Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada conflict

Press clippings from around the world.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada conflict

Post by gbin »

A NV rancher grazes his cattle on public land in NV for some 20 years without paying the required federal fees for doing so - despite his clearly losing court battle after court battle on the matter over the course of those 20 years - and the feds finally decide they've had enough and start confiscating his cattle to settle his debt. What does he do? He starts shooting his mouth off to any media that will put a camera or microphone in front of him that the tyrannical feds are for no good reason oppressing the fine people of NV, and must be resisted (with firepower if necessary) to preserve everybody's liberty. What do Fox News and talk radio do? They claim that he's right without even bothering to mention that 20+ years' worth of unpaid grazing fees and those numerous court rulings, of course, and then they worsen the situation further by pretending that the whole issue is because the feds refuse to allow cattle to share desert tortoise habitat. (Not the case at all; they never told him that he couldn't graze his cattle on the land in question, but only that he had to pay the federal fees in order to do so.) Now the right-wing media have trumpeted this BS so far and wide that thousands of gun-toting anti-government nuts are expected to gather there from all over the country by sometime today. No one knows how soon after that the shooting will start, of course...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/11 ... e-f/198860

Gerry
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by chris_mcmartin »

It could also be said the rancher himself is the scapegoat in what may be a purchase/buyout by the US government as a proxy for China:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/ ... 6D20120831


Chinese corporations are already buying up a significant number of our agricultural businesses (which, decades ago, used to be called "farms") in other parts of the country.

At what point does foreign investment cease to be a simple case of landowner's rights/eminent domain (whether the rancher in this situation is in the right or in the wrong--and I think the tortoise concern is a red herring), and becomes a matter of national security?
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by gbin »

Surely, Chris, you're not buying into the idea that at the heart of all the federal government's efforts against this NV rancher has been some outrageously long-range scheme to sell the land to China so they could put a solar farm/manufacturing plant there? :crazyeyes:

If the proposed Chinese solar farm/plant has any relation whatsoever to the land in question, indeed even if it served in any part whatsoever as catalyst for the federal government finally taking actual action against the rancher - which isn't at all demonstrated fact, by the way - it doesn't change the amply demonstrated fact that the rancher has lost court proceeding after court proceeding over more than 20 years because of his continuing refusal to pay required grazing fees for the public land on which he raises his cattle. Should it surprise anyone that at some point in that more than two decades the government became open to the idea of there being some other income-generating use for the land in question, and that upon recently finding one they finally moved to evict the free-loading scofflaw currently making use of it? I certainly don't think so.

Make no mistake in any event, landowner's rights have nothing to do with this story. Yes, the family of the rancher in question has made use of that land for a long time, but it's been public land that entire time, and he himself jeopardized their continued use of it by refusing to pay the required grazing fees and ignoring repeated court orders to do so.

Surely, too, you're not thinking this possible Chinese solar farm/plant in any way, shape or form excuses Fox News and talk radio for falsely portraying the issue as one of being the public versus the desert tortoise? :crazyeyes:

Sounds like the feds have now defused the situation by returning the guy's confiscated cattle and withdrawing, in any event. Sets a pretty bad precedent, if you ask me, as it's sure to embolden right-wing gun nuts to take up arms against "the big, bad gov'ment!" all the more readily in the future. I'm glad not to have anyone killed over this, but they'd better not let that rancher continue to get away with thumbing his nose at the government and courts over his illegally profiting off public lands.

And it's too bad that America's right-wing media will get away with their deceitful troublemaking, regardless. Canada is a country with a pretty free citizenry, all in all, and yet they have and at least occasionally enforce laws meant to prevent their media and other public figures from misleading the public with outright lies. I suspect some other countries that also rank very high by any objective measure of protecting individual rights and liberties do so as well. And a number of modern, free-loving countries nonetheless have laws against hate speech, too. I suppose my daring to say so here will likely prompt some hate speech aimed my way, but I firmly believe the U.S. should look at adopting some such legislation, ourselves.

Gerry
User avatar
regalringneck
Posts: 563
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:20 am

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by regalringneck »

... a strange amalgamation of agendas collided here for sure, and as required by their very nature (general incompetence) the feds eff'd it up every way possible, even the awkward end; releasing the cattle they'd paid private contractors to catch.. jaja ... what a bunch of fools. The old rancher was even able to co-opt the flag/imagery/ and finally own the message. It was so poorly thought out & executed, the cynic in me ponders if it was intentional?
Im hoping though that this might provoke a long overdue national discussion; just how many alphabet acronym federal agencies do we need hiring hundreds of AR-15 toting commandos? US Marshals enforcing court orders ought to be adequate, w/ local deputies taking care of day-day patrolling.
I agree Gerry, the solar angle is a non issue, BLM's approving these ugly arrays all over our deserts, windmill farms too, all public subsidies because the buisness model wont stand on its own; much like rancher bundy's welfare cattle operation ... :roll:
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Additional (I'm careful not to say "opposing") viewpoints need not stem from Fox News or talk radio--I have seen nor heard from either of those sources in a long time. My article was from the "fairly" impartial Reuters news service.

Although they may vary in level (or interest) in critical analysis of issues, the additional sources of information shared are welcomed as more material to roll into said analysis. I can't imagine they're all entirely off their rockers and I'm sure no single source has aggregated all the bits of information into one coherent, accurate account of the situation.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by gbin »

I agree with everything you said, John. It almost seems as if the government actually wanted the whole thing to turn into the scary circus it became. When I was telling my wife about the situation, she quickly interrupted me to ask a very obvious question I too have been wondering from the start. If the rancher has been breaking the law all this time, why didn't they just arrest him? He'd have found it hard to shoot his mouth off to all those microphones and cameras about taking up arms and supposedly defending America from its own government had he been cooling his heels behind bars where he belongs. Maybe he'd even finally have seen the wisdom in paying the grazing fees he's owed for so long.

It would be awesome if that long overdue national discussion you mentioned were to include all those public subsidies the government provides to folks profiting from public lands, as well as the multi-agency commando response the government likes to resort to when things aren't going the way they want them to.

Chris, I wasn't suggesting that you got the Chinese solar farm/plant angle to this story from Fox News or talk radio. (I'm sure the right-wing media have been happy to grab onto that angle with both hands, though, if for no other reason than to try to attack Harry Reid.) I was just showing you how that latest angle misses the main points of this story, big time. It's easily as big a red herring as the desert tortoise bit. The government's beef with this guy clearly predates by a long time any recent speculation about using the land for solar ventures, and at its core is clearly his continued refusal to comply with requirements and court orders and pay the fees he owes for grazing his cattle on that public land.

Gerry
User avatar
regalringneck
Posts: 563
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:20 am

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by regalringneck »

... the biology/public policy side of this in a nutshell is the reality that grazing livestock in the mojave desert is extremely harmful; in that native bunch grasses & shrubs are eliminated and exotic brome grasses become a continuous fuel for subsequent fires. Huge swathes of beautiful joshua tree deserts and their wildlife are now & forseeably gone due to this insane mis-management. Ive been all over this area & the Bundys stocking rates are typical of these abusers of our public lands.
An excerpt from one of my grazing files 20+ years ago ...

"I have come to understand this issue is not likely to be resolved locally or largely through the agencies. They comprise too large a part of the problem. Grazing programs (like fire suppression programs), are budget producing areas in these agencies & therefore defended. Complaint letters to agency managers alone are not as effective as they should be.

The private organizations, courts & possibly legislative bodies hold the best promise for change. It may be (as has been the case with so many arenas in Americas political experience [civil rights for ex.]); that non-violent civil disobedience serves as a catalyst for change.

The obvious solution (to me) is legislation to buy grazing permits out. A model to emulate is possibly the CRP program. This program has produced tremendous wildlife crops (& happy farmers) in the mid-west. An Arid Rangelands Restoration Act whereby these ranchers receive a windfall for retiring their permits is the direction we need to go.

The American approach to problem solving has traditionally been one of two approaches. We either kill the opposition or we buy them. The first option is not particularly brotherly, though there is probably some justice in the idea of Native Americans flying Apache helicopters and rescuing the land from those who have so harmed them and it! Much more palatable and realistic though is the old tried & true concept of simply buying out the opposition. We have mechanisms in place that pay farmers not to grow wheat & cotton. Why not extend this nutty thinking to ranchers? A rancher is but a cattle farmer without his own pasture. I'll bet another agricultural subsidy is one point ranchers and I could actually agree on!

Imagine a rancher sitting down with state and federal bureaucrats and arguing the case why her grazing permit must be reduced further due to non achievement of floral recovery goals, and then receiving a substantial increase in income as a result of that further decrease! Those ranchers with negative numbers of livestock should have the greatest income of all. Base property values would increase, there would be much less busy work for the cowboys, and much more time available for them to lounge in local bars & coffee shops, to berate elk, wolves, the government, and environmentalists. The public would have healthier land with clean water and abundant wildlife. All parties could celebrate victory and move on to other matters. What a win - win solution for everyone.

We need to make these ranchers millionaires by retiring their grazing permits & then they can opt to become "federal land hosts", "stewards", or some other trendy title, & let the natural communities flourish and produce large quantities of wildlife, primitive recreation, & other natural products.

I suggest outdoors organizations & enthusiasts perhaps as friends of the court, consider filing personal lawsuits against individual ranchers & possibly agency managers for damage and degradation to public property. I would consider this especially for those really offensive conditions we too often see & affectionately refer to as cow-nuked.

We need to explore the feasibility of breaking a wedge into the monolith Farm Bureau. Why do Texas & Florida beef producers support western welfare grazing? They might actually operate in the black if they were able to charge fair market value via a slightly reduced national beef supply."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... D61YFxUga4

From the Pahvant Post, Utah

CONNECTING THE DOTS REGARDING THE BUNDY RANCH SHOWDOWN

Background

The Cliven Bundy family actively ranches in the harsh conditions of the deserts of

Southeast Nevada where their family has operated for at least six generations (use of

the phrase “have been” has been avoided because at this point, the future looks

brighter, and it does not appear that they will become “has-beens” any time soon).

The Bundy family lives on approximately 150 acres of private property that their

Mormon pioneer ancestors settled along the Virgin River in the 1880s. For well over

100 years, the Bundy family’s cattle have been grazing hundreds of thousands of acres

of “public” land surrounding their property.

Regardless of any and all other theories, claims or documentation, Bundys claim that

their grazing rights are based on the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, which are

encapsulated in universal principles, such as: “he that takes the risk should receive

the reward,” “possession is 9/10ths of the law,” “first in time, first in right,”

“use it or lose it,” and “we reap what we sow,” otherwise known as the law of the

harvest. These natural law principles are based on the concept that those who take

the risk and pay the price to take possession, improve and defend something, whether

it be land, forage, water, minerals, timber, or something else, and put it to

beneficial use, deserve continued use, possession, benefit and enjoyment of that

thing, and as long as they can maintain possession and use, it is and should be

their’s.

According to this theory, such principles apply to all forms of real estate-based

property rights, including water rights, mineral rights, timber rights and grazing

rights. Although a person may not actually hold title to the land itself, through

application of these principles they acquire the right to use and put to beneficial

use certain aspects of that land, or resources that the land produces. This is the

basis for the concept of prescriptive rights, adverse possession and pre-emptive

rights, and these natural law principles serve as the basis for many of our written

laws.

Basis for the Dispute

For the past 20+ years, the BLM has claimed that the Bundy cattle are trespassing.

Most recently, the BLM has claimed that Bundy cattle grazing these ranges total in

the neighborhood of 1000 head, and that the Bundy family owes the BLM over $1 million

dollars in unpaid grazing fees and penalties.

Cliven Bundy and his family of 14 children maintain that they have a pre-emptive

right to graze the land, based on their prior beneficial use. They also claim that

there has not been any contract between them and the federal government since the BLM

cancelled their “grazing permits” over 20 years ago, after it moved all other

ranchers off the land and declared the range to be habitat for desert tortoises, that

the federal government maintains are threatened or endangered.

The Impoundment Effort

In early April, after years of threats and several prior attempts, the BLM hired a

private company owned by Shane and Jessica Sampson of Meadow, Utah, and agreed to pay

them almost $1 million dollars to gather and impound the Bundy cattle. At first the

BLM claimed that the total budget for the impoundment effort was approximately $3

Million dollars. Since then, however, the BLM has admitted that the budget is closer

to $5 Million.

In preparation to sell the cattle, the BLM also approached Scott Robins, owner of “R”

Livestock Connection, doing business as the Richfield Auction near Monroe, Utah, and

offered him extra money to handle disposal of the impounded cattle through his

auction. Unlike other ranchers and cattle operators, however, who typically just

take their cattle to the auction and pay a pre-determined commission fee based on the

prices the cattle bring, the BLM allegedly offered Robins extra money in advance to

take the impounded cattle and sell them. According to sources who have spoken on

conditions of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak, Robins justified

taking the up-front money by using it to help improve his facilities to better handle

the cattle.

One unusual aspect of the impoundment effort has been the military-like security

measures the BLM has taken, including the deployment of snipers, SWAT teams and an

army of hundreds of armed federal agents, and dozens of escort vehicles. With

helicopters, air support, and a heavily armed security detail, along with Shane

Sampson and his cowboys on the ground, the whole operation has attempted to operate

with the precision of a military operation in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Protest

Unlike somewhat similar BLM cattle impoundments in the past, where most people seemed

to be content to just stand idly by and have had little to say about the BLM’s

heavy-handed tactics, in this case people started coming out of the woodwork to

protest the federal government’s actions. Slowly but surely the protest gained

traction. At first, most elected leaders stood back and had little to say. From

start to finish state cattlemens’ associations in Nevada and Utah, as well as the

vast majority of cattle ranchers have stood back, had little to say, and seemed to be

content to let the Bundy family attempt to fend for itself.

The first political leader who stepped up to the plate to do anything to support the

Bundys was Iron County Commissioner, David Miller, who quickly and clearly identified

the injustice and hypocrisy the BLM’s actions as it sought to spend $ 5 Million

dollars to remove the Bundy cattle, while claiming that it had inadequate resources

to manage its own wild horses that vastly exceed the numbers that are supposed to be

on the range, competing for forage, especially under the drought conditions that

exist this year. In Iron County, alone, it is estimated that there are well over

2000 wild horses in areas where there are not supposed to be more than about 300.

But despite repeated requests, which began long before the Bundy situation was even

on the radar screen, the BLM has failed and refused to do anything to address the

wild horse issue, claiming lack of resources.

Slowly but surely, and reluctantly at first, other political leaders got on board.

In addition to starting to address the wild horse situation in Southwest Utah

(including Millard County), the county commissioners in Washington, Iron and Beaver

Counties sent a message that they did not want the impounded cattle coming into their

counties. The state of Utah also finally got on board and told the BLM that it did

not want the impounded cattle to come to Utah, and the BLM would be required to

comply with any and all applicable state laws regarding livestock brand inspections,

transportation, and transfer of ownership.

In the meantime, the protest movement slowly gained ground. The Internet and

Blogosphere started buzzing with the story. Eventually the mainstream media even

started to pick it up, on a nationwide basis. More and more people started showing

up in Bunkerville to support the Bundys. People started coming from all over the

country. While we were in Bunkerville covering the story, we talked to people from

all the surrounding states, as well as people who have flown in from Texas to show

support. Every day the numbers grew, and more people got on board.

Important Developments

A week ago, as Dave Bundy was standing on or near a public road, taking pictures with

his I-pad, he was forcefully arrested, taken into custody and held over night. Later

in the week, in a heavy-handed clash with protestors, when Ammon Bundy attempted to

see what was in the back of dump truck guarded by a large heavily-armed security

detail, he was threatened with police dogs, and Tazored on multiple occasions.

Ammon’s aunt was also thrown to the ground by BLM agents. The next day, other

protestors where man-handled, roughed-up and issued citations by armed BLM agents as

they simply sought to see what the BLM was doing.

Eventually, the governor of Nevada started expressing concerns about a number of

things, including closure of public lands, heavy-handed armed altercations with and

arrests of protestors, as well as unquestionable infringement of First Amendment

rights to free speech and freedom of expression. Slowly, other political leaders

started to voice concerns and support.

On Thursday, April 10th, several elected leaders came to speak to the protestors at

the rally point near Bunkerville. Based on the comments of Nevada State

Representative Crescent Hardy, he was challenged to lead an effort to relocate the

protest and peacefully assemble in an area south of Overton where cattle were being

transported, and several protestors had been detained, roughed-up and issued

citations, to protest the BLM’s actions there.

That same day, for the first time, protesters got the first view of the operation

from the air, as a private pilot was hired to fly the range, monitor what the BLM was

doing, and count cattle, including in the impound corrals, as well as still remaining

on the range. In an effort to help verify and corroborate such information,

reporters from the Beaver County Journal in a joint operation with the upstart

Pahvant Post, also took to the sky in an effort to verify the truth of many of the

BLM’s representations and assertions, including the number of cattle the BLM had

claimed were on the range.

Based on the corroborated efforts of both of those surveillance flights, it was

quickly concluded that the BLM’s numbers had been grossly exaggerated, and that

instead of 1000 cattle, between the cattle counted in the impound corrals and those

still out on the range, there were closer to 400-500. It was also verified that many

baby calves had been separated from their mothers and orphaned as a result of the

gather, and that there were also other casualties of the BLM’s efforts.

After the Beaver County Journal broke this story, the BLM quickly adjusted its

numbers and said that instead of the gather taking a month, it looked like after only

a week, most of the cattle had already been gathered.

The BLM also quickly sought to intimidate the pilots and media, including reporters

for the Beaver County Journal, by claiming that the private surveillance flights had

interfered with the BLM’s gathering efforts, and had forced their helicopters to

ground. An investigation ensued, in which the BLM sought to interrogate, threaten

and intimidate the pilots and reporters, and BCJ was forced to have legal counsel

intervene. Although there was no truth whatsoever to such accusations, the BLM then

requested the FAA to put a No-Fly-Zone in place to prevent any further private

surveillance of the BLM’s operations.

On Friday, April 11th, after much investigation, stories broke that Nevada Senator

Harry Reid was alleged to be playing an important role in attempting to move the

cattle off the land, in order to pave the way for a Chinese solar farm, and to make

additional water available for Las Vegas.

Based on reports that the Bundy Ranch had been fully surrounded by SWAT teams and

snipers, starting on Thursday, armed militia members began arriving at the ranch from

around the country to provide private security, lend support, and engage in armed

conflict with the BLM para-military force, if necessary.

Other prominent figures and organizations, including Richard Mack, and Oath Keepers,

promised their support, and made arrangements to mobilize to Bunkerville. Clearly

acknowledging full Second Amendment rights, and recognizing the distinction between

defensive and offensive weapons, Oath Keepers encouraged their members to dress in

Western attire more in keeping with a rural, agricultural atmosphere, and to only

carry sidearms (handguns), which are considered to be defensive weapons, rather than

rifles, which are generally associated with the ability to take offensive, rather

than defensive, measures.

By Friday, the militia presence was clearly felt, with dozens of men in camouflage

fatigues, sporting M-16 rifles and combat gear. The security detail also included

some very burly private bodyguards for Cliven Bundy, all fully prepared to do battle

with federal government agents, if necessary.

The most significant, behind-the-scenes development, however, was the position taken

by the Nevada State Brand Inspection office. In previous impoundments almost a

decade ago, the Nevada State Department of Agriculture had come under serious fire,

when, under pressure from the federal government, its lawyers had counseled state

officials to bend their long-established policies and provide brand inspections on

the BLM impounded cattle. Those actions resulted in some effort to hold those

officials accountable for what they had done.

After the State of Utah had insisted that the impounded cattle not enter the State of

Utah to be sold, the BLM began frantically searching for another place and a plan to

dispose of the cattle, including going to California, if necessary. Ultimately,

however, according to our inside sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because

they have not been authorized to speak, the Nevada State Brand Department advised the

BLM that it would not provide the BLM with brand inspections, in accordance with

applicable state law, transferring ownership of the cattle to the BLM, or authorizing

the BLM to transport the cattle anywhere. Consequently, although the BLM was

spending close to $ 5 Million dollars to gather the cattle, and was holding them on

BLM land, it could not legally move or do anything else with the cattle.

This was a major, unprecedented victory for states’ rights in the ongoing battle with

the federal government, as the federal government increasingly seeks to flex its

muscles.

Eventual Resolution

By Saturday, April 12th, the protest had grown exponentially, with upwards of 1000

people on the ground, including close to 100 mounted cowboys and riders who had

travelled to Bunkerville from at least three states, and saddled-up and come out to

show support for the Bundys, and to help take their cattle back. By then, although

the protests had always been peaceful, with the mass arrival of militia members,

there was also a heavily armed private security force, including snipers in place,

and many average participants in the protest were also wearing sidearms for their own

protection.

The critical elected official who had been conspicuously absent during the entire

week was Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie, who had insisted on taking a neutral

stand, and refusing to become involved. Sheriff Gillespie’s only statement had been

that no cow was worth shedding any human blood for, on either side. By Saturday

morning, however, a rumor was circulating that Sheriff Gillespie was going to make an

appearance and talk to both the Bundy Family, and the protestors.

When Sheriff Gillespie and his undersheriffs arrived, however, Cliven Bundy refused

to meet with them in private. He said that any discussions they would have would

have to occur in broad daylight, under the big flags that had been raised, with all

the protestors as witnesses. At that point Sheriff Gillespie announced that based on

all the conditions, the BLM had made the decision to shut-down the cattle impoundment

operation, re-open the area to the public, and to withdraw from its operation. He

did not say what the plan was regarding the impounded cattle or the future use of the

disputed range for grazing, but he said he would like to have a private conversation

with the Bundy Family about that. Again, Cliven Bundy declined a private meeting,

and said that any discussions they would have would be on the stage, before the

people.

At that point, Cliven Bundy issued a list of demands to Sheriff Gillespie. Bundy

demanded first and foremost that as elected sheriff and head law enforcement officer

in Clark County, that Sheriff Gillespie and his Metro Police forces disarm the BLM

and the NPS (National Park Service), and bring their weapons back to the protest spot

within one (1) hour. He also demanded that Clark County immediately take county

equipment and start dismantling the NPS entrances and pay-gates at Red Rock Marina

and other entrances to Lake Meade, and that such actions likewise commence within the

next hour. At that point, Sheriff Gillespie was left with little choice but to leave

the protest to see what could be done to comply with such demands, and he left the

area.

Although it is unknown exactly what efforts Sheriff Gillespie undertook, during his

entire appearance there had been several LV Metro SWAT team vehicles standing by,

several miles away. After Sheriff Gillespie and his men left, upwards of 100 LV

Metro patrol units, most of which carried four officers each were dispatched to the

BLM compound near Bunkerville, almost 80 miles away. From that point on, a steady

stream of LV Metro Police cars could be seen speeding up i-15 toward the BLM compound

near Bunkerville. When they reached the area, they joined the SWAT vehicles in

approaching the BLM Compound.

Because Cliven Bundy’s demands were not met within 1 hour, as requested, however, the

protestors started moving toward the BLM compound in an attempt to take action to

take back the impounded cattle. Because of the distance and rough terrain, and very

challenging access (all of which were obviously planned by the BLM), it took some

time to mobilize everyone, including protestors, security force, and mounted cowboys

to an access in large wash, under an I-15 freeway bridge, that had been barricaded

and blocked-off by the BLM.

By the time the protestors arrived, the area in the wash under the bridge was heavily

guarded by BLM SWAT teams in full combat gear, with multiple snipers in place.

Before the protestors approached the barricade, however, Ammon Bundy requested that

they all kneel in prayer, and under those tense circumstances asked God for a divine

intervention in a peaceful and satisfactory outcome.

As the protesters approached, BLM forces used a loudspeaker to repeatedly threaten

them and warn them to stay back. But unarmed protestors continued to advance

forward, with armed protestors and militia members staying to the sides and rear,

waiting to see if BLM agents would actually open fire on unarmed civilians, and wee

prepared to provide return fire, if necessary.

As the protestors advanced closer and closer to the barricade and the situation got

tenser and tenser, LV Metro Police personnel ultimately came on the loudspeaker and

requested an opportunity to negotiate a resolution. At that point, LV Metro

negotiators, acting under the direction of Sheriff Gillespie, advanced to the

barricade where they were met by Ammon Bundy, and helped negotiate a satisfactory

resolution between the protestors and the BLM, whereby the cattle would be released

and returned to the Bundys.

After waiting a short period of time to allow BLM personnel to completely withdraw

from the area, the mounted cowboys proceeded to the corrals, where they released the

cattle, and brought them back down the wash, to an uproar of cheers from the large

crowd of protestors.

After the cattle had passed, Ammon Bundy once again requested that they kneel in

prayer to offer thanks for the peaceful, and satisfactory outcome.

Conclusion

This may not be the end of the story, but it’s a good place to pause and think about

what happened.



We Won The Battle': Nevada Cattle Ranchers Proclaim Victory Over Federal Government
Reuters
Posted: 04/13/2014 10:25 am EDT Updated: 04/13/2014 10:59 pm EDT Print Article


MORE: Cattle Roundup Nevada Cattle Round Up Nevada Cattle Seized Nevada Tandoff

Nevada Militia Crime Bunkerville Nevada Reuters BLM Ranchers Nevada Ranchers Blm

Nevada Land Rights Davey Bundy. Bureau of Land Management Cliven Bundy
MESQUITE, NV - APRIL 11: Rancher Cliven Bundy poses for a picture outside his ranch

house on April 11, 2014 west of Mesquite, Nevada. Bureau of Land Management officials

are rounding up Cliven Bundy's cattle, he has been locked in a dispute with the BLM

for a couple of decades over grazing rights. (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images



(Adds comments from Nevada governor and from expert on militias)

By Jennifer Dobner

BUNKERVILLE, Nev., April 12 (Reuters) - U.S. officials ended a stand-off with

hundreds of armed protesters in the Nevada desert on Saturday, calling off the

government's roundup of cattle it said were illegally grazing on federal land and

giving about 300 animals back to the rancher who owned them.

The dispute less than 80 miles (129 km) northeast of Las Vegas between rancher Cliven

Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management had simmered for days. Bundy had stopped

paying fees for grazing his cattle on the government land and officials said he had

ignored court orders.

Anti-government groups, right-wing politicians and gun-rights activists camped around

Bundy's ranch to support him in a standoff that tapped into long-simmering anger in

Nevada and other Western states, where vast tracts of land are owned and governed by

federal agencies.

The bureau had called in a team of armed rangers to Nevada to seize the 1,000 head of

cattle on Saturday but backed down in the interests of safety.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground and in consultation with law

enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our

serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," the

bureau's director, Neil Kornze, said in a statement.

The protesters, who at the height of the standoff numbered about 1,000, met the news

with applause. Then they quickly advanced on the metal pens where the cattle

confiscated earlier in the week were being held.

After consultations with the rancher's family, the bureau decided to release the

cattle it had rounded up, and the crowd began to disperse.

"This is what I prayed for," said Margaret Houston, one of Bundy's sisters. "We are

so proud of the American people for being here with us and standing with us."

A number of Bundy's supporters, who included militia members from California, Idaho

and other states, dressed in camouflage and carried rifles and sidearms. During the

stand-off, some chanted "open that gate" and "free the people."

A man who identified himself as Scott, 43, said he had traveled from Idaho along with

two fellow militia members to support Bundy.

"If we don't show up everywhere, there is no reason to show up anywhere," said the

man, dressed in camouflage pants and a black flak jacket crouched behind a concrete

highway barrier, holding an AR-15 rifle. "I'm ready to pull the trigger if fired

upon," Scott said.


LONG-SIMMERING ANGER

The dispute between Bundy and federal land managers began in 1993 when he stopped

paying monthly fees of about $1.35 per cow-calf pair to graze public lands that are

also home to imperiled animals such as the Mojave Desert tortoise. The government

also claims Bundy has ignored cancellation of his grazing leases and defied federal

court orders to remove his cattle.

"We won the battle," said Ammon Bundy, one of the rancher's sons.

The bureau said Cliven Bundy still owes taxpayers more than $1 million, which

includes both grazing fees and penalties, and that it would work to resolve the

matter administratively and through the court system.

Jack Kay, a professor of communication at Eastern Michigan University and an expert

on militias, said the federal government did well to step back from the conflict.

"These things tend to escalate, someone looks like they're going to pull the trigger

and then something happens," he said.

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, who earlier in the week suggested the federal

government had created an atmosphere of "intimidation," said in a statement on

Saturday he welcomed the bureau's action. "Given the circumstances, today's outcome

is the best we could have hoped for," he said.

Hundreds of Bundy supporters, some heavily armed, had camped on the road leading to

his ranch in a high desert spotted with sagebrush and mesquite trees. Some held signs

reading "Americans united against government thugs," while others were calling the

rally the "Battle of Bunkerville," a reference to a American Revolutionary War battle

of Bunker Hill in Boston.

The large crowd at one point blocked all traffic on Interstate 15. Later, as lanes

opened up, motorists honked to support the demonstrators and gave them thumbs-up

signs.

In an interview prior to the bureau's announcement, Bundy said he was impressed by

the level of support he had received.

"I'm excited that we are really fighting for our freedom. We've been losing it for a

long time," Bundy said.

But an official with an environmental group that had notified the government it would

sue unless federal land managers sought to protect tortoises on the grazing allotment

used by Bundy's cattle expressed outrage at the end of the cattle roundup.

"The sovereign militias are ruling the day," said Rob Mrowka, senior scientist with

the Center for Biological Diversity. "Now that this precedent has been set and

they're emboldened by the government's capitulation, what's to stop them from

applying the same tactics and threats elsewhere?"

Roger Taylor, retired district manager with the Bureau of Land Management in Arizona,

also said the agency's decision to release the cattle will have repercussions.

"The (agency) is going to be in a worse situation where they will have a much more

difficult time getting those cattle off the land and getting Bundy in compliance with

regulations," he said. (Additional reporting by Laura Zuckerman in Salmon, Idaho;

Writing by Scott Malone and Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by David Gregorio, Lisa

Shumaker, Robert Birsel)
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Interesting suggestion regarding the "pay the farmers NOT to graze cattle" a la wheat growers.

There are multiple "levels of concern" in this situation. One is certainly the detrimental effects on the environment. Another is land-use rights (or lack thereof), and change in those rights over time (further split into two perspectives--change for environmental reasons, and change for policy/revenue reasons). Still another is individual vs. state vs. federal issues. Still ANOTHER is foreign investment/ownership.

Which is most important? It depends on who's asking, and who your target audience is for the answer. But to prioritize one "level of concern" as that which trumps all others may be doing so at great peril. I think some of these "levels of concern" are being used as a smokescreen to allow other "levels of concern" to be acted upon more surreptitiously. It's happening on at least two of these levels, pitting one against the other, seemingly without considering other levels.

There MAY be a solution which will resolve the problem satisfactorily at all levels of concern (or at least minimize the negative impacts). Let's hope those in a position to do something assess the situation correctly.
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by Jimi »

It could also be said the rancher himself is the scapegoat in what may be a purchase/buyout by the US government as a proxy for China
It could be said. But that would be ridiculous. Seriously, look at a map. Laughlin and Bunkerville are a long ways apart. The Chinese are not looking at 150 acres of fee-title private land to locate a utility-scale solar farm. (It's way too small a tract, for one thing - by an order of magnitude at least.) The foreign angle, related to this story, is a red herring. Period. I actually wish someone would build more solar farms on private land (salinized formerly irrigated lands perhaps? keep some water in the river for wildlife, sell the rest to the cities, let the farmer go re-invest somewhere it actually rains?), so that the renewables-demand would be more satisfied by the private sector and less by the public estate. By high-quality wildlife habitat on the public estate. But it's cheaper to beat up the public land than to buy your own. That is strictly due to grubby politics that transfers wealth and real (as in real estate) interest from public to private hands. AS IN THIS CASE.

Speaking of wildlife (public wildlife) habitat on the public estate - sorry guys, this ACTUALLY IS what this is about. The desert tortoise was T-listed in 1990. All existing grazing allotment-lease permits had to be revisited in that light. The vast majority of the Mojave leases were bought out, as John suggests. A few permittees (lessees) weren't willing sellers so accommodations were made - agreements were made, to adjust stocking rates, season of use, desired future range condition, etc. to try and get the agency - the landlord - into an ESA- and NEPA-compliant posture. Agencies get sued, successfully, when they don't follow the law. Who wants a government agency not following the law?

A bunch of made-up legalese can't change the basic facts. I'll extend the landlord analogy. There's a landlord. There's a tenant family. There's a contract and rent (cheap, cheap rent) as a place to park some cattle. The tenant family stopped paying rent a long time ago, without removing their cattle from the premises, continuing to remove forage and water, and violating the legal contract in a number of ways (including damaging the property); the tenant family also have been threatening violence for years. Yes, threatening violence for years. On what planet would such people not be evicted and thrown in jail?

A top level of concern ought to be rule of law (Constitutional, statutory, and common), and respect for due process. There's been a ton of bureaucratic due process, tons of stalling and welching on the part of the tenant, and now the landlord has finally had enough. As one of the shareholders employing the landlord, I have had enough. I want my property rights to be upheld. Those tenants can do what they like on their 150 acres of land that they actually OWN. But I am unwilling to bankroll a lifestyle & social program for an outlaw operation with no respect for other, multiple uses, on land that I own "shares" in.

So I hope in a couple weeks, when all the cameras and the gun-toting "sea lawyers" go home, the law enforcers come back and do the job for which we employ them. Grand theft, property damage, making felonious threats of violence? Give me a break. Send in the cops.

Does that make any sense? Is it unreasonable? Is it unAmerican, is it "pinko", is it lib-tarded? I think it's pretty mainstream.

Cheers,
Jimi
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Jimi wrote:Who wants a government agency not following the law?
Not me...but yet it happens all the time, from the highest levels of government (Administration directing DOJ not to enforce some laws, or choosing which pieces of other laws to implement) down to state (selectively enforcing road-cruising laws depending on what part of the state you herp) and local.
On what planet would such people not be evicted and thrown in jail?
Ours, apparently, for at least the last two decades in this particular situation. Your point of bureaucratic due process is well taken, but 21 years? (using the 1993 date I've seen thrown around as to when this mess started) It makes me wonder: why now, exactly?

There's more to the story than what the news source(s) we each choose to follow are letting on, is all. I'm not disagreeing that the aforementioned "levels of concern" are all important, but rather that they aren't exclusive of one another, aor at the expense of another, and all should be considered in the analysis of what is happening.

Edit: Apparently some groups believe feral horses trump all other considerations, including wildlife (tortoises):

http://news.yahoo.com/rancher-inspects- ... 35181.html
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by gbin »

Jimi wrote:So I hope in a couple weeks, when all the cameras and the gun-toting "sea lawyers" go home, the law enforcers come back and do the job for which we employ them. Grand theft, property damage, making felonious threats of violence? Give me a break. Send in the cops.
This is my hope as well.

John, I understand the pragmatism behind your suggestion that these ranchers be treated like farmers and paid by the government not to raise cattle on land with environmental value, and maybe for that reason alone it really is the best course. But there's a fundamental difference between ranchers and farmers that I personally just can't get past. The property being ranched (in this and a great many other cases) is public land, whereas the property (not) being farmed is not. Part of the justification for paying those farmers is that by setting some of their land aside they're depriving themselves of seeking agricultural profits from it that they've an inherent right to seek. No one has an inherent right to seek agricultural (or other kinds of) profits from public lands - no matter how vigorously they might pretend otherwise nor how long their family might have been doing so. Outside of the dictates of a properly maintained lease, they've no more right to that land than you, I or anyone else.

And when they start threatening violence against the government and encouraging others to do so as well, as I said, there's a very dangerous precedent being established here if they're not dealt with.
chris_mcmartin wrote:
On what planet would such people not be evicted and thrown in jail?
Ours, apparently, for at least the last two decades in this particular situation. Your point of bureaucratic due process is well taken, but 21 years? (using the 1993 date I've seen thrown around as to when this mess started) It makes me wonder: why now, exactly?
I certainly believe it should have been taken care of a lot sooner - and a heck of a lot more effectively - but better late than never. If there was going to be an "ever" then at some point there had to be a "now." Whatever factors might be imaginatively, tenuously or even concretely connected to the "now," the fact remains that this rancher has long been acting in violation of the lease that allows him to use public land and in defiance of repeated court orders over that long period that he correct the situation. Unless one share's the rancher's extremely self-serving belief that "the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God" supercede U.S. law - as these are clearly in conflict here - he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Gerry
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by chris_mcmartin »

A 24-year-old article claiming grazing (artificially?) increases tortoise populations. Of course, it's a rancher apologetic, but it makes some interesting claims:
BLM's conservative grazing management program is designed to restore ranges degraded by years of overuse
by livestock. Restoring the range is beneficial to some wildlife, bighorn for instance, but it is detrimental to tortoises.
Like jackrabbits and mule deer, desert tortoises thrive on deteriorated range lands. Declining numbers of desert tortoises since the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 is a direct result of decreased livestock grazing and improved range conditions.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... 0776/10049
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by gbin »

chris_mcmartin wrote:A 24-year-old article claiming grazing (artificially?) increases tortoise populations...
Interesting, and worth discussing somewhere, but what's its relevance to this thread? As I pointed out:
gbin wrote:... Whatever factors might be imaginatively, tenuously or even concretely connected to the [government finally taking action against the NV rancher] "now," the fact remains that this rancher has long been acting in violation of the lease that allows him to use public land and in defiance of repeated court orders over that long period that he correct the situation. Unless one share's the rancher's extremely self-serving belief that "the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God" supercede U.S. law - as these are clearly in conflict here - he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
:?:

Gerry
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by chris_mcmartin »

gbin wrote:Interesting, and worth discussing somewhere, but what's its relevance to this thread?

I took my cue from the title of this thread: "Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada conflict."


My previous replies addressed the "scapegoat" aspect of the thread topic; that is, there are several candidates for scapegoat. You might say my most recent reply is the first of mine to actually remain on-topic!

:P
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by gbin »

If persistently sidestepping the real points of this story makes you happy, amigo, then I guess I'll just try to be happy for you... :beer:

If you've a real interest in discussing the topic you just brought up - the effect of ranching on tortoises (and other wildlife) - though, you might want to start a thread of your own on that topic in the Board Line.

Gerry
User avatar
Antonsrkn
Posts: 971
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 2:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by Antonsrkn »

I just pulled this little gem off facebook:
feds are completely out of control. i don't know if you heard about the ranch in nevada but they are trying to kick people off land their families have owned since the 1800s, and coming in with guns blazing, snipers pointed at property owners... they killed hundreds of cattle in nevada and pushed them into a mass grave (during birthing season, leaving orphan baby calves), their reasoning for doing any of this is completely contradictory and flawed, it is nothing more than the feds wanting control of every piece of land they can possibly get, even if they have to break their own laws to do so. if you really read into the one in nevada, the most f'd up part was, Harry Reid (D-NV) actually wants to sell that land to a chinese company to build a solar plant. the chinese have bought off our government and are using the bureau of land management to get whatever land they can! its scary, im writing a paper on it for a class.
I was all ready to type up a response addressing the multiple fallacies in here but then I decided why bother? But this gross misrepresentation bothers me so my form of venting is posting this ridiculousness here.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by gbin »

There are some awfully stupid and scary people out there, Anton, that's for sure.

Apparently our NV hero (can't really call him an American hero, can we, given that he doesn't recognize the federal government? :roll: ) rancher has decided to continue holding daily news conferences, you know, to capitalize on his continuing moment of fame to let everyone know what's wrong with this country that he doesn't believe in. Here are some of his thoughts on "the Negro" (as reported in yesterday's New York Times):
    • “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

      “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
I keep checking to make sure this whole story isn't just a concoction of The Onion. :shock: But no, in reality it's a concoction of Fox News/talk radio and the folks they cater to (right on down to that horrendous "better off as slaves" crap).

Looks like they're leaving the desert tortoise behind as a bogeyman, anyway. China serves them much better in that role...

Gerry
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by Jimi »

Chris wrote:
Ours, apparently, for at least the last two decades in this particular situation. Your point of bureaucratic due process is well taken, but 21 years? (using the 1993 date I've seen thrown around as to when this mess started) It makes me wonder: why now, exactly?

There's more to the story than what the news source(s) we each choose to follow are letting on, is all. I'm not disagreeing that the aforementioned "levels of concern" are all important, but rather that they aren't exclusive of one another, aor at the expense of another, and all should be considered in the analysis of what is happening.
First, there has been a long-running series of administrative actions by BLM (ignored by the tenant), interspersed with a couple of legal actions each culminating in adverse federal-court findings (1998 & 2013) against the tenant (who ignored them too). So he flaunts both executive and judicial branches of the federal govt. But also the legislative branch of local govt - see below. But it's important to not forget this conflict flared up right after the Ruby Ridge, ID (1992) and Waco, TX (early 1993) shootouts between right-wing extremists and federal (RR) and state (Waco) law enforcement agents. The Clinton administration was pretty unmotivated to have a third nasty incident like that happen, so they didn't push the matter right when it started. Or at all afterwards - even though the mid 90's saw bombs going off in BLM and USFS offices in NV and other western states. When Bush came in, well, he wasn't very inclined to do anything - to have "his" BLM do anything - was he? Chief Executive, head of the executive branch. I don't really see a big mystery here. Appalling yes, mysterious, no.

I mentioned earlier that desert tortoise actually IS the center of this story. I should have clarified, that it was Clark County which well before 1993 pursued and secured a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) which is an ESA mechanism to enable incidental take of Threatened species by the permit holder(s).

Here's some background on that early HCP process. I think anyone interested in this ongoing conflict, should read the linked PDF: http://www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/c ... county.PDF

Making a long story short, a multi-party deal was made to swap "bad things for tortoises" in the Las Vegas valley (paving hundreds of square miles of tortoise habitat) for "good things for tortoises" (reducing threats outside the valley, so tortoises there would have a brighter future). BLM lands in the valley were sold to or exchanged with the private sector (for land and water outside the valley). A system to relocate tortoises from permitted-development areas into permitted-preserved areas was established. Curtailing public-lands grazing in Clark County - where BLM administers ~ 2 million acres - was also a significant part of that multi-party deal. The ranchers didn't like the deal - didn't want to sit at the negotiating table at all - and went to court instead. And they lost, which can happen when you go to court. Here's an excerpt from the link:
Absence of cattlemen at the table is also considered particularly "lamentable," according to Sid Sloane, given their large community voice. However, as Clark County representative Chris Robinson remarked, "it was at their own cost.... BLM had no qualms about taking away grazing allotments, and by going to court, many ranchers gave away their only chance to be bought out. This
was at their own expense, not that of the process."
So you see, this isn't really about state vs fed, or local vs national. There are however some rural/urban and Mormon/"gentile" faultlines being exposed here, as well as plenty of political opportunism. The HCP process included plenty of local, rural input. Plenty of locals wound up making a whole lot of money building or selling Las Vegas. A few just wouldn't get involved. The irony is that they used exactly the same tactics as the wacky enviro groups - sit outside and sue. Now Bundy is the last one standing, because he's flipped the bird to the entire legal system, to the entire notion of a rule of law. Welcome to Mobocracy. How do you like it? I don't like it one bit. Somebody's going to get killed, and that's the last thing that should ever happen.

This whole mess perfectly illustrates what can happen when you take an abstract idea and try to apply it in a particular situation, while ignoring all the work that's already gone into "making the abstraction actually work". These guys carrying a copy of the Constitution around in their pocket? I truly, sincerely wish they'd read it. Read it for comprehension.

Jimi
ThomWild
Posts: 352
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 10:42 am
Location: Utah

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by ThomWild »

Jimi wrote:This whole mess perfectly illustrates what can happen when you take an abstract idea and try to apply it in a particular situation, while ignoring all the work that's already gone into "making the abstraction actually work". These guys carrying a copy of the Constitution around in their pocket? I truly, sincerely wish they'd read it. Read it for comprehension.
Jimi that would just take too long to read it all, not to mention all of the research that would have to be done to understand the meaning and context of all them weird words and phrases from 1787. It is much easier to keep a copy of it in your pocket, ya know, as a token. After all we are no longer a society that cares to comprehend anything, all we gotta do is react and whoever reacts the loudest or most obnoxiously is gonna win. Din't you know we're in a war Jimi?

-Thomas
User avatar
Andy Wolf
Posts: 52
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:20 pm
Location: PA

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by Andy Wolf »

chris_mcmartin wrote:A 24-year-old article claiming grazing (artificially?) increases tortoise populations. Of course, it's a rancher apologetic, but it makes some interesting claims:
BLM's conservative grazing management program is designed to restore ranges degraded by years of overuse
by livestock. Restoring the range is beneficial to some wildlife, bighorn for instance, but it is detrimental to tortoises.
Like jackrabbits and mule deer, desert tortoises thrive on deteriorated range lands. Declining numbers of desert tortoises since the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 is a direct result of decreased livestock grazing and improved range conditions.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... 0776/10049
Bostick's paper is not based on scientific evidence, and most of his key points have been subsequently refuted. It's addressed in Turtles of the United States and Canada:

Image
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Andy Wolf wrote:Bostick's paper is not based on scientific evidence, and most of his key points have been subsequently refuted. It's addressed in Turtles of the United States and Canada:
Thanks; I figured something was up based on the publication in which it appeared.
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by jonathan »

Pretty incredible that a guy getting his 15 minutes of fame as a supposed advocate for "freedom" is able to take actual slavery so lightly.
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by Jimi »

Pretty incredible that a guy getting his 15 minutes of fame as a supposed advocate for "freedom" is able to take actual slavery so lightly.
Mmmyeah. In his "defense" I guess you could say, or to put it in context - the dude is old as dirt, lives way out in the sticks, probably went to some really crappy grade school(s) back in the 50's, and to top it all off has 14 kids (that's right) and about 60 grandkids. All in all, I guess he probably hasn't had a lot of time, energy, or interest to observe and digest what's been going on in American society since he was in grade school and had (I presume) a few courses in American history and civics.

Now why such a guy, with such "qualifications", would capture the imagination and affection of any number of extremely demonstrative supporters is way beyond my ken. His recent words on "the Negro" etc have, I hope, lopped off a number of those supporters (or at least, reduced their willingness to demonstrate their support). What pleases me most is that he has severely degraded his own utility to political opportunists of the "sagebrush rebellion" persuasion. He just became pretty radioactive.
It is much easier to keep a copy of it in your pocket, ya know, as a token.
Token, or totem? Both, I think. But I do resent the attempt to appropriate, to arrogate, for themselves something that belongs and pertains to all of us. And I am disgusted by elected officials (county sheriffs and commissioners, state legislators, federal legislators, whoever), who I presume swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, showing these criminals any respect whatsoever.

"Truth" has and will always contain a large measure of subjectivity. But without the ability to agree on a set of unimpeachable facts, the very notion of rule of law is a farce.

Jimi
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by gbin »

Jimi wrote:Now why such a guy, with such "qualifications", would capture the imagination and affection of any number of extremely demonstrative supporters is way beyond my ken.
I don't really think it is. Indeed, I pointed toward the reason for this in things I said in both the title I gave this thread and the initial post I made in it. Let me lay it out:

Fox News and talk radio saw this story as an excellent opportunity for them to tie together the paranoid fantasies of those nutcases out there who are so worried about the big, bad federal government and the much more commercially driven incessant talk on these media outlets about the big, bad Obama administration (and any other persons Democratic, especially if they're prominent like Harry Reid), and to pin the commercially desirable blame on an environmental cause - conservation of the desert tortoise - to boot. I happened to catch Sean Hannity's first interview on Fox News with (of the more than four solid hours of television coverage he gave to) scofflaw rancher Cliven Bundy, and Hannity's excitement over this story was so extreme that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he wet himself during that interview. Bundy kept spouting his anti-federal government crap and Hannity kept spouting his anti-Obama and anti-conservation crap, and even though they weren't actually talking about the same things they were so incredibly pleased to be saying them to a large television audience that they quite obviously didn't care about any differences. Just as Hannity and other corporate/Republican mouthpieces quite obviously didn't care about the possibility for - heck, may have even been rooting for - actual violence to break out as a result of their drum-beating and make the story that much more of a debacle for the administration to have to deal with. Disgusting, to be sure, but all too understandable in our current sociopolitical climate.

By far the best media coverage I've seen given to this story - and the most hilarious 7:24 of any kind of television I've seen in a very long time:
Watch the whole thing - you won't be sorry!

Gerry
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Desert tortoise being used as scapegoat in Nevada confli

Post by Jimi »

High Country News recently published the legal history of this affair. Each event (e.g. "Feb. 17, 1994 Final Decision Order to Remove") has a link to the actual filed documents (mostly BLM decisions, a pair of federal court decisions, plus one private-party response). That is to say, here's the legal paper trail for all to see:

http://www.hcn.org/articles/cliven-bund ... dium=email

cheers,
Jimi
Post Reply