Cliven Bundy, the Nevada ‘Ranch War’, and a victory for militant jackasses everywhere

Last week, long standing tensions between a Nevada rancher and the Bureau of Land Management began to escalate toward a good old fashioned ‘Merican dust-up. Like Gary Cooper facing down the gang of outlaws in High Noon, rancher Cliven Bundy stood alone to defend life and liberty and against the forces of evil and exploitation.

First, a little history.

Cliven Bundy is the rancher at the epicentre of the fracas. According to Cliven Bundy, in the latter half of the 19th century a group of Latter Day Saints (Bundy’s progenitors included) settled parts of the inter-mountain west. It would seem this was done under the divine instruction and direct supervision of God, the infinite and almighty Creator of the Universe and ghost writer of the United States Constitution. Thanks to divine dispensation, Bundy’s ancestors have been grazing cattle on a sizable swath of the Nevada desert since the 1870s, peaceably and industriously carving an honest way of life out of the unforgiving high desert landscape.

Image

Cliven Bundy – Jim Urquhart/Reuters

Things changed when the Bureau of Land Management, a generally beneficial government agency that Bundy and his supporters apparently believe to be a tyrannical cabal of radical communists, decided to collect the land use fees Bundy had courageously neglected to pay for two decades. A quick internet search reveals that the mission of this shadowy government agency is to:

“manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield.”

Nefarious. I quake in fear for the future of American liberty. Under the blasphemous pretense that natural resources are somehow perishable and ecosystems fragile, the BLM works to erode the freedoms of hard-working Americans by forcing “sustainable” management strategies down the public’s throat. These corrupt liberal parasites believe that some lands represent a type of public good. Implicit in this is the suggestion that wanton, short-sighted exploitation of landscapes, ecosystems, and the resources they encompass is somehow unethical.

Since 1993, Bundy has refused to pay the BLM for the right to graze his 900 cattle on 600,000 acres of public property. That is, he has refused to pay for access to lands held in the public trust and managed by the federal government. Here, it is worth taking a moment to consider the purpose of land management with respect to grazing rights. In the 19th century, the U.S. government actively encouraged Euro-American settlement of the Western Frontier. According to the Homestead Act of 1862, individuals who filed an application, noticeably “improved” a portion of land over a five year period of occupation, and filed for a deed could become the proud owners of a given allotment of acreage. Implicit in the act itself is the notion that the federal government owns the land. Things were dandy until it became apparent that unregulated land use (such as grazing) damages the landscape, harming plants, soils, streams, springs, and animals. This provided the impetus for the enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, which led to subsequent improvements in range land productivity and watershed quality. With the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the BLM’s mission expanded to include the protection of resources additional to the common interests of cattle ranchers. Since then, the BLM has worked to preserve things like riparian ecosystems and protect sensitive species of plants and animals. 

Presumably, Bundy and his family had been paying lease fees to the BLM since 1934. He inexplicably (in terms that conform to any known criteria of logic, reason, or historical precedent, anyway) ceased payments in 1993. Since then, he has been grazing his cattle on public lands for free. The ecosystem in which Bundy’s cattle graze is not well adapted to their generalist grazing strategy. Consequently, cattle grazing results in some amount of passive (but non-negligible) damage to the environment. Ranchers like Bundy pay the BLM for access to public lands as a way to offset the environmental cost of grazing. So for over twenty years, Bundy has been engaged in the destruction of public property – a resource held in trust for the enjoyment and use of all Americans and the creatures with which we share the land, present and future – without paying into the trust that supports sustainable management. Put more simply, Bundy hasn’t paid his rent in 20 years. Last week, his overly lenient landlords began eviction proceedings.

Depending on who you ask, Bundy owes between $300,000 (if you ask economist Cliven Bundy, PhD) and $1,100,000 (if you ask the BLM) in back rent. In order to recoup a little of their costs, the BLM hired wranglers to round up some of Bundy’s cattle. Here, Bundy drew a line in the sand. For years, Bundy and his family have struggled under the yoke of tyranny, asked to pay $1.35 per cow per month to graze on public lands. That’s right. Bundy was asked to pay that fee. Being the civil rights hero that he his, Cliven Bundy said no. Yet the government continued to ask. Bastards.

Having seen the kernel of truth at the heart of the ancient proverb, “shit in your left hand and hope into your right and see what fills up faster”, the BLM, apparently comprised entirely of timid apologists, decided to take action. This lead to some serious public outrage, inspiring a bunch of militant, right-wing nut jobs to grab their AR-15s and their fourth grade understandings of U.S. history and head for Bunkerville, Nevada.
Image
John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal/AP

Under mounting public pressure (read: mounting pressure from ring-wing militants) and the growing threat of needless violence, the BLM backed down, capitulating to a man who says his personal interests take precedent over the interests of anyone and everything that might have some stake in the condition of that land, now or in the future. Contrary to standard U.S. policy, they also gave in to the demands of terrorists. That’s right. I said terrorists. Men and women who used the threat of violence and the fear it evokes to get their way. Terrorists. Ignorant yokels whose inscrutable sense of resentment and persecution has turned them into an active menace to the smooth and peaceful operation of a government agency whose work can – at the very worst – be considered innocuous.

In the final analysis, this will probably turn out to be a very small story. A footnote to a footnote in United States history. But it is a microcosm of the ignorance, paranoia, and selfishness festering in the minds of many Americans. As such, it should serve as a forceful lesson. A mob estimated to number somewhere around a thousand forced the U.S. government to allow a man to continue to break the law. That’s not to say the government should have continued to press the matter. Surely that would have lead to some backwoods jackass with an itchy trigger finger sparking a violent, bloody confrontation. I don’t think this affair would have been worth losing lives over. However, the fact that people are hailing Bundy as a hero is remarkable in all the worst ways. It is a position rooted in abject ignorance and the sort of livid, animal paranoia bred by a total blindness to differing opinions and the various methods by which information can be critically evaluated. It is the product of swaggering confidence, unmoored of sensibility, circumspection, incredulity, and civility.

By and large, dissenting opinions are good for democracy. I can live in a country where people disagree on how much influence government should have on the market, or whether or not a certain interpretation of the law is in line with the strictures of the U.S. constitutions. Civil, intelligent people can and do disagree. But the process of constructive debate and bipartisan compromise breaks down when a significant chunk of the population holds opinions justified only by their imaginations. The militants who gathered over the past few days in Nevada were there to defend a nation and a constitution they’d conjured out of thin air. And they were willing to hurt people to do so.

Additional reading and sources:

  1. http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/story?id=23302610
  2. http://www.newsweek.com/us-officials-end-stand-nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-246038?piano_t=1
  3. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/04/12/cliven_bundy_feds_halt_nevada_cattle_seizure.html
  4. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/08/armed-fed-agents-and-snipers-the-decades-long-battle-between-the-govt-and-a-nevada-rancher-that-has-finally-reached-breaking-point/
  5. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html
  6. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0410/Nevada-cattle-wars-Nevada-senator-sides-with-rancher-against-feds

 

 

 

11 thoughts on “Cliven Bundy, the Nevada ‘Ranch War’, and a victory for militant jackasses everywhere

  1. One thing I’d like to add, having extensive experience on a personal level with BLM and USFS employees is that they tend to be rather moderate individuals. There are some in each office that lean more pro-grazing and more anti-grazing, but most people want to follow the law and do whats best for the public good without sending the rancher out of business. Federal employees know all about the ESA, but they also know that the cattle on federal lands feed their fellow Americans on the cheap. For every on-the-ground fight with a rancher the BLM has, it’s tied up in court with an anti-grazing NGO that wants to pass legislation or re-interpret laws that prevent grazing altogether.

    In addition to the strange belief that the feds are run by a bunch of anti-grazing granolas, I have noticed something disturbing while perusing the comments section of news articles on this series of events.,This same group of paranoid hyper-libertarians that you’re talking about seem to think this entire affair is the doing of President Obama.

    “sheba7blue Apr. 12, 2014 at 6:00pm
    The Bundy’s need protection. Accidents seam to happen to people who go against Obama and Hillary . I feel something bigger is as foot here. To many forces for just a few cows. Fishy”

    Wha??? There aren’t even any dots there to connect. Freaky man.

  2. There’s one big advantage to having hicks like Cliven Bundy doing their thing. People like him minding their own business at least don’t aggravate the heck out of foreign sovereign states and governments all over the world and thus do not create the deadly risks the US government is and has been doing for over half a century: Causing the deadly risk of being bombarded back to the stone age or worse. Now also meddling in Ukraine, unacceptably close to the Russian motherland, may be its worst mistake and last thing the USA ever undertook.

    Many US citizens have begun to understand that their government is among the most corrupt and greedy in the world and do no longer trust this bunch of good ole’ boys and bankster minions who are treading on the US constitution and lining their pockets at the expense of the people (who, according to the US constitution, are the ‘sovereigns’!). Government officials should not be surprised that people no longer want to cooperate, not on federal, state or local level.

    • An interesting perspective. The U.S. does have a pretty clear history of meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations. Understandably, that has led to lot of resentment throughout the world.

      It is also true that U.S. government is incredibly corrupt. That said, I think it is a little off the mark to characterize the government per se as a greedy entity. The government is a body of people. The vast majority of those people are just doing their job. By and large, those jobs are pretty innocuous. When it comes to our elected officials, however, I would go so far as to say that greed and corruption are the rule.

      As you say, according to type of government established in the U.S. constitution, the people should be in charge. I think this is still true. The problem is that the vast majority of the people are rather apathetic when it comes to politics and have allowed a small minority of extremely wealthy individuals to begin calling most of the shots. When it comes to the erosion of liberty, I am far more concerned by developments like the McCutchen vs. FEC and Citizens United rulings recently issued by the Supreme Court than I am by the BLM confiscating Cliven Bundy’s cows.

      Anyway, thanks for the comment John. Keep it coming.

      Zane

  3. Sigh..all this writing and you STILL didn’t mention any of the stuff that major news is leaving out too.

    Why is everyone so focused on how this guy didn’t pay for grazing fees?

    Why does it seem that NO ONE is talking about solar development projects
    (NOT TALKING ABOUT CHINESE)/ damage mitigation zones?

    Why is there no mention of what BLM land management means and the difference between that and what is ACTUALLY being done by them?

    Why isn’t anyone finding “1st ammendment zones” alarming?
    LIKE YOU SERIOUSLY GLAZED OVER IT IN THIS ARTICLE LIKE IT WAS NOTHING.

    Why didn’t you mention Harry Reid’s connection to the Solar projects, STILL NOT TALKING ABOUT CHINESE.

    In fact, I found MOST of this to just be air, NO SUBSTANCE, though I’m not sure what I expected to get from this blog…Why even take the time to write this when there’s like 30 articles out there on the first 5 pages of google saying basically the same thing and NOTHING else? LITERALLY all you did was just add insults.

    Why does there seem to be such a huge effort to portray this group as A SMALL CONTAINED GROUP THAT IS FILLED WITH EXTREMISTS?

    THIS IS SPOSED TO BE A SKEPTICAL BLOG BUT ALL I SEE IS MAJOR MEDIA CONFORMITY.

    You seem like you basically just watched the news on this issue, and it is VERY easy to tell.
    I just don’t get this.

    For a skeptical blog, you really failed the idea of being skeptic….

    • The solar development project you mention has been dead for months. It’s planned location was 200 miles from where the standoff took place. As a skeptic, my acceptance of information is predicated on evidence. Currently, the Harry Reid/solar panel/China connection is nothing more than conspiracy theory. If you have evidence to the contrary I would be thrilled to see it.

      I directly mention what BLM land management means. I cite sources to that effect. I explicitly state the BLM’s mission and give a bit of historical background on how that mission came to be.

      First Amendment/ “free speech” zones are unfortunate, but they are also not new. Free speech zones were used to contain anti-war protestors during the Vietnam War and were a prominent feature under president George W. Bush. Considering the fact that some of the protestors were armed militia members – who planned on using women as human shields – I think containing their movements was quite reasonable.

      Again, the Harry Reid/solar panel deal is nothing more than hot air.

      It’s fine if you thought my blog was hot air. I’ve never deluded myself into thinking my editorials would be for everyone. It is worth noting that I wrote this when there were still very few critical analyses of the affair. It was either straight news-wire stuff or the unseemly hokum spewed by right-wing websites.

      It is also worth noting that I don’t watch the news. Most broadcast news is garbage and I don’t have time to sit around watching it. If a story strikes my interest, I do research.

      That said, I’m skeptical as to how well a person who so credulously accepts unsound conspiracy theories (Harry Reid/solar panels/China) is able to evaluate my arguments and properly situate them within the broader framework of skepticism.

      Also, you seem to be having trouble with our “caps lock” key. It’s the one between “tab” and “shift” on the far left side of your key board.

      Cheers!

      Zane

  4. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    • James, I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the Declaration of Independence quote. I suppose I could guess, but I’d rather not. If the implication is that the American Revolution provides a historical precedent supporting Cliven Bundy’s behavior, a bit of clarification would be helpful. Please, expound upon your point.

  5. Pingback: Heroic patriot Cliven Bundy takes brave stance on slavery | High Plains Skeptic

  6. Pingback: The Bundys Strike Back: Right-Wing Militants Seize Federal Building in Oregon | High Plains Skeptic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s