Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
RANGE WAR: LAST MAN STANDING IN CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
Posts
pianotm
View playlists
CloseYou may or may not have heard of Cliven Bundy. His ranch is the center of a battle with the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM)that began in 1993. Since 1870, the ranchers of Clark County have used the 600,000 acres of Gold Butte for grazing their cattle. There was never a question that the community owned this land for grazing their cattle.
In 1993, BLM seized this land and declared it federal property in order to protect the habitat of the endangered desert tortoise. The 48 ranchers initially resisted, but were bullied with threats of arrest and land seizure into paying a "grazing fee" to continue using the land. All official reports are that the grazing fee is a pittance, $1.15 per head of cattle per year. For Cliven Bundy, whose herd numbers 908, this roughly comes to 1400 dollars a year.
After 20 years of not paying, Bundy figures he owes 300,000 dollars. BLM figures he owes 1,000,000, not including additional penalties. Do the math.
Bundy claims that he and every other rancher in the area (he's the last one. They've all been forced out of business) owns this land and they have a right to graze on that land. He claims that the federal government had no right to seize the land and that he would gladly pay the fee to Clark County as a municipal tax, but has no intention of paying a dime.
BLM claims that Bundy is trespassing on federal property. Bundy has fought in court and on TV all the way, using the law as any law abiding American citizen would (read that just because a man takes a stand and refuses to abide by what he feels is an unjust law does not mean is a criminal or is not law abiding.).
BLMs response: Eight armored assault vehicles, four helicopters, 200 armed agents in full combat fatigues armed with assault weapons, and snipers. BLM set up "First Amendment areas" for protesters, well away from the ranch lands. The agents have already several times acted under the assumption that Americans have no First Amendment rights out of these areas.
Bundy's son, who was videoing what can only be described as a military buildup, had police dogs set upon him. He was tased until blood stained his shirt (there is video) while an officer held his head to the ground with his boot. His sister, Margaret Bundy, a cancer survivor, was also tackled and pinned to the ground, according to her complaint given at a Clark County town hall meeting.
In response, armed militia have come from Utah, Wyoming and other parts of Nevada to defend the Bundys from further armed action. "We're not afraid to shoot," said one spokesman. Jim Lordy of Operation Mutual Aid says, "They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government." So far, over a 1000 militia members have arrived on scene in a tense standoff against BLM agents. BLM claims the agents are only there to protect the veterinarians rounding up trespassing cattle, claiming that Bundy is a threat, "Cliven Bundy has made such statements as 'I'm fighting a one-man range war.'" BLM regards such statements as potential terrorism.
Just yesterday, BLM agents ceased operations and returned rounded up cattle (they acquired nearly 350 heads of cattle) to the Bundys, but retired Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack says that his sources inside BLM say that they are planning a full raid and seizure of all Bundy assets. More agents are arriving, as are militia members.
BLM has been criticized by the Nevada state Governor and by the State Attorney for their heavy-handed "Gestapo-like" tactics, and what they refer to as a "gross mishandling" of the Bundy case.
Nevada Assemblywoman Michelle Foire thanked militiamen for their efforts, stating that it was thanks to these Americans and their guns, "this did not turn into another Waco massacre or Ruby Ridge and I have to thank all of you for that."
BLM has gone on record to lament that Bundy continues not to abide by the law that 16,000 other ranchers in the country have agreed to. Bundy claims that all of the compliant ranchers in Clarke County have been overregulated out of business by BLM, "I used to have 52 neighbors ranching this land," said Bundy, stating that they were all bullied out of business by BLM and that he was the last man standing.
The fight isn't over, and while BLM lays plans for further raids and continues to bring agents into the area, the militia members say they aren't moving either.
In 1993, BLM seized this land and declared it federal property in order to protect the habitat of the endangered desert tortoise. The 48 ranchers initially resisted, but were bullied with threats of arrest and land seizure into paying a "grazing fee" to continue using the land. All official reports are that the grazing fee is a pittance, $1.15 per head of cattle per year. For Cliven Bundy, whose herd numbers 908, this roughly comes to 1400 dollars a year.
After 20 years of not paying, Bundy figures he owes 300,000 dollars. BLM figures he owes 1,000,000, not including additional penalties. Do the math.
Bundy claims that he and every other rancher in the area (he's the last one. They've all been forced out of business) owns this land and they have a right to graze on that land. He claims that the federal government had no right to seize the land and that he would gladly pay the fee to Clark County as a municipal tax, but has no intention of paying a dime.
BLM claims that Bundy is trespassing on federal property. Bundy has fought in court and on TV all the way, using the law as any law abiding American citizen would (read that just because a man takes a stand and refuses to abide by what he feels is an unjust law does not mean is a criminal or is not law abiding.).
BLMs response: Eight armored assault vehicles, four helicopters, 200 armed agents in full combat fatigues armed with assault weapons, and snipers. BLM set up "First Amendment areas" for protesters, well away from the ranch lands. The agents have already several times acted under the assumption that Americans have no First Amendment rights out of these areas.
Bundy's son, who was videoing what can only be described as a military buildup, had police dogs set upon him. He was tased until blood stained his shirt (there is video) while an officer held his head to the ground with his boot. His sister, Margaret Bundy, a cancer survivor, was also tackled and pinned to the ground, according to her complaint given at a Clark County town hall meeting.
In response, armed militia have come from Utah, Wyoming and other parts of Nevada to defend the Bundys from further armed action. "We're not afraid to shoot," said one spokesman. Jim Lordy of Operation Mutual Aid says, "They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government." So far, over a 1000 militia members have arrived on scene in a tense standoff against BLM agents. BLM claims the agents are only there to protect the veterinarians rounding up trespassing cattle, claiming that Bundy is a threat, "Cliven Bundy has made such statements as 'I'm fighting a one-man range war.'" BLM regards such statements as potential terrorism.
Just yesterday, BLM agents ceased operations and returned rounded up cattle (they acquired nearly 350 heads of cattle) to the Bundys, but retired Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack says that his sources inside BLM say that they are planning a full raid and seizure of all Bundy assets. More agents are arriving, as are militia members.
BLM has been criticized by the Nevada state Governor and by the State Attorney for their heavy-handed "Gestapo-like" tactics, and what they refer to as a "gross mishandling" of the Bundy case.
Nevada Assemblywoman Michelle Foire thanked militiamen for their efforts, stating that it was thanks to these Americans and their guns, "this did not turn into another Waco massacre or Ruby Ridge and I have to thank all of you for that."
BLM has gone on record to lament that Bundy continues not to abide by the law that 16,000 other ranchers in the country have agreed to. Bundy claims that all of the compliant ranchers in Clarke County have been overregulated out of business by BLM, "I used to have 52 neighbors ranching this land," said Bundy, stating that they were all bullied out of business by BLM and that he was the last man standing.
The fight isn't over, and while BLM lays plans for further raids and continues to bring agents into the area, the militia members say they aren't moving either.
Eventually all law is backed by force. You can't reject it for 15+ years and not expect some kind of conflict. The land isn't his.
TheNecromancer
3160
Are the turtles ok?? It seems like a contradictory of terms; desert tortoise xD Are there sea armadillos?
author=Link_2112
Are the turtles ok?? It seems like a contradictory of terms; desert tortoise xD Are there sea armadillos?
The tortoises are endangered, but cows are the least of their concerns. If I lived in Nevada, I would put an HQ in this area for tortoise rescue, but that isn't why this situation bothers me. I'm worried for the tortoises too, but I'm also worried about the direction this country is going and as much as I love turtles, I think this nation's future is a more immediate concern.
author=Jude
Eventually all law is backed by force. You can't reject it for 15+ years and not expect some kind of conflict. The land isn't his.
Then whose is it? These ranchers, in 1877, settled and tamed this useless land, and this land has absolutely no value: these ranchers put cattle in this land, who were perfectly happy with the dry useless grass there, and made productive land with grass fed beef. Our beef industry at large is the most wasteful industry there is, feeding grain to their cattle, producing ten times LESS food than if we sold the grain directly as food. These ranchers that actually produce are heavily fined and regulated, often beyond their means, will big ranchers who put chemicals and steroids in their beef get all the breaks.
For more than a century, these ranchers used this land together and formed Clark County and they produced food for the people of America. Then in 1993 the federal government steps land and calls these ranchers trespassers. As it happens, the Nevada State government would disagree with you. The governor, sheriffs, and commissioners all feel that this land belongs to Bundy and any rancher who wants to own it, or did I fail to get that across? This is an article, after all. It's not like it has or could have complete information (no article can). I wasn't investing my time in writing a book. Tell me, do you feel that the government is infallible and should be blindly obeyed?
So then whose land is it? 200 years ago, I would have said it was Apache territory, and that would have been correct. 100 years ago I might have said it was the rancher's land, and that would have been correct. In 1993, I would have said the federal government stole it (according to the Constitution, the federal government may only own the 10 square mile area of the District of Columbia. They can regulate and reassign land outside, but not own). They assigned as preserve land and claimed ownership, and that would have been correct.
But unfortunately, none of these statements are correct, legally. So what is correct? Who owns the 600,000 acres of Gold Butte?
China, with all the permits necessary to REMOVE the desert tortoise by any means considered most expedient. That is what our wonderful BLM has done. Of course, they have to have possession first.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
author=pianotm
Then whose is it?
It's public land, and its usage is for grazing is gated by a fee that every other rancher has no problem paying.
100 years ago I might have said it was the rancher's land, and that would have been correct.
No, it wouldn't have been correct. You don't get to waive your hand and make it so. It's always been public land, for which ranchers were given permission to utilize for free for a time.
But unfortunately, none of these statements are correct, legally.
Legally it's public land, and legally the federal government regulates it and can change the rules. This was held up in court.
China, with all the permits necessary to REMOVE the desert tortoise by any means considered most expedient. That is what our wonderful BLM has done. Of course, they have to have possession first.
All of the nonsense about the Chinese ENN is factually false and being used to mislead. Stop forming your opinions on tainted information.
Dyhalto
7536
9 times out of ten, environmentalism or species conservation methods are done as a laudable smokescreen for some less-so purpose. For example, expensive and inefficient wind/solar contracts are awarded all over for the sake of 'Green' energy. More nefariously, you might notice that most WWF wildlife reserves in Africa are situated on countries borders.
Obviously I'm not well versed in this particular issue, but I'm more inclined to believe this is the result of some big agri-business lobbying effort than it is to protect some turtle that could very easily be relocated into controlled environments without affecting the livelihood of umpteen ranchers and their free-range/organic beef business.
So while this land is, yes, public land, sending in the marines over a squatter's $300,000 fine ($1mil?!) is a gross misuse of public resources and the head of BLM should be fired. Also, whose public land is this? The Federal or State governments? It's adorable of the Nevada governor to invoke a nazi reference for some brownie points with the voters, but this might be a case of State's Rights in the making.
Also, ROFL @ rednecks : "They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government."
Obviously I'm not well versed in this particular issue, but I'm more inclined to believe this is the result of some big agri-business lobbying effort than it is to protect some turtle that could very easily be relocated into controlled environments without affecting the livelihood of umpteen ranchers and their free-range/organic beef business.
So while this land is, yes, public land, sending in the marines over a squatter's $300,000 fine ($1mil?!) is a gross misuse of public resources and the head of BLM should be fired. Also, whose public land is this? The Federal or State governments? It's adorable of the Nevada governor to invoke a nazi reference for some brownie points with the voters, but this might be a case of State's Rights in the making.
Also, ROFL @ rednecks : "They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government."
author=Dyhalto
Obviously I'm not well versed in this particular issue
Or any environmental issue.
So while this land is, yes, public land, sending in the marines over a squatter's $300,000 fine ($1mil?!) is a gross misuse of public resources and the head of BLM should be fired.
$1.2m. They escalated force because Bundy threatened violence against any civil servants that try to confiscate his cattle.
Also, whose public land is this? The Federal or State governments?
Federal. Bundy claimed it belong to the State of Nevada and his evidence was unconvincing to the courts. It's not State land.
author=Dyhalto
9 times out of ten, environmentalism or species conservation methods are done as a laudable smokescreen for some less-so purpose. For example, expensive and inefficient wind/solar contracts are awarded all over for the sake of 'Green' energy. More nefariously, you might notice that most WWF wildlife reserves in Africa are situated on countries borders.
Obviously I'm not well versed in this particular issue, but I'm more inclined to believe this is the result of some big agri-business lobbying effort than it is to protect some turtle that could very easily be relocated into controlled environments without affecting the livelihood of umpteen ranchers and their free-range/organic beef business.
So while this land is, yes, public land, sending in the marines over a squatter's $300,000 fine ($1mil?!) is a gross misuse of public resources and the head of BLM should be fired. Also, whose public land is this? The Federal or State governments? It's adorable of the Nevada governor to invoke a nazi reference for some brownie points with the voters, but this might be a case of State's Rights in the making.
Also, ROFL @ rednecks : "They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government."
Don't bother. He's too stubborn. He's the type that believes the government is ordained by god and anyone who believes less is no more than a criminal. The government says it, it is therefore perfect and beyond reproach, and any who stands against it are the most vile evil.
Edit: And he most certainly did not threaten violence. The BLM spokesperson specifically said that they decided upon such a show of force was exclusively because of Bundy's comment that he was fighting a one-man range war. There is nothing unclear about this. Further, the State of Nevada and its elected officials, DO believe this is state land.
author=pianotm
Don't bother. He's too stubborn. He's the type that believes the government is ordained by god and anyone who believes less is no more than a criminal. The government says it, it is therefore perfect and beyond reproach, and any who stands against it are the most vile evil.
Apparently you need to create my position for me in order to make a point, because your own arguments are based on non-factual information.
author=Judeauthor=pianotmApparently you need to create my position for me in order to make a point, because your own arguments are based on non-factual information.
Don't bother. He's too stubborn. He's the type that believes the government is ordained by god and anyone who believes less is no more than a criminal. The government says it, it is therefore perfect and beyond reproach, and any who stands against it are the most vile evil.
No, the information is subjective. Ownership is an abstract concept, and Bundy's claim is a legitimate one. Because some government official makes a verbal ejaculation doesn't make us inferior beings wrong. Your insult on Dyhalto was totally without provocation. He didn't insult you. We are not your bitches, or whatever you seem to think we are. Since you clearly feel that your point of view is the only one that matters here and further seek to impose it upon us, I feel no inclination, need, or even a responsibility to afford you even an inkling of respect. You make it clear that only you could possibly be right and the rest of us are just wrong. Therefore, I disrespectfully request that you shove it, and take the position that I will address you however I damned well feel.
In 1877 this territory was just that "Territory", unclaimed land owned neither by state or federal governments. Ranchers claimed this land and built Clark County. That is a fact. Even BLM states it, and BLM states that they seized land from Clark County in 1993. That Harry Reid is, in fact, in charge of this fiasco shows that Congress implemented its right to Eminent Domain, and that they probably got the permission of the Nevada state legislature, which is required by the Constitution. That Bundy is incorrect in many of his facts and understanding of constitutional law does not make his position invalid.
Your effort has been has been to discredit anyone who disagrees with you, and to insult anyone who takes the middle road. I don't need to "create" your "position" in order to make a point. You've made it clear without my help exactly what you are.
author=pianotm
Edit: And he most certainly did not threaten violence. The BLM spokesperson specifically said that they decided upon such a show of force was exclusively because of Bundy's comment that he was fighting a one-man range war. There is nothing unclear about this. Further, the State of Nevada and its elected officials, DO believe this is state land.
Really? Calling in militia and threatening a range war isn't threatening violence? What are all of those guns for, then? I'm going to go place a pipe bomb on your porch. I'm not threatening violence--I'm just, you know, putting it there.
It doesn't matter what the sheriff thinks. The court says it's federal land, and it's the courts that decide its legal status. Executive officials do not, and should not, be making that assessment; it upsets the balance of power.
author=Judeauthor=pianotmReally? Calling in militia and threatening a range war isn't threatening violence? What are all of those guns for, then? I'm going to go place a pipe bomb on your porch. I'm not threatening violence--I'm just, you know, putting it there.
Edit: And he most certainly did not threaten violence. The BLM spokesperson specifically said that they decided upon such a show of force was exclusively because of Bundy's comment that he was fighting a one-man range war. There is nothing unclear about this. Further, the State of Nevada and its elected officials, DO believe this is state land.
It doesn't matter what the sheriff thinks. The court says it's federal land, and it's the courts that decide its legal status. Executive officials do not, and should not, be making that assessment; it upsets the balance of power.
Now who's giving flawed information? If you've really been following this case, you damned well that those militia's didn't start coming down until after BLM agents started attacking the family members and protesters. THE VIDEO OF MARK BUNDY BEING ATTACKED FOR FILMING BLM OPERATIONS ISN'T LYING. This is why militia started coming to the land.
You know damned well that the militia didn't come out until after the violence began. These agents have no clue or training for how to deal with protesters, so like any thug, they dealt with the issue the only way they knew how.
Edit: I'm not posting to this thread anymore tonight as it is getting my blood pressure up.
Dude figured out how to pay the bills correctly until '93. He decided to quit and tried to pay Clark County grazing fees (amount wasn't in my source) which was returned as Clark County said they didn't have that jurisdiction. The US Dictrict Courts of Nevada have twice said he was trespassing, once in '98 and once in '13, and to pay trespassing fees. Dude's a loon who sniffed too much of the "Big gov't implementing Agenda 21!" paint.
Source: NBC News
(Emphasis mine)
also
looooooooooool
Source: NBC News
March 3, 1877 Congress passes Desert Lands Act , allowing citizens to buy up to 640 acres of public land if the land is brought under cultivation. 1946 Congress forms the Bureau of Land Management by combining two existing agencies, the Grazing Service, established in 1934 to administer grazing on public rangelands, and the General Land Office, created in 1812 to oversee disposal of federal lands. 1954 The Bundy family of Southern Nevada seeks BLM approval to graze livestock on a section of federal land called the “Bunkerville Allotment” along the Virgin River. 1966 The Bundy family seeks approval of six grazing agreements with the BLM, agreements that could be terminated by the agency after due notice in writing because of default or violation. Early 1990s BLM develops plans to protect the desert tortoise on federal lands in Southern Nevada. Tells Bundy permission to graze his cattle on public lands would depend on tortoise sitings. March 1993 Bundy stops paying fees for grazing rights. July 13, 1993 BLM sends Bundy a trespass notice on lands now deemed illegal for grazing. January 24, 1994 Bundy throws away a BLM order to remove cattle that was left on his dashboard. February 1994 Bundy pays grazing fees to Clark County. County returns check, citing lack of jurisdiction. 1995 BLM issues more trespass notices. Bundy challenges the agency’s authority. 1997 Bundy rejects BLM’s invitation to meet.
November 3, 1998 U.S. District Court for Nevada orders Bundy to remove his livestock from the Bunkerville allotment of federal land before Nov. 3, 1998. He also is ordered to pay trespass damages to the government. April 2008 BLM notifies Bundy that if he doesn’t remove his livestock and fencing from public lands, the government would do it and charge him the costs. May 2008 May 2008: Bundy tells BLM he will do whatever is necessary to protect his "unalienable forage, water and access rights.” June 8, 2011 BLM sends trespass notice to Bundy. July 2011 BLM notifies Bundy his livestock continues to graze on federal land and the cattle may be impounded and sold. April 2012 Department of Interior offers to gather and ship the cattle for sale, with Bundy getting the money. Bundy rejects the offer. 2013 BLM officials say they would not use their impound authority because of concern the situation could escalate.
July 9, 2013 U.S. District Court for Nevada finds that Bundy not only has failed to comply with the court’s 1998 order to remove cattle from the Bunkerville Allotment, but that he also is now grazing livestock on “a broad swath of additional public lands” without approval .
(Emphasis mine)
also
Bundy argues that the federal court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public lands in question. U.S. District Judge Lloyd George notes that in the 1998 ruling the court found that “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.”
looooooooooool
I'll reply this once. You see Jude, GRS is citing facts and he's doing it without being a jerk. These are the facts that Bundy disputes.
Kaempfer
1932
I always enjoy how ready some people are to call out the Federal government for enforcing its laws but those same people literally cannot fathom anything unconstitutional happening, ever.
author=pianotm
Now who's giving flawed information? If you've really been following this case, you damned well that those militia's didn't start coming down until after BLM agents started attacking the family members and protesters. THE VIDEO OF MARK BUNDY BEING ATTACKED FOR FILMING BLM OPERATIONS ISN'T LYING. This is why militia started coming to the land.
You know damned well that the militia didn't come out until after the violence began. These agents have no clue or training for how to deal with protesters, so like any thug, they dealt with the issue the only way they knew how.
Edit: I'm not posting to this thread anymore tonight as it is getting my blood pressure up.
Again, your information is false. Bundy sent the letters out to militia in March and the tasering took place on April 8. The son was tasered because he attacked a federal official and was resisting arrest.
Kaempfer
1932
So wait, is somebody making the argument "if you don't like a law don't obey it and everything will be fine"? Because that's what it sounds like!
author=pianotmI am not the one who set the tone. You are the one who started making asinine, provocative statements like "Put that in your pipe and smoke it."
I'll reply this once. You see Jude, GRS is citing facts and he's doing it without being a jerk. These are the facts that Bundy disputes.
Dyhalto
7536
author=pianotm
Your insult on Dyhalto was totally without provocation.
meh. Mud gets thrown in these types of threads. You both need to thicken up a bit.
If anything, I'm kind of sorry for lending my bias toward these right-wing madhatters. Just listen to their ingenious strategy in case shooting broke out.
I love how proud of himself he is.
Too bad nobody took a picture of the 'MILITIA SIGHN IN' sign.
author=Judeauthor=pianotmI am not the one who set the tone. You are the one who started making asinine, provocative statements like "Put that in your pipe and smoke it."
I'll reply this once. You see Jude, GRS is citing facts and he's doing it without being a jerk. These are the facts that Bundy disputes.
Well, I apologize for that. Yes it was badgering, but it still wasn't an attack on your character. I apologize for that, too.
