Since it sparked a spirited debate on another forum, I've followed this since the beginning...and I confess to to a personal conundrum.
While I absolutely detest a government turning an arsenal against citizens over money, I just as absolutely regard the rule of law as a touchstone issue.
I basically regard the ranchers argument as somewhat specious, but there are other considerations to which the average Joe (or Joan) living in non Western states may not be aware. For instance, I was surprised to learn this....
![Loading Image...]()
I was not aware that the US govt owns most of the land in the Western US....to the current issue, look at Nevada....over 80% of that state is owned federally. Why?
And to the point about what we don't understand from afar, I give you an excerpt from a poster on another forum who lives there......typos are his, not mine
Most ranches in the west are comprised of relatively small amounts of land held in fee simple and the remaining majority of land leased from the federal and sometimes state governments. Those leased lands are tied to the fee simple. That is, the lands are not leased at an open auction, but the owner of the fee simple has an exclusive right to lease them, and that right to lease transfers with the fee simple land.
The lease land is a key component to the value of the ranch. When the ranch sells, it is valued not only on the value of the fee simple land, but also on the leased land that accompanies it. In fact, when the federal government condemns such ranches (such as it did at White Sands Missile Range), it has been forced by the federal courts to pay the ranchers for the value of not only their fee simple land, but also their leased land, since that total value truly reflects the value of the ranch being taken by the federal government.
So, again, the concept of leased land attaching to fee simple property is strange to us, but a key element in the argument.
Same guy here...
That system started changing in the 70s with the advent of the environmental movement and their hatred of ranching in the west. The BLM and the Forest Service (the two largest "owners" of federal grazing lands, which were originally created to help the ranchers, evolved to become their worst enemy. All across the west they started dramatically reducing the ranchers grazing allotments (i.e., the number of cow/calf units the ranchers were allowed to place on the federal lands). By drastic, I mean reductions of 90-99%. Many if not most ranchers in the west were wiped out. As an example, the county in Nevada where this is occuring had over 50 ranchers 20 years ago. This guy is the only rancher left.
Further, as someone pointed out above, much of this policy has been created through incestuous litigation. That is, environmental groups, staffed by former BLM and Forest Service employees, file suit agains those agencies. Prior to any court hearing, the agency "settles" with the environmental group and further agrees to pay the environmental groups legal fees. (By the way, no one knows how much the federal government is paying in legal fees to these environmental groups, but the best estimates is billions of dollars a year. For many of the groups, it is their only source of revenue.)
Due to this sue and settle approach, the federal agencies are able to implement policies that are not permitted by statute. Furthermore, the policies are not subject to the normal regulatory process of issuing proposed regulations, having public comments, etc. Thus, the federal agencies have been able to implement massive social changes in the western US without any meaningful debate or any real due process.
Well, that sucks for sure.
However, Mr Bundy has lost in court (twice as far as I can find), so I'm not totally singing in his choir just yet.
I'll not address the Harry Reid connection to a proposed solar farm by Chinese interests as it is only being reported by an unreliable source. But, I find it curious that a national issue happening in his state spawns a cricket farm from his office. Dunno, gonna need to see more on that one.
At the end of the day, I'm thankful that whoever in charge saw the light and decided to avoid a Waco/Ruby Ridge fiasco. My overall evaluation is still a work in progress. I do not approve of ignoring the rule of law, but I don't like a rigged game either. And I damned sure don't like a battalion sized federal agency waging war on its own citizens over a money issue.
Wonder how much land Ben Cartwright owned outright on the Ponderosa? Bonanza was about a Nevada rancher after all.
Anyway, that's my $.02 for now. I'll dig around the recliner and see if I can come up with more........
