A Straight Look at the Recent Nevada Land Dispute

This is the first part of what will likely be a three part series. I'd started working on this early last week and have had some help from others in the last couple days for nailing down details and specifics. In fact, that help opened up some new avenues which changed it from 1 BIG BIG thread to what will be a series like my Iran and Korea stories were. Those took a few days to get everything up, and so will this.

What this thread is, for me, is an effort to collect and present for reference all the source and straight data that can reasonably be found. If anything here changes minds in either direction, it should be by the facts read or considered, and not anything I say or how I present this.

In this series, I'm putting the effort in because there are profound factual errors and misrepresentations out there. Not by folks here. By media who have a 'close enough is good enough' approach combined with a sincere belief that you, the public, are stupid and functional at an 8th to 10th grade comprehension level, at best. (I'm honestly not kidding about that part. That line of thinking is presented as the way things are in Journalism school material).

Well, I don't think people are fundamentally unable to use source material and appreciate what it says. So, here is my serious contribution to this topic.

Introduction

I’ve made other in-depth threads, and a problem has always come in hierarchy, or the ability to jump to what you want within my big threads without going bonkers on scrolling. I’ve addressed this problem by using unique character strings for the headings and sub headings. Headings ALL start with *-* and sub headings all begin with *=*. If you use the text find or CTRL-F feature to jump to specific text, it will allow quick movement through what is a lengthy thread by normal standards.

The following is how this thread is structured:
*-* The Law and History
*=* The text of the 1998 court decision
*=* The text of the 2013 Court Decision
*=* The Taylor Grazing Act & it’s Successor
*=* Land Status and Use maps
*=* Required Public Notices
*=* Chronology and Timeline from start to finish of recent events

And onto Part 1. . . .

*-* The Law and History

Like most legal disputes, the core of the matter comes down to multiple issues. In this case, there are at least 3 distinct and separate issues involved.

This properly starts at the true reset point for legal status of that land. That comes with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. I’ve been curious along with others, just why the Federal Government has such large %’s of land across the Western States.

Well, the Western states were once Mexico, and they are now and since 1848, the United States. That’s the logic and legal basis. At least at the earliest point, where everything about the land changed for title and ownership by the end of the war.

TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO: FEBRUARY 2, 1848
Following the defeat of the Mexican army and the fall of Mexico City, in September 1847, the Mexican government surrendered and peace negotiations began. The war officially ended with the February 2, 1848, signing in Mexico of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty added an additional 525,000 square miles to United States territory, including the land that makes up all or parts of present-day Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Mexico also gave up all claims to Texas and recognized the Rio Grande as America’s southern boundary. In return, the United States paid Mexico $15 million and agreed to settle all claims of U.S. citizens against Mexico.

History Channel Summary
Original Treaty Text

*=* In the text of the 1998 court decision:

An examination of the history of the lands in question further establishes federal ownership. On May 13, 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ("Treaty"), 9 Stat. 922(1848), which ended the war, was signed by the United States Congress on February 2, 1848 and ratified by the Mexican Congress on May 25, 1848.

The public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States. Gardner II, 107 F.3d at 1318

(Page 4)
Full text of US Vs. Gardner - 107 F.3D 1314 (9TH CIR. 1996)

This case is referenced extensively for points and precedent in the 1998 court ruling.

The issue of the treaty above also tends to answer another point. On page 2 of the 1998 decision, Bundy’s argument is detailed as stating the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case based on the claim that he’s a citizen of Nevada but not also a citizen of the United States.

What the court ruling also records on page 2 is Bundy’s explanation that the action started in 1992 (Actually dated Jan. 1993 by court notation) about the desert tortoise. It’s endangered and the state animal for Nevada, giving it a dual protected status. The record refers to his claim of the ruling on the tortoise being the end of ranching in Clark County.

Page 3 records the BLM’s response that the request was for his grazing fees as he and his father had been paying up to that date, under BLM contract.

The decision informed Bundy the BLM would issue him a new ten-year federal grazing permit for the Bunkerville Allotment. Mot. Dism. (#4),Exh. E. The terms and conditions for the new federal grazing permit allowed for livestock grazing with some restrictions to be determined by the BLM. For example, if tortoises were found to be active in the early spring ina specific area, then grazing would not be allowed until the amount of spring ephemeral forage had grown to a sufficient amount

Record of the 1998 Bundy Court Ruling

There is a great deal more contained in that court ruling. Not least of which, the fines and penalties levied against Bundy, by the court, for the cattle on the land. BLM indicates that trespass tracking of cattle began in 1993 and continued to present day, for basis of calculating fines resulting from the final rulings of that hearing. It’s a 6 page decision, but it’s got most of the issues addressed.

*=* In the text of the 2013 Court Decision:

Moreover, in its 1998 Order, the Court acknowledged that the BLM is explicitly authorized to impound and dispose of the unauthorized livestock after written notice to Bundy of its intent to impound. Doc. #19, p. 10 (citing 43 C.F.R. §§ 4150.2, 4150.4, 4150.4-1, 4150.4-2; Klump v.United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 243 (1997) (government had not violated takings clause in impounding cattle as sanction for unauthorized grazing on federal lands)); see also 43 C.F.R. §§ 4150.4-1 - 4150.4-5; 36 CFR 2.60. The Court went on to state that “[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy’s livestock.” Doc. #19, p. 11. The Court now echos those sentiments and finds that seizure and impoundment of Bundy’s livestock in the event of non-compliance with the Court’s Permanent Injunction was fully contemplated by the Court in its 1998 Order.

Ultimately, the decision in 2013 has this to say:

Finally, the Court finds that Bundy’s objections to the United States’ Motion, many of which have been disposed of in prior proceedings, are without merit. The Court has stated unequivocally on numerous occasions that it has jurisdiction to hear this case, and that the Allotment is owned by the United States and managed by the DOI through the BLM and the NPS. Bundy’s repeated suggestions to the contrary are entirely unavailing.

Original Text of 2013 Court Decision

*=* The Taylor Grazing Act & it’s Successor

The Taylor Grazing act is referenced within the court papers and forms one of the original basis for the active management of public lands and resources. As described by the BLM:

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 USC 315), signed by President Roosevelt, was intended to "stop injury to the public grazing lands [excluding Alaska] by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration; to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development; [and] to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range" (USDI 1988). This Act was pre-empted by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

(The linked code is the actual text of it)

The successor to the Taylor Grazing act came with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The BLM’s description:

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 -- a landmark piece of legislation that changed not only the Bureau of Land Management and the make-up of its workforce, but the face of the West forever. This ambitious Act both recognized the value of our Nation’s public lands and provided a framework in which they could be managed in perpetuity for the benefit of present and future generations. It defined BLM’s mission as one of multiple use -- a new concept for the times, but which today stands as our agency’s great strength.

BLM FLPMA
Full Text and links of the FLPMA

Further information on the legal precedent and basis for Federal control of lands can be found at: The Public Domain From 1776-1946

*=* Land Use and Control Maps

It’s important to have maps for all this, of course. We need to see what we’re dealing with and what land is, in legal fact, owned by whom.

The first is an interactive map and perhaps the most useful of them all. It is set up for display of water rights, but has GIS data layers (a button to click on the main map screen to add new things, such as colors for ownership, for example). It shows BLM, NFS, NPS, Private and recreational properties, among others. It also shows all sorts of claim types across the public lands, including the water rights Bundy applied for in 1997. Those permits are available to search at the main Nevada water site here (That map also shows parcel, neighborhood and specific lot numbers for land in reference of decisions or permit references)

Nevada State Water Map

Next is the map page BLM maintained for the actions between March 27 and April 12.

Cattle Impoundment Operation Maps - Daily and Overall

One thing to be noted about the areas of impact for the clearance operation is how far beyond the one section of butte many are talking about, this was/is required to reach. The cattle have managed to wander and cover quite a lot of land.

*=* Required Public Notices

The BLM was required by the court orders to post and make public a notice of their intentions as well as the scope of their operations. They did this, and the wording of them is important. It describes quite a bit, but also shows something else.

First, the Federal Register:

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a temporary closure to public access, use, and occupancy will be in effect for the dates and times specified in this Notice on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Southern Nevada District Office, Las Vegas Field Office, within the Gold Butte, Mormon Mesa, and Bunkerville Flats Areas in the northeastern portion of Clark County, Nevada. This temporary closure is necessary to limit public access, use, and occupancy during an impoundment of illegally grazing cattle to ensure the safety and welfare of the public, contractors, and government employees. On March 10, 2014, the BLM signed a Decision Record to implement the temporary closure (see also Environmental Assessment DOI– BLM–NVS010–2014–0020–EA).

The temporary closure decision was approved by the Department of the Interior on March 24, 2014.

(The linked text opens the full report that indicates for reference)

From the Mequite Citizens Journal:

The BLM Southern Nevada District Office and the National Park Service's (NPS) Lake Mead National Recreation Area are taking steps to resolve a long-standing cattle trespass on federal lands. As cattle that are in trespass are removed, specific geographic areas within the overall closure boundary will be temporarily closed as necessary for the safety of the public, federal employees and contractor personnel. Areas temporarily closed to public access will be posted with signs and a temporary closure notice. Some areas may also be temporarily fenced off to members of the public.

Source

*=* Further Resources

In an effort to avoid any direct loading PDF files, and given the volume of information which is unfortunately presented in no other form, I’m linking the page the documents are on here.

BLM Public Notices and Court Orders

That page gives PDF links to the July 9, 2013 Court Ruling and the October 9, 2013 Ruling (Also linked above)

In addition to this, they have listed the Notice of Intent to Impound, a map with the Notice of Intent and updates as they were posted while it was going on.

*=* Chronology and Timeline

The best timeline I’ve found also represents my sole reference to an MSM article here. The Washington Post put this together and in the interest of fair use quoting, I’ll limit it to a few examples of the points on their line. It’s worth going there to read it all, as well as checking the supporting links. Also, note, the sniper on the bridge in their photo isn’t BLM or Government. It’s a protester behind the general protest lines, as one can see looking further down the Wash. It got pretty crazy out there.

April 2012: The BLM plans to round up Bundy's cattle. After several threats, these plans are abandoned. The Center for Biological Diversity files an intent to sue against the BLM for canceling their plans.

That entry represents one of the more interesting in an example of how the BLM isn’t acting of their own sole interest. There are Americans who think their side has the higher interest, equally sincere in belief…ready to sue the BLM for NOT doing this.

August 2013: A court order says Bundy has 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land.

October 2013: A federal district judge court tells Bundy not to “physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.”

March 15, 2014: After nearly 20 years, the Bureau of Land Management sends Bundy a letter informing him that they plan to impound his "trespass cattle," which have been roaming on 90 miles of federal land. BLM averages four livestock impoundments a year, usually involving a few dozen animals.

Now, some think its military levels of overkill, and some do not. Whichever way someone feels about it, it’s important to know it wasn’t without some cause.

March 27, 2014: The BLM has closed off 322,000 acres of public land, and is preparing to collect Bundy's cattle. Bundy files a notice with the county sheriff department, titled “Range War Emergency Notice and Demand for Protection." Bundy also says he has a virtual army of supporters from all over the country ready to protect him.

Source

In addition to the above snippets, the timeline has extensive quoting from people involved as well as describing related actions happening around the same times. It covers from the end 1989 to present.



The next part I post to this series will deal with environmental mitigation and offset regulations for how they overlap and obscure the original core issues that date back to the start of the 1990’s. Those environmental issues, in turn, overlap with Harry Reid’s interest and handling of a 5 Billion dollar Solar Plant at a location far south of this area, but connected by the mitigation plan to improve one at the cost of development to the other.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Thank you for the complete overall perspective. I still think that the BLM went a little overkill when they threw the woman to the ground and set up first amendment zones.

BUT

I now think Bundy took this too far. It shouldn't have become what it did.

But, you live and you learn.

S&F

If this issue were about the Bundys cows anymore...then this would be a good information thread Wrabbit....but you are way behind the feelings and mood of those who are in opposition to the government of the federal Oligarchy......
You have to understand that this is more of a burning man than a legal issue....now we shall see if there are enough constitutionally minded Americans to have a real American Spring....

a reply to: andr3w68

As a quick note before I hop off to sleep a bit... You'll get no argument from me in how some agents/officers of both the BLM and NPS have something to answer for in their individual conduct and how they carried themselves.

a reply to: stirling

I appreciate your position. I hope what I share here can be of use in filling in the record or using for reference.

Pretty much what i dug up, though not as extensive, not nearly.

So Wrabbit, what Im trying to figure out is does Bundy have any legal standing. From what your saying, it seems that the court handed down it's decision and Bundy does't want to play ball.

I also agree with stirling. Americans instead have used this as a moment to showcase their displeasure with the goverment, its morphed beyond the cattle.

Hmm, to be honest I hate weasel speak. Lawyers have been screwing stuff up since humans walked the earth. Here's how I see it.

Bundy's family been grazing cattle here for over a hundred years. That sets precedent.

Harry Reid's family makes deal with China to build solar company / business in Nevada.

Tortoises on the (solar factory) land are endangered must be moved somewhere.

Move tortoises to Bundy's land, screw the cattle and Bundy send in the paramilitary BLM.

Frankly at this time in my life with all the BS the feds have pulled I say send in the militia. Shoot if they have to. I am so sick of this I could spit. No more weasel speak, lawyers, treaties. Don't care any more. Time to make a stand.

a reply to: Bassago

As far as title to the land, the United States Congress took title to that land outright and by the end of a hard fought war in 1848. *ALL* land claims (save a couple exceptions, and Mormon ranchers aren't among them) come subsequent and secondary to that.

That came roughly 166 years ago. If there is proof of the Bundy family working the land there when it was the nation of Mexico, and carrying claim through the end of that war into the new lands of the United States, I'm interested. I could find none. I did look.

a reply to: Bassago

Don't you think that you are driven?

Don't you think that wishing for milita and deaths and wounded people and so on isn't a little over the top, even for patriots?

Don't you think that everyone should calm down and have this cleared up by some wise guys? If those are not available, maybe some lawyers?


To give you the view another countries' MSM hold on this topic:
* Farmer Bundy is a rascist. And he doesn't want to pay taxes and his debt of a million dollars.
* There is a dispute, and no side wants to move.
* Stupid milita-guys and patriots, as they call themselves which does no one else, are coming in to shoot at anything that moves and (enough alcohol involved) at trees. (Link - it starts with the NBA and moves over to Bundy on grounds of being examples for everyday rascism in the USA)

To sum it up: It leaves the picture of a redneck-country to the world. Is this what you wanted?

originally posted by: stirling
If this issue were about the Bundys cows anymore...then this would be a good information thread Wrabbit....but you are way behind the feelings and mood of those who are in opposition to the government of the federal Oligarchy......
You have to understand that this is more of a burning man than a legal issue....now we shall see if there are enough constitutionally minded Americans to have a real American Spring....

Yeah, it's all about a bunch of bovines. Not my problem if a bunch of humans who act like bovines were whipped into a frenzy by a greedy old bastard, and a bunch of other humans who act like bovines were whipped into a frenzy by an overly reactive government.

With all that's wrong in the world and the US, it's ironic to the nth degree that so many are willing to go to war on the behalf of a rich man and his cows. have they learned NOTHING at all about fighting the Rich Guy's wars FOR him?

I have.

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone else as "constitutionally minded" as I am, and I'm not going to war over some other guy's cows. The ONLY constitutional violation I've been able to find was setting up the "First Amendment zone". The whole damned country is a First Amendment zone - that's sort of the whole point of the First Amendment.

Rounding up abandoned propety (i.e. the cattle) after informing the owner to get them the hell off the lands? No constitutional problem there, If he wanted them, he had 20 goddamned YEARS to get them. He didn't, so they are abandoned property.

I wouldn't go to war just because some old fart didn't want his own cows bad enough to go get them.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

Don't you think that wishing for milita and deaths and wounded people and so on isn't a little over the top, even for patriots?

There is a time and a place for death and destruction. Doing it over some jackass's cows isn't that time or place.

"Grandpa, what did YOU do in the war?"

"I defended the God given rights of cattle everywhere, to graze anywhere!"

Just doesn't have that patriotic ring, does it?

Don't you think that everyone should calm down and have this cleared up by some wise guys? If those are not available, maybe some lawyers?

You don't calm down mobs - not even mobs that wear badges. You run from mobs, and let them burn themselves out in their own fire. that goes for BOTH sides of this ordeal. Let 'em fry each other and ultimately themselves, and just stand back and watch it all go up from a safe distance.

To give you the view another countries' MSM hold on this topic:
* Farmer Bundy is a rascist. And he doesn't want to pay taxes and his debt of a million dollars.
* There is a dispute, and no side wants to move.
* Stupid milita-guys and patriots, as they call themselves which does no one else, are coming in to shoot at anything that moves and (enough alcohol involved) at trees. (Link - it starts with the NBA and moves over to Bundy on grounds of being examples for everyday rascism in the USA)

To sum it up: It leaves the picture of a redneck-country to the world. Is this what you wanted?

I can't help how outsiders see it, I can only note that those are the SAME talking points used here to whip each side into their homicidal frenzies.

I'm a hillbilly. I guess the red neck is optional.

a reply to: cenpuppie

The problem I am seeing is people are saying "Bundy is in the right and the government is wrong"

When actually, in this case I must admit we are seeing a man breaking law 10 ways to Sunday, and the government actually showing restraint.

They didn't show up to impound the cattle when they could have, they waited until all legal avenues were taken by Bundy to support his case. They gave Bundy the same as they would have given a properly represented person, even though some of Bundy's arguments were just plain ignorant.

They could have gone out there 15 years ago, but they waited and made sure Bundy was finished bringing arguments to the table.

The Taylor grazing act was proposed by a rancher - who also happened to be in the Senate. It was created because there were real problems with people over-grazing and destroying environment simply because it was public lands and not there own. Basically, it was enacted because there needed to be some orderly process and some oversight to the public domain.

Bundy is out there letting his cattle run rough shod over everything, acting like its his land and not the public domain. There are stories of his bulls attacking people, cars hitting his cows who happen to be in the middle of the highway... in short, they were becoming a nuisance to others who were using those same public domain.

Bundy gave everyone the bird and lied to us all. And the government, while wrong for things like first amendment zones and occasionally being too heavy handed (I say occasionally because being heavy handed to date is something I have only read about, with the exception of once seeing it when there were 3 swat teams for one domestic violence call that was not even true) They weren't wrong in Bundy's legal case.

In Bundy's legal case, the government has literally tried to avoid another Ruby Ridge incident and said so in not so many words in 1998 when they said:

The government alleges that the BLM has not impounded Bundy's livestock due to it's anticipation the action could result in physical confrontation

I saw good job on the government for trying to avoid an incident. But at some point the government must also do their job, and making people comply with law sometimes means doing things people don't like. In this case its if you don't move your own cattle then we will do it for you.

To me, Bundy used every single buzz word possible to get people riled up and behind him so that others would fight that range war for him that he threatened the government with. And people fell for it hook line and sinker.

Well I can use buzz words too, back in the day they were words like Cattle Baron and carpetbagger. Both seem to apply quite nicely to this man Bundy.

Should we oppose the wrong that the government is doing? Yes... but it isn't being opposed here. Look at what's been going on while everyone was busy looking at Bundy...

There is a historic movement right now called the Cowboy Indian Alliance... and they are fighting real overreach and land grabs (where concerns plans for the KXL through reservation land)

Still reading, a lot to take in.

But I have questions that I hope can be answered within this well written thread!

As stated in another thread, I said;

All this drama. Guns. Snipers. Tasers. Dogs. Drones (?) Racism. Media bias. If the government has such a lock-solid case, if the folks at the ranch and supporters are nothing but domestic terrorists, then what is wrong with just reporting the truth, the facts? Why hasn't the media stated, unequivocally, that Bundy is guilty and laid out the facts? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why all the drama, media manipulation, name-calling, if this is such a simple cut and dried case?

a reply to: beezzer

I think some of the problems lies in the media itself. First, it took everyone by surprise. Bundy never made the news until the militia started showing up - no one ever heard the man's name.

In the beginning, in order to have at least some coverage, much was being taken at face value - such as this being ancestral lands since that is what Bundy himself was saying.

It takes time, days and days and days of thorough research in order to find what the truth really is. Some things like the land deed could only be pulled in person... and who has the funds and time to make that trip? Pouring over Nevada state constitutional law, figuring out which questions need asked and answered in order to figure out the heart of the truth. Days and days and days and days for this type of research.

So in the beginning, most were going on half baked research rather than any type of investigative journalism.

Second, media was taking only the points that supported their own biases. I had to say to myself that the truth should trump party line...the media outlets don't say that anymore. It became a matter of party line and half baked research. What supported whatever cause they had. That is wrong. The truth should matter most.

We see this all the time in the media, its why on ATS we are so careful about source and other things. But when this is something we feel in some way passionate about, it seems reason went out the window at some point, and source and real investigation no longer mattered to many..

Wrabbit, I applaud your efforts on this one.

I said from the beginning that Bundy was just a jackass rancher with no rights to BLM land.

Regarding the confrontation with Bundy and the woman that got thrown to the ground? He had made clear threats to begin a range war. They were also willing to put women up front to die on TV if needed....

Personally I kinda hope god is a cow and he takes a giant dump on that family. Nothing more than millionaire cry babies.

a reply to: Bassago

Bundy's family been grazing cattle here for over a hundred years. That sets precedent.

The Bundy family only owned 160 acres of land and they used that to grow melons. So your statement should say the Bundy's cattle have been grazing on federal land for over a hundred years.

Harry Reid's family makes deal with China to build solar company / business in Nevada.

The plant that was going to be built was 180 miles from the land that Bundy was trespassing on.

Move tortoises to Bundy's land, screw the cattle and Bundy send in the paramilitary BLM.

The tortoises were already there and Bundy had no right to the land.

Time to make a stand.

If you are going to a stand at least make a stand for someone that honorable. Not some deadbeat welfare rancher that thinks he is above the law.