as a racist and lynched by the
media."In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S.
District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late Nevada rancher E.
Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit renewal that by signing the
permit, he was not surrendering his family’s long-standing water and
forage rights on the land, the BLM not only rejected the permit but also
conspired for decades to both deny his family’s property rights and to
destroy their cattle business."
It's been a long time since I agreed with much of what Jay says. But he
makes a lot of sense here. Unfortunately, the GOP that controls all levels of
Utah state government has far too many ideologues and self interested
individuals who I fear would not hesitate to sell short the long term
environmental and recreational interests in preserving public space in favor of
short term extractive and other uses for immediate financial gain. On the whole,
I trust the Feds on the public lands issue more than I trust Utah's self
interested power brokers.
Clive Bundy is representative of the personalities involved in the use of our
public lands. That includes politicans, environmentalist, ranchers, and mineral
extraction users. A lot of stubborn people backed by money and power. This is
an issue of control, plain and simple. Overwhelming polls show that Americans
want to keep this land public with no drastic changes to it's current use.
Our Utah politicans are trying to go against the public tide with the support of
extraction users, ranchers and local constituents.
Unstated are those who believe the land belongs to *them*, not to feds, not to
the states, counties, or any other form of oppressive, tyrannical government.These crackpots serve a useful purpose - they make the state proposal
for mass giveaways in their favor look like a compromise position.Here's a position the rest of America might be able to support: take all
the federally owned land that isn't a National Park, Wilderness, National
Forest or Monument, price it so that the national debt would be paid off in
full, and charge that amount to the states, totaling $17 Trillion.I
know real conservatives don't believe in giveaways, and they are for
eliminating the federal debt. I can't see why they
wouldn't support this proposal. If the states aren't just looking for
the biggest handout in the history of welfare, they'll seriously consider
It all comes down to greed.
The State controls Beck Street, Kennecott, the refineries, the radioactive dump
by Energy Solutions, and the billboards along the Freeways.The Feds
control the National Parks.I prefer having the Feds in control of
There is so much empty rhetoric on this issue. First, Jim Hansen may have
introduced a bill, but only to appease Utah special interests to exploit the
land. He knew the bill would go nowhere, even in a Republican Administration.
Second, what would Utah do with the lands? Sell them? More mining or other
exclusive rights to corporations, removing those lands from public use?
I've yet to see a plan where the interests of the general public are
addressed. It's always about commercial exploitation by special interests.
We the people are ignored, but are instead used and manipulated to support
those special interests. And finally, for now, most of those hated BLM folks
are Westerners, many Utahns, and many Mormons. It is easy to paint them as
detached and whatever, but they are not. In the last 60 years, the only time
the Secretary of the Interior was from a non-Western state was under Nixon and
Reagan. And I guarantee that if the GOP can pull it together in 2016 and elect
one of their own to the White House, this issue will pretty much die down.
It's all partisan politics meant to serve special interests.
There is no way that Utah could afford to maintain all of the BLM land in the
state.If Utah was suddenly in possession of all of our federal
lands, it would cherry pick the choice locations and sell them to private
corporations. You could immediately kiss public access to these lands good bye.
(Sure you can go on Washington State privately owned timber land, but you better
get a permit from Weyerhaeuser first.) The less valuable lands would fall into
ruin and we would beg the federal government to take back these blighted
areas.Thank heaven the feds own most of Utah!
Bundy was born in AZ, his wife's family owned the maximum homestead ranch
160 acres near MesquiteNevada charges $12 a head of cattle on State lands
while the Feds charge a dollar.Anger derived from ignorance and backed
with firearms isn't patriotic it's borderline, if not right out,
insurrection.He's a fraud, and now a tool for others who would
steal their children's inheritance.
Mr Evensen, you write that "The state would have to balance the needs of
extraction companies, environmentalists, recreationists and local residents just
as the feds do now". I appreciate your point of view on that important
aspect of this issue. As a citizen of the west, I am concerned whether the state
could or would do as good a job balancing the needs of these competing interests
for these vast lands as the BLM has done? Might there be a tempation for the
state to sell off much of the good land that is currently used by the public for
recreation and renewal to corporations and private parties who would then
restrict access to the land?For those who enjoy having reasonable
access to public lands as we have had for generations, where will we go when
that land is no longer public? Once that land is placed into private hands,
access to it will be gone forever to common every day people who aren't
wealthy enough to buy it all up for themselves only!
Did you see the article comparing the grazing case with the XL Pipeline
situation? "But many of the pundits and talking heads who rallied behind
Bundy (at least before his racist outburst) are also advocating the Keystone XL
pipeline -- despite the ranchers and farmers up in arms about pipeline owner
TransCanada Corp. trying to force its way onto their land....Crawford said
she's worried about the pipeline's effect on cultural and
environmental aspects of the land. But mostly she said she's mad that
TransCanada could essentially take her land without her permission. She is
trying to get the Texas Supreme Court to hear her case, arguing that the company
should not have had the ability to claim eminent domain in the first
place....'A foreign corporation building a for-profit pipeline doesn't
meet the standards for eminent domain,' Crawford said."I
guess consistency doesn't matter.
Once Federal lands became the property of a state, whether by purchase or
transfer, there is no legal guarantee they will remain public lands. Nor is it
clear in all cases how transfer will affect the administering and enforcement of
national land use policies.States may be chomping at the bit to
acquire the lands and private interests may already be making plans. But until a
persuasive case is made for what best serves the greater common good, the
Federal Government has a duty as public trustee to not let control of public
lands slip away.
Excellent article. This is exactly what I was thinking when I saw
this guy on TV. This is the last person in the world ranchers need as their
spokesperson about federal lands issues. The problems go back to the nineteenth
century and never seemed to get solved no matter who is in the White House or
who controls Congress. Yet the problems are solvable. I doubt any progress is
ever going to be made however, when the spokesperson of ranchers is advocating a
return to slavery and secession from the Union.
I'd really rather the state of Utah NOT have ownership/guardianship of the
federal lands.Utah's elite just want to use and abuse the land.
@Meckofahess;I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you. You actually
said something I can agree with you on.
Has anyone else wondered what got ol' Clive on such a rant about
society?Before opening his mouth, shouldn't he have consulted with
those in the know about his lawlessness? Perhaps hired a slick city
lawyer/spokesperson?Such a Ruby Ridge type deja vu feeling in Mesquite,
Nevada.Did he know all along that he done wrong?Has SNL done a spoof
on this one yet?
Where are the typical repub posters on this one?Have even they
abandoned Saint Clive? But things were finally starting to get interesting!Haha, in my opinion Clive wants to act like a traitor and terrorist.
Grant him his sizes and treat him as one.Public lands can and should
remain in control of the Feds, period. No compromise! Never! I just don't
trust folks like John Swallow or Becky Lockhart.
Two comments, Jay: First, any hint of lending credibility to a bunch of
trigger-happy, AK-47 toting so-called patriots, regardless of Bundy's
racist comments, does nothing for your credibility. These folks were there to
defend at all costs an established lawbreaker, including seeing their wives
killed. I'm not sure we could find a better example of "crazy."Second, any constructive conversation regarding the state taking control
of 30 million acres of federal lands should be centered around the question,
"How will the state pay for it?" Once it is acknowledged how much it
actually costs to administer and manage those lands, even if the state can do it
for half, the conversation will start to transition away from ideology to
pragmatism. Of course, that's area that Ken Ivory avoids because it causes
him to start to be honest.
Finally, it is good to see the DN move away from any defense of Bundy and his
disregard for the rule of law. I can understand states wanting control over
public lands, but question that Evensen's call for "balance" would
actually happen. The cost of maintaining and protecting public lands is so high,
that states, like Utah, would have to open up development or sell some land to
even afford preserving what is left.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments