I Stand With Bundy

Folks, I was taking a bit of a break from blogging during the "active" phase of the BLM vs. Bundy stand-off. That said, I'm sure it'll come as no surprise to any of you that... I stand with Bundy.

Overall... the media reporting has been dismal. One really has to dig in order to find answers, and even then... questions remain.

John Hinderaker - attorney and co-founder of the Powerline Blog - published a piece the other day that may shed some light on the greater issues at play here for you. Of course, I "barkerize" it... throw in my own questions and two-cents worth of opinion... but bottom line... Hinderaker's piece throws some much needed light upon the broader issues at play.

Here goes...

*  *  *  *  *  *

On Saturday, I wrote about the standoff at Bundy Ranch. That post drew a remarkable amount of traffic, even though, as I wrote then, I had not quite decided what to make of the story. Since then, I have continued to study the facts and have drawn some conclusions. Here they are.

First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay.

* FOLKS... TO UNDERSTAND THIS STORY YOU'VE GOT TO ASK QUESTIONS. I'M GONNA BE ASKING SOME... ASK YOURSELF IF HAVING ANSWERS WOULDN'T CLARIFY THINGS!

* FIRST QUESTION... BY WHAT RIGHT DOES THE BLM CHARGE GRAZING FEES AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives.

As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases.

In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned.

* BUT HOW AND WHY IS MOST OF IT FEDERALLY OWNED...??? DID THE STATES SELL THE LAND TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? THIS IS WHERE CLARIFICATION AND HISTORY REALLY NEED TO BE BROUGHT INTO PLAY.

Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument.

* BUT IF THE ARGUMENT IS SO CLEAR... WHY ISN'T THE HISTORY AND LOGIC OF THE FEDERAL LAND OWNERSHIP THE FOREMOST CENTER OF THIS DEBATE...???

* AND... FOLKS... NOTE... WE'RE TALKING THE EARLY 1990's... WHAT WAS THE NORM OF UNDERSTANDING THE LEGALITIES OF THE PRESENT SITUATION IN... SAY... THE NEAR 140 YEARS PRIOR TO THE BLM ARRIVAL ON THE SCENE...??? (I MEAN... WE'RE ALWAYS TAUGHT PRECEDENT PLAYS SUCH A LARGE PART IN THE LAW...)

[W]hy does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.

Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one.

* THINK ABOUT THAT, FOLKS... Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one.

* THINK ABOUT THAT, FOLKS... Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business.

When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that?

* GOOD QUESTION! (AND QUESTION... WHAT EXACTLY IS THE OFFICIAL PURPOSE OF THE BLM? SURELY IT'S NOT TO DESTROY AMERICAN CATTLE RANCHERS? AND WHAT PRECISELY DOES THE ENABLING LANGUAGE OF THE GRAZING FEE LEGISLATION SAY THE PURPOSE FOR THE FEE IS? IS THE FEE BEING USED FOR THAT PURPOSE? IF NOT... THEN WHO EXACTLY SHOULD BE IN TROUBLE FOR BREAKING THE LAW...?)

The bedrock issue here is that the federal government owns more than 80% of the state of Nevada.

* WHY...?!?!

This is true across the western states.

* WHY...?!?!

To an astonishing degree, those states lack sovereignty over their own territory.

* AND JUST ON THE FACE OF IT... WHEN YOU THINK UPON IT... HOW IN HELL CAN THAT PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER?!

Most of the land is federal. And the federal agencies that rule over federal lands have agendas. At every opportunity, it seems, they restrict not only what can be done on federal lands, but on privately-owned property. They are hostile to traditional industries like logging, mining and ranching, and if you have a puddle in your back yard, the EPA will try to regulate it as a navigable waterway. (That is only a slight exaggeration.) One could say that Cliven Bundy is just one more victim of progress and changing mores.

The federal government has gotten more environmentally-conscious, and now we really, really care about desert tortoises. (It was the designation of desert tortoises as an endangered species that gave BLM the opportunity to squeeze Bundy in the early 1990s.) But here’s the thing: the Bureau of Land Management – the federal government – is not necessarily anti-development. Rather, its attitude depends entirely on what sort of development is in question.

Thus, BLM has developed a grandiose plan to develop vast solar energy installations on federal land across the Southwest. Wind power projects are favored, too. In fact, the same BLM that has driven Nevada’s ranchers out of business has welcomed solar projects with open arms. Some have claimed that Harry Reid is behind the BLM’s war against Cliven Bundy, on the theory that he wants the land for a solar project in which his son Rory is involved, along with the Chinese. I don’t believe this is correct. The solar projects are located north of Las Vegas, 30 miles or so from the area where Bundy ranches. But the connection is nevertheless important in two respects. First, BLM has promulgated a regional mitigation strategy for the environmental impacts of the solar developments.

Let’s pause on that for a moment: the excuse for limiting Bundy’s rights is the endangered desert tortoise. But wait! Don’t they have desert tortoises a few miles away where the solar projects are being built? Of course they do. That’s where they get to the mitigation strategy, which may involve, among other things, moving some desert tortoises to a new location:

Second, the Gold Butte ACEC is preliminarily recommended as the best recipient location for regional mitigation from the Dry Lake SEZ. This ACEC is located 32 miles (51 km) east of the Dry Lake SEZ. Gold Butte is the area where Bundy ranches. There are a few problems with the Gold Butte location as a mitigation area; one of them is that there are “trespassing” cattle.

So it is possible that the federal government is driving Bundy off federal lands to make way for mitigation activities that enable the solar energy development to the north. But I don’t think it is necessary to go there. Rather – this is the second and more important point – it is obvious that some activities are favored by the Obama administration’s BLM, and others are disfavored. The favored developments include solar and wind projects. No surprise there: the developers of such projects are invariably major Democratic Party donors. Wind and solar energy survive only by virtue of federal subsidies, so influencing people like Barack Obama and Harry Reid is fundamental to the developers’ business plans. Ranchers, on the other hand, ask nothing from the federal government other than the continuation of their historic rights. It is a safe bet that Cliven Bundy is not an Obama or Reid contributor.

* BOTTOM LINE.. CRONY CAPITALISM... PUBLIC-PRIVATE "SOCIALISM"... WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT. BUT BOTTOM LINE, IT'S POLITICAL... AND IT'S CORRUPT.

The new head of the BLM is a former Reid staffer. Presumably he was placed in his current position on Reid’s recommendation. Harry Reid is known to be a corrupt politician, one who has gotten wealthy on a public employee’s salary, in part, at least, by benefiting from sweetheart real estate deals. Does Harry Reid now control more than 80% of the territory of Nevada?

If you need federal authority to conduct business in Nevada – which is overwhelmingly probable – do you need to pay a bribe to Harry Reid or a member of his family to get that permission?

Why is it that the BLM is deeply concerned about desert tortoises when it comes to ranchers, but couldn’t care less when the solar power developers from China come calling?

Environmentalists have asked this question.

Does the difference lie in the fact that Cliven Bundy has never contributed to an Obama or Reid campaign, or paid a bribe to Reid or a member of his family?

Based on the evidence, I would say: yes, that is probably the difference. When the desert tortoises balance out, Occam’s razor tells us that the distinction is political.

So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?