Any of you follow this at all? Not a lot of people that I've talked to know much about it.



A ranching family in Nevada has been using an area of public land since the 1800s as range land. Over times laws change, bureaus are created, and the Bureau of Land Management (federal) has taken over "ownership" of a lot of lands, especially in western states with lots of open land.





There is no denying that the Bundys have not complied with legal orders. They have gone to court and they've lost. They currently owe somewhere between $300,000 and $1 million in grazing fees depending on who you ask. The validity of the entire system is questionable, but they have certainly been breaking the law as it stands and disregarding court orders.



One side:





The other side:





Personally I don't agree with all points on either side.



Another fun fact, the BLM is currently in the process of closing the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center and they expect to euthanize around 700 desert tortoises by the time they shut down.



Anyways long story short things have heated up recently. The BLM showed up with hundreds of agents with militaristic equipment. They set up a "First Amendment Zone" where protesters were supposed to stay.





They set up snipers/marksmen in the hills.





They brought in SWAT teams and other paramilitary forces.





There were helicopters on site also.





A couple of days ago there was an incident where the BLM was moving a convoy through the area and the protesters were interfering with this movement. During this conflict a 57 year old woman was tackled and thrown to the ground, a K9 was ordered to attack a protester, and one of the rancher's sons was tazed 3 times. This was all caught on video. (video NSFW for language. Woman thrown down at 0:28, dog attack at 1:05, tazing at 1:10,1:15. and 1:37)

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA[/media]





After that a lot of people were angry. Militia units were mobilized from states across the country and headed off to join other supporters on site. Everyone protesting agreed to leave any weapons in the car because they wanted to make it obvious who the aggressor was if there was an armed confrontation. I've heard a lot of numbers on how many supporters were on site ranging from 100 to 10,000 but from video footage I've seen I would personally estimate around 1,000 people were there today.





This ended with a tense standoff between the BLM and the ranchers and their supporters.





The BLM threatened to shoot anyone who crossed the cattle guard. The BLM agreed to leave and then even agreed to turn over the cattle which had been captured.





The police had to stop the highway to allow the BLM convoy to leave the scene. There were 82 vehicles in the convoy. Supporters saluted the BLM agents as they passed.





Regardless of whether the Bundys had a valid point or were in the right I am very happy with how this went. I think this sets a precedent that if a group of people stands up to the government you can get them to back down. I see a lot of intimidation tactics being used by public officials from around the country. This has to stop. People shouldn't have to be afraid of the police and police shouldn't be using that as a tactic. To me this wasn't about cattle, and was barely about grazing rights. To me it was about freedom from oppression. It was about standing up for yourself even if the government tries to intimidate you. I hope it inspires more people to do the same.

 

I'm confused..... So they don't own the land?? They just use it? Now they are upset that the government wants the land back even though these people don't actually own it? And on top of it all they haven't paid any of the fees pertaining to the use of the land in 21 years?

 

These "ranches" are the same whack jobs that used to take shots at me and my crew in our clearly marked BLM firetrucks as we approached their houses to tell them fire was coming. I live in Nevada and was a BLM firefighter here for 3 years. Trust me when I tell you, these are not average Americans who are just trying to exercise their rights. These are ultra right wing extremists who believe the only good government is no government.

 

They don't own the land. This land has been historically open to grazing. That was one of the reasons that having a ranch could be financially possible in the area. This was a shared natural resource. At some point in time it was decided that money should be made off of this resource which had been historically free. In most cases, that is illegal. If you have water or mineral rights (including grandfathered rights due to historical usage) generally those rights are considered yours. The ranches in the area shared the range land, nobody is occupying it except for some cattle.



This is only one instance of a larger issue of restricting use of natural resources across this country. One that hits me much closer to home is the way public access to timberlands here in Washington has become restricted. The land was effectively given to timber companies in exchange for the companies managing and harvesting timber from the forests while allowing sportsmen access. Almost zero tax is paid on these forest lands. At this point more of the areas where you had free access when I was growing up are closed to the public than is open. Lots of timber companies are now letting you "lease" pieces of their land for thousands of dollars per year so that you can have sporting access. The timber companies have not been kept in check regarding allowing public access, and at this point most places you are no longer allowed at any time.



There's also UN Agenda 21 which is described as a “comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, governments and major groups, in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” The UN wants to decide where people live, how many people there are, and how all of the land is used.



I am a firm believer that the BLM shouldn't own any land anywhere. They didn't exist until 1976. The states should manage their own public land.



The BLM is a pain in the ass. Sure, the BLM fire fighters are doing a good thing (should still be handled by the states) but the BLM as a whole has given just about everyone trying to enjoy and/or make a living off of the land reasons to dislike seeing them.

 

If it was handled by the States, I would have worked for the State of Nevada and would not have been able to help put out fires in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho, Colorado, Washington and California. Having Federal firefighters means I could go where I was needed. The BLM does alot of good things. The fact that these good things also come with rules is just part of living in a country of states.

 

I work for the State of Texas and I have been called to head to another State, under Federal orders/dollars, to help them out when needed. Louisiana after for storms, etc. The BLM couldn't federalize State assets when needed?

 

Lots of state agencies cooperate to allow for providing help in other states.