Sovrun Cattle - The Sagebrush Saga of Cliven Bundy

[Kestrel]

The government has been trying for years - in court and on paper. But no one has come in before now to enforce the order. That's what was behind my "hot air" comment.

In a private ownership situation, if I have an eviction order in hand and serve it on my bum tenant (repeating the process every few years) but never show up with the sheriff to toss his trash and his lazy ass to the curb, does that eventually constitute inaction sufficient to forfeit my interest in the property? Could such a tenant eventually claim squatter's rights against me as the private landholder? I had the right and the means, but never did anything about it.

[LaVidaRoja]

I THINK that the fact that you serve him every few years keeps him from claiming uncontested occupancy. If the actual owner does protest (if I recall correctly) and notifies the squatter of the protest, the squatter's time to claim the property as his own has to start all over again.

[The Observer]

Bundy is apparently feeling his oats and giving more interviews about the current situation.

On Saturday, the bureau released about 400 head of cattle it had seized from Bundy...

I was going to offer my opinion that BLM had wasted time and money on this operation. But according to the article the militias and protesters showed up at the corrals where the cattle were being held, and BLM decided the situation was getting dangerous.

Hopefully, in the future, BLM will plan this type of operation more carefully so that whatever cattle are seized can be relocated to a site where the idiots can't appear and do their intimidation act.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze said the agency backed off to avoid a potentially violent situation over the weekend.

However, he vowed to go to court to collect more than $1 million in back grazing fees he says Cliven Bundy owes for trespassing on federal lands since the 1990s.

Not sure how well that is going work out, Neil. After all, you have been to court a couple of times before on this issue, got rulings in BLM's favor, and still have nothing to show for it.

[LightinDarkness]

I'm not a lawyer, but why can't they just get a judgement against him and garnish his tax refunds for it (you just know this guy probably gets huge refunds, this type doesn't pay taxes) - and then if thats not enough, show up and start seizing property with the local sheriff? It wont get the cattle off the land, but they'll recoup some of the amount owed that way.

[Paths of the Sea]

Terry Hurlbut, one of the directors of the Creation Science Hall of Fame, and one of my former adversaries, appears to have drunk the Bundy Brew and is reporting on it from his side of things:

Cliven Bundy; Canary in the Mine!

http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com ... nary-mine/

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Demosthenes]

Let's say Bundy has had a thousand cows on the parcel for four or five months during each season (you don't leave cattle to completely strip a parcel), let's just say it's $5,000 per season; how did it get to millions?

Bundy grazes his cattle 12 months out the year. In 1993, the BLM told him he had to limit it to nine months, and he had to limit his herd to a smaller number because the land couldn't support it. He stopped paying his fees, bought a bunch more cattle, and let his cattle graze on the original 145,000 acre allotment plus another 451,000 acres (land he has never had a permit for.)

Bundy only owns 160 acres and he uses it to farm melons.

[grixit]

You can be arrested for burning off a piece of wilderness, even if it's accidental. Surely, overgrazing is just as bad.

[The Observer]

Surely, overgrazing is just as bad.

Maybe BLM could declare the cows as an invasive species.

[The Observer]

And now the emboldened Bundy tells Sen. Harry Reid to go back to D.C.

[Demosthenes]

I've been chatting with a number of very nice, non-violent people (many of them ranchers) who are in Nevada supporting the Bundy standoff and it's exhausting. They're suffering whiplash from all of the violent talk by the militias and shock jocks, bolstered by the false reporting by Fox News, angry that the government showed up with guns, and totally confused by the legal and political aspects of the case.

Most, for example, don't understand that State Senators and U.S. Senators are different people and are extremely confused by the difference between state and federal laws.

They're absorbing up a wide variety of sovereign/patriot beliefs about everything from the role of County Sheriff to the legitimacy of the federal government without having a clue how to research whether their new information is false.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
They're absorbing up a wide variety of sovereign/patriot beliefs about everything from the role of County Sheriff to the legitimacy of the federal government without having a clue how to research whether their new information is false.

This is like deja vu all over again. I've mentioned over the years here that there is this vast space between the coasts occupied by a surprisingly large number of people who, quite frankly don't give a squat about what goes on outside their county, let alone inside the beltway - right up until something like this happens. Suddenly, those who do give a squat are there to promote their own agenda and ignorance is spread like the flu.

[fortinbras]

The Nevada courts have been supporting the BLM position. The land was originally ceded by Mexico to the United States govt, not to a state govt, and when Nevada petitioned for statehood the US Congress required that Nevada not claim the federal land in Nevada. So that land was never Nevada's, always federal. Both Nevada and federal courts have said as much in several cases involving other ranchers over the decades.

Additionally, Bundy was not only using the land year after year and never (since 1993) paying for it, but he was overusing it, ignoring BLM instructions and court orders to get his livestock off the land for at least 3 months of the year to let the grass recuperate, etc. While Bundy has been using the grazing for free, other ranchers have continued to pay for their access to BLM grazing and coplied with BLM limitations, so Bundy is effectively stealing what his competitors are honestly paying for.

[LPC]

I've been chatting with a number of very nice, non-violent people (many of them ranchers) who are in Nevada supporting the Bundy standoff and it's exhausting. They're suffering whiplash from all of the violent talk by the militias and shock jocks, bolstered by the false reporting by Fox News, angry that the government showed up with guns, and totally confused by the legal and political aspects of the case.

Most, for example, don't understand that State Senators and U.S. Senators are different people and are extremely confused by the difference between state and federal laws.

Jeez.

I don't expect everyone to understand the meaning or scope of injunctions, or the different possible consequences of violating an injunction, but not understanding basic concepts of federalism?

And deciding to support one side in a legal dispute without even understanding what laws apply?

Jeez.

They're absorbing up a wide variety of sovereign/patriot beliefs about everything from the role of County Sheriff to the legitimacy of the federal government without having a clue how to research whether their new information is false.

Of course, a lot of that stuff is not only not true, it's not even false. It's more like meaningless gibberish.

And the trouble with "research" is that you can go on the Internet and find all kinds of crap from the Supreme Law Firm or the Constitutional Rangers and it's going to look very authoritative, and how is someone who doesn't even understand federalism going to make any sense of it?

So to abject ignorance add a mistrust of government in general and the federal government in particular, so that what your neighbors are saying gets greater weight than what a federal district judge is saying, and what's the result?

[The Observer]

So to abject ignorance add a mistrust of government in general and the federal government in particular, so that what your neighbors are saying gets greater weight than what a federal district judge is saying, and what's the result?

But what all of this boils down to is the inherent greedy nature of humans. Mistrust of government and misunderstanding of how government work are only symptoms of the problem. These "nice people" who are siding with Bundy cannot even confront the basic issue that Bundy is profiting from this long-term escapade; that alone suggests that they have some real issues with being intellectually honest. It is easy and nice to blame Fox News or any other media outlet for "false reporting" but it doesn't make sense to lay the blame at these sources when it is readily apparent that these "nice people" are wiling and eager to swallow anything put in front of them - as long as it agrees with their outlook on life in general.

And speaking of Fox News, at the risk of angering those who take exception to their reporting, I am linking to an article that looks at some of the problems that BLM allegedly created during the seizure of the cattle. I certainly welcome anything that can be provided that factually shows that the Fox article is false, but I think the information provided shows that BLM basically shot itself in the foot by and turned this situation into a major PR problem for themselves.

On a Friday night conference call, BLM officials told reporters that "illegal structures" on Bundy's ranch -- water tanks, water lines and corrals -- had to be removed to "restore" the land to its natural state and prevent the rancher from restarting his illegal cattle operation.

However, the court order used to justify the operation appears only to give the agency the authority to "seize and impound" Bundy's cattle.

This rings true on several levels. Bundy confirmed that there were structures on the property, that they were owned by him, and that they were damaged. And BLM is confirming that these structures were there on the site. So we have a situation where Bundy has made significant effort to erect structures on the property and develop the area for his own personal use. This was not simply an issue of him just grazing cattle. And it is completely understandable that BLM would need to address the removal of these structures in order to make it difficult, if not impossible, for Bundy to put his cattle back.

However, the fact that the structures appeared to not have been removed and only damaged, suggests that this was an afterthought to BLM and not planned for ahead of time. And there is that nagging issue of the fact that the court order only allowed for seizure and impounding of the cattle seems to reinforce that BLM didn't address the issue of whether they should have sought permission from the court regarding the removal of the structures. Federal judges are typically very conservative when granting the government permission to enter areas where a citizen has the expectation of privacy in order to seize assets. Those orders are strictly worded to limit the government to seizing only those assets that the government can reasonably expect to be there, limit the agents' entry to specific areas of the property and a time frame within which this entry can occur. If BLM was under the belief that they needed a court order to seize the cattle, they should have recognized that court order did not give them permission to accomplish other things not addressed by the court.

But this raises another issue, which maybe our legal people can address. Why would BLM need a court order to remove property and cattle that was on their property to begin with? I suspect that BLM was being overly cautious, since in my layman opinon, I think I have the right to get rid of property that other people have left on my property without my permission. But I freely acknowledge I am most likely wrong and that there may be requirements under the law that limit the propery owner from moving against such property.

Documents show the BLM paid a Utah cattle wrangler $966,000 to collect Bundy's cattle and a Utah auctioneer to sell them. However, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert refused to let Bundy cattle cross state lines, saying in a letter: "As Governor of Utah, I urgently request that a herd of cattle seized by the Bureau of Land Management from Mr. Cliven Bundy of Bunkerville, Nevada, not be sent to Utah. There are serious concerns about human safety and animal health and well-being, if these animals are shipped to and sold in Utah."

Again, here is where poor planning is indicated on BLM's part. It is always a good idea to get permission from the appropriate areas before you start seizing property. Depending on the impact, the agents should be contacting local, county, state or federal authorities to clear the way. You want to find out about barriers and obstacles before you take possession of hungry and thirsty cattle, not afterwards. The need to cross the state line should have been a signal to the planners that they needed to clear this with Utah before attempting it. It also might have been more difficult for the governor of Utah to change his mind if he or his staff had been properly briefed on the situation beforehand and were aware of the circumstances of this case.

$966K for rounding up and auctioning cattle seems a bit stiff to me. Was the auctioneer also going to get a cut of of the proceeds from the auction? Were there competitive bids? Or did BLM just go for the nearest contractor? These could be more indicators that BLM didn't plan this out appropriately.

Bundy's friends say the BLM wranglers told them the bulls were shot because they were dangerous and could gore their horses. One bull was shot five times.

Another no-no when doing seizures. The law expects that assets seized will be maintained in the same state and condition they were in when appropriated. Taking livestock really increases the risk of loss (and eventual reimbursement by the government) over other other types pf which is why this option should be the last one considered and avoided whenever possible.

Looking back over all of this, I am wondering why BLM did not just take steps in making the land difficult for the cattle to graze and live on. If Bundy was erecting the types of structures described in the article, then it should have been a simple issue of BLM dismantling those structures (with court order, if necessary), especially if they were water tanks. Bundy would have been forced to remove the cattle off the scrubland before they died of thirst (if he wanted to prevent their loss) and BLM could have ensured that armed personnel blocked any traffic coming in trying to deliver replacement structures. BLM could have given Bundy a limited time to go in and get his cattle out after he signed an agreement that he would not return the cattle to the BLM land.

This would accomplished a more positive PR image for the situation. BLM would have been able to show that they were simply removing property that did not belong there and that they had no interest in taking Bund'y cattle away, only getting him to remove it as they have been asking him to do all along.

[LPC]

Documents show the BLM paid a Utah cattle wrangler $966,000 to collect Bundy's cattle and a Utah auctioneer to sell them. However, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert refused to let Bundy cattle cross state lines, saying in a letter: "As Governor of Utah, I urgently request that a herd of cattle seized by the Bureau of Land Management from Mr. Cliven Bundy of Bunkerville, Nevada, not be sent to Utah. There are serious concerns about human safety and animal health and well-being, if these animals are shipped to and sold in Utah."

Again, here is where poor planning is indicated on BLM's part. It is always a good idea to get permission from the appropriate areas before you start seizing property. Depending on the impact, the agents should be contacting local, county, state or federal authorities to clear the way. You want to find out about barriers and obstacles before you take possession of hungry and thirsty cattle, not afterwards. The need to cross the state line should have been a signal to the planners that they needed to clear this with Utah before attempting it.

Why would the movement of cattle across a state line need "to clear" a state government?

Unless Utah has some kind of agricultural inspection requirement (see U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 2), or a general permit requirement for all movements of cattle, any attempt to block the movement of the cattle from one state to another would violate the ("dormant") commerce clause.

I think that all the governor of Utah was saying was that he would *prefer* that the cattle not come into Utah, not that he was stopping them (or could stop them).

So the only thing that BLM could have done was smooth the way politically, not legally, and I don't know of any reason why they would have thought it would be necessary. Who would have expected a crackpot deadbeat rancher to arouse such interest?

[fortinbras]

I suspect the Utah Gov was afraid of militia-type violence inside Utah, a very real possibility in Utah.

Last night (Wed., April 16th) Rachel Maddow reported that the monument of responsible journalism, WND, reported, on the basis of someone who told someone who told someone ... who told someone who knows a WND columnist, that the feds were planning a midnight raid on the Bundy ranch - and prepped for violence. But the livestock is not at Bundy's ranch (which is a melon farm) but many miles away on BLM land. Anyway, nothing happened. What I think is most likely is another court case, this time for a court order for the feds to confiscate the cattle and sell them to pay off Bundy's unpaid 20-year accumulated grazing fees.

[The Observer]

So the only thing that BLM could have done was smooth the way politically, not legally, and I don't know of any reason why they would have thought it would be necessary. Who would have expected a crackpot deadbeat rancher to arouse such interest?

And that was I referring to - smoothing the political route so you would avoid the kind of embarassing problem of a governor coming out and painting your operation as the type of sneaky evil thing that all right-thinking Americans would stand up to. Given the fact that BLM has been tangling with Bundy for the last 20 years or so, this is exactly what they should have been anticipating and addressing as part of their planning. If they couldn't get the governor politically on board with the transporting across his state's lines, they could come with other ideas. By not doing so, BLM now has a $966K contract with an auctioneer (hopefully they had a contingency clause in the event that the cows could not be delivered), damaged property, injured/dead cattle, and a public reputation for being over the top, incompetent, and ineffective. And if the White House is not backing up your agency at this point, you are pretty much dead in the water at this point.

[Demosthenes]

On a Friday night conference call, BLM officials told reporters that "illegal structures" on Bundy's ranch -- water tanks, water lines and corrals -- had to be removed to "restore" the land to its natural state and prevent the rancher from restarting his illegal cattle operation.

However, the court order used to justify the operation appears only to give the agency the authority to "seize and impound" Bundy's cattle.

Bundy had two permits that he allowed to expire: grazing rights and range improvements. Any structure he built were done without permission. Why would the government need a court order to remove illegal fences, structures, and water facilities that are on the land they own and control.

Again, here is where poor planning is indicated on BLM's part. It is always a good idea to get permission from the appropriate areas before you start seizing property. Depending on the impact, the agents should be contacting local, county, state or federal authorities to clear the way. You want to find out about barriers and obstacles before you take possession of hungry and thirsty cattle, not afterwards. The need to cross the state line should have been a signal to the planners that they needed to clear this with Utah before attempting it.

They absolutely should have checked with Utah first. They've known from helicopter surveillance done months ago that a hefty percentage of Bundy's herd is considered feral with no evident branding. In addition to worrying about violent militias, Utah had to worry about diseased cattle being brought into the state.

[Demosthenes]

Unless Utah has some kind of agricultural inspection requirement (see U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 2), or a general permit requirement for all movements of cattle, any attempt to block the movement of the cattle from one state to another would violate the ("dormant") commerce clause.

From the UTah Department of Agriculture and Food website:

CATTLE AND BISON

All cattle entering Utah, except those going directly to an inspected slaughter establishment or approved auction market, require the following:

Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (Health Certificate)
Import permit
Brand inspection certificate
Cattle entering Utah must be officially calfhood vaccinated for brucellosis and have recognized tattoos or a negative brucellosis (Brucella abortus)test within 30 days.
Negative brucellosis test within 30 days on bulls 12 months or older and females 24 months or older is required for all cattle originating from a brucellosis designated surveillance area.
Negative tuberculosis test is required within 60 days prior to shipment for dairy cattle two months or older, rodeo bulls, roping steers, and cattle coming from an area that is not declared free of tuberculosis
Bulls 12 months of age and over, entering Utah require a negative trichomoniasis test (three (3) cultures or 1 PCR) within 30 days prior to entry or since exposure to female cattle. Bulls for slaughter, rodeo, exhibition, and those kept in confinement are not required to be tested for trichomoniasis.

[Demosthenes]

Who would have expected a crackpot deadbeat rancher to arouse such interest?

They planned to remove the cattle in 1998, but didn't want to spark another Ruby Ridge situation. In his 1998 deposition, Bundy told them he'd protect the cattle by any means necessary.

They planned to remove the cattle in 2012, but Bundy found out who the hired cowboys were and threatened them.

Judging from the BLM's 82-page plan for April's raid, they knew they were going to have problems with violence.

Bundy has done a lot of press interviews over the years promising violence.