Bundy standoff
Date	Legal process: 1993–2014 Confrontation: April 5, 2014 – ongoing[1]
Location	Clark County, Nevada, U.S.
Caused by	Protest over Bureau of Land Management roundup of trespass cattle pursuant to court order Unpaid cattle grazing fees on public domain lands
Goals	BLM seeks to round up trespassing cattle owned by Bundy Cliven Bundy seeks to prevent roundup of cattle and have his claim of grazing rights recognized
Status	Ongoing
Lead figures
Cliven Bundy Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Approximate location of Bunkerville Location within Nevada

A 20-year legal dispute between the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and cattle rancher Cliven Bundy in southeastern Nevada over unpaid grazing fees eventually developed into an armed confrontation between protesters and law enforcement. The dispute began in 1993 when grazing rules were changed and Bundy refused to pay the new bills to the US government for his cattle grazing on BLM-administered lands near Bunkerville, Nevada. In 1998, Bundy was prohibited from grazing his cattle on the Bunkerville Allotment by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in United States v. Bundy.^[2] In July 2013, the BLM complaint was supplemented when the George Court ordered that Bundy refrain from trespass on federally administered land in the Gold Butte, Nevada area in Clark County.^[3]

In early April 2014 after years of violations of multiple court orders, the BLM began rounding up all cattle that were trespassing on the land. They were confronted by protesters and armed supporters of Bundy and eventually back down.

Background

United States v Bundy
Court	United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Full case name	UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CLIVEN BUNDY, Defendant.
Decided	July 9, 2013 (2013-07-09) and October 8, 2013 (2013-10-08)
Defendant(s)	Cliven Bundy, pro se
Prosecution	1. Ignacia S. Moreno 2.Daniel G. Bogden
Transcript(s)	May 2012 -Complaint June 2012 - Answer by Defendant Dec 2012 - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment January 2013 - Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Cross-Motion to Dismiss February 2013 - Plaintiff's Reply in Further Support of its Summary Judgment Motion and in Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion to Dismiss February 2013 - Defendant's Reply in Further Support of His Cross-Motion to Dismiss; Evidentiary Hearing Requested February 2013 - Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Request for Evidentiary Hearing February 2013 - Defendant's Reply in Further Support of Request for Evidentiary Hearing July 2013 - Court Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as Moot Oct 2013 Court Order
Case history
Prior action(s)	1998, order by same court
Holding
Bundy permanently enjoined from trespass, Bundy shall remove livestock within 45 days, US entitled to seize and impound cattle.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	1. Lloyd D. George 2. Larry R. Hicks

Some US Government land in Nevada is managed by the BLM, which allows stock grazing in some areas under certain permits and restrictions.^[4] Bundy grazed his cattle legally on an area of public domain land near Bunkerville prior to 1993, but when grazing rules were changed in the Gold Butte, Nevada area in Clark County, he became locked in legal battles with the US government.^[5]

Bundy has since accumulated over $1 million of unpaid grazing fees and Court-ordered fines.^[6][7]

United States v. Bundy

The case of United States v. Bundy played out over many years in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. It involved court orders, injunctions, and notices. Bundy argued pro se that the land belongs to the state, while the Bureau of Land Management was represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office for Nevada and the Washington DC Department of Justice.^[7] The court ruled that the land on which Bundy was grazing his cattle was indeed owned by the federal government, that he had not been paying to use it as he should have been, that Bundy and his cattle were trespassing, and that the government had the right to enforce the injunctions against trespass. The court found that Bundy repeatedly violated the court orders and continued to have his cattle trespass.^[7][8]

Legal actions 1998 to 2012

United States v. Bundy "arose out of Bundy’s unauthorized grazing of his livestock on property owned by the United States and administered by the Department of the Interior through the BLM and the National Park Service."^{[citation needed]} On November 3, 1998, United States District Judge (USDJ) Johnnie B. Rawlinson, "permanently enjoined (Bundy) from grazing his livestock within the Bunkerville Allotment ('The Allotment'), and shall remove his livestock from this allotment on or before November 30, 1998... (and) ordered that Plaintiff shall be entitled to trespass damages from Bundy in the amount of $200.00 per day per head for any livestock belonging to Bundy remaining on the Bunkerville Allotment after November 30, 1998."^[2] Rawlinson stated that "[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy’s livestock."^[2] This sentence was restated on October 8, 2013 by USDJ Larry R. Hicks.^[8] On September 17, 1999, after Bundy failed to comply with the court’s earlier order(s), the court issued another order directing Bundy to comply with the 1998 permanent injunction and modifying the trespass damages owed.^[7][8][9]

Legal actions 2012 to 2014

The cattle expanded into additional public lands over the years. In May 2012, the United States again initiated United States v. Bundy,^[a] seeking relief for Bundy's trespassing on a new set of additional lands not covered by the original 1998 ruling: "including public lands within the Gold Butte area that are administered by the BLM, and National Park System land within the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area."^[3] On December 21, 2012 the United States moved for summary judgment in this new case.^{[citation needed]} This motion was granted in an order signed by Senior USDJ Lloyd D. George on July 9, 2013.^[3] The George Court ruling permanently enjoined Bundy and his cattle from trespassing on the New Trespass Lands.^[3] Another order was issued by the Hicks Court in October 8, 2013, which stemmed from the earlier 1998 civil action against Bundy. The orders allow the United States to "protect the ... Bunkerville Allotment against ... trespass" by Bundy and "to seize and remove to impound" any of his cattle that remains in those areas.^[8]

Grazing on US federal rangeland in Nevada

Rangelands are distinguished from pasture lands because they grow primarily native vegetation, rather than plants established by humans. In 1848, the United States conquered a large expanse of land from Mexico in what is now the south-western region of the United States, known as the Mexican Cession in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Nevada Territory, which was partitioned from the Utah Territory, became a state in 1864 and later included the Bunkerville Allotment. Since then, the United States government has continuously owned land in Nevada.^[2][10] Federal rangelands in Nevada are managed principally by either the Bureau of Land Management or the United States Forest Service. Ranchers may lease or get permits to use portions of this public rangeland and pay a fee based on the number and type of livestock and the period for which they are on the land.^[11]

Federal rangeland laws

Laws that apply to management of public land grazing include the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978,^[11] and the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. In 1933, Edward T. Taylor, a Representative from Colorado, re-introduced a bill to set up the grazing bureau or service in the Department of Interior to administer range lands.^[12] The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934^[b] regulates grazing on public lands (excluding Alaska) to improve rangeland conditions. The Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office in 1946 to form the Bureau of Land Management.^{[citation needed]}

Grazing was never established as a legal right in the US,^[13] and the Taylor Grazing Act authorized only the permitted use of lands designated as available for livestock grazing while specifying that grazing permits "convey no right, title, or interest" to such lands.^[14]

Case studies by Phillip O. Foss on the role of local grazing advisory committees established by the Taylor Grazing Act found that such committees were often dominated by the same ranchers and cattlemen whose activities were supposed to be regulated,^[15][16][17] raising questions as to whether grazing regulation had been "captured" by the regulated interests.^{[citation needed]}

Federal rangeland grazing regulations

The Bureau of Land Management manages about 167 million acres (676,000 km²) of publicly owned rangeland in the US, with the United States Forest Service managing approximately 95 million acres (380,000 km²) more.^[11] The permittees on federal rangelands are required to pay a fee, and the permit cannot exceed ten years but is renewable. Permits can be revoked because of severe drought or other natural disasters that deplete grazing lands.^{[citation needed]}

Any U.S. citizen or validly licensed business can apply for a BLM grazing permit or lease. To do so, one must either buy or control private property (known as "base property") that has been legally recognized by the Bureau as having preference for the use of public land grazing privileges; or acquire property that has the capability to serve as base property and then apply to the BLM to transfer the preference for grazing privileges from an existing base property to the acquired property (which would become the new "base property").^[11]

Federal rangeland regulatory changes in 1993

The grazing rules for the land went through changes over the years, including some updated grazing rules in 1993 in the Gold Butte and Bunkerville land area of Nevada. Among other issues, the 1993 rules were changed to protect the vulnerable desert tortoise.^{[citation needed]} Other rules included limits to the number of cattle allowed in certain areas^[18] to protect the lands from the severe over-grazing caused by less regulation in previous years and to help the land recover from recent wildfires.^[19] Currently there are no grazing permits on the Bunkerville allotment, and any livestock on that land are there illegally.^{[citation needed]} Bundy owns land previously considered base property and paid AUM animal unit permit fees prior to 1993 for grazing on the nearby Bunkerville Allotment area.^{[citation needed]} Bundy asserts that the terms of land use changes in 1993 reduced his allowed cattle by 90%, capping it to about 150 animals.^{[citation needed]}

Court judgments against Bundy's claims

The Cliven Bundy family owns a 160 acre farm southwest of Bunkerville, which serves as headquarters and base property for the family’s ranching operation on nearby public domain lands. The farm property was purchased by the Bundy family in 1948—after they moved from Bundyville, Arizona—and Bundy has claimed that he inherited “pre-emptive grazing rights” on public domain land because some of his maternal grandmother's ancestors had kept cattle in the Virgin Valley beginning in 1877.^[7][20] Bundy alternatively argued in legal cases that federal grazing rules infringe on his states' rights.^[7]

Claim of inherited grazing rights

There appear to be no records of any inherited grazing rights, pre-emptive rights, special rights, or grandfathered public domain land use rights ever held by the Bundy family or Bundy's ancestors.^{[citation needed]} Bundy lost his special rights arguments in the United States v. Bundy cases.^[2] Bundy had only base property and normal AUM grazing allotment permits like the permits of thousands of other ranchers throughout the western US. The court found that Bundy and his father actually first began grazing their cattle on the Bunkerville Allotment in 1954, and used it for several years. They paid for cattle grazing again beginning in 1973 and ending in 1993, when the last grazing fees were paid by Bundy for his last grazing application for December 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993. On January 24, 1994, the BLM delivered a Proposed Decision Order to Remove and Demand for Payment to Bundy by placing it on the dashboard of Bundy's vehicle while he was in the vehicle. BLM officials allege that Bundy became agitated, walked out of his truck and accused the BLM of harassing him. He then returned to his truck, threw the decision out of the window and drove away. One of Bundy's sons then picked up the decision, tore it into pieces and threw it on the ground. On February 17, 1994, the BLM issued a final decision canceling Bundy's ephemeral range grazing permit. Bundy subsequently informed the BLM in several "administrative notices" that he intended to graze cattle "pursuant to my vested grazing rights." Bundy failed to demonstrate the existence of any such special rights when given an opportunity to do so in court.^[2]

Claim on states' rights

Bundy lost in US District Court on all his arguments regarding states' rights and jurisdiction in the United States v. Bundy cases. Bundy had argued that the US District Court for the District of Nevada lacked jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public lands in question. The court ruled “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."^[2] Bundy argued that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force. The clause states:^[21]

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.

Bundy also argued that the United States' exercise of ownership over public domain lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine; that the Article Four Property Clause of the United States Constitution applies only to federal lands outside the borders of states; that the United States based its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of public domain lands on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass; and that Nevada’s open range statute excuses Bundy's trespass.^{[citation needed]}

BLM actions

The BLM was tasked with environmental assessment^[18] and various enforcement issues regarding the cattle trespass injunctions. During March–April 2014, it closed some areas of government lands during the planning for roundup of the trespass cattle owned by Bundy. In early April, "just before the roundup got underway, a survey conducted by helicopter counted 908 head of cattle scattered across roughly 1,200 square miles of remote mountains and desert managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service."^[22] The BLM stated on their website:^[5]

Cattle have been in trespass on public lands in southern Nevada for more than two decades. This is unfair to the thousands of other ranchers who graze livestock in compliance with federal laws and regulations throughout the West. The Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially. An impoundment of cattle illegally grazing on public lands is now being conducted as a last resort."

Government contractors riding horses and a small helicopter succeeded in penning almost 400 trespass cattle from April 5 to 9, 2014. "According to state brand inspectors, almost 90 percent of the cattle rounded up by midweek bore Bundy’s brand. Of the remaining animals, five belonged to a neighboring rancher, four were marked with brands that couldn’t be read, and the rest were slicks, a ranching term for unmarked livestock."^[22] On April 17, the BLM confirmed that a cow and a bull owned by Bundy were put down for posing "a significant threat".^[23] A state brand inspector said the bull, "might have got frightened, but that’s no reason to shoot a bull." Another said that bulls sometimes charge at people, adding that it takes "a pretty good-size weapon" to kill Bundy's breed of bull.^[24] A page on the BLM website, since removed, listed the impacts of trespass cattle owned by Cliven Bundy. Among these are risks to people driving on roadways, destruction of crops in private property, damage to community property in Mesquite, negative impacts to city facilities in Bunkerville, destruction of archaeological artifacts, and unauthorized reservoir construction.^[25] Non-governmental organizations regional offsite-mitigation strategies are also delayed for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone,^[26] and a matching $400,000 grant from the Walton Family Foundation to restore habitat for the Southwest Willow Flycatcher along the Virgin River is delayed on the condition that trespass cattle are removed by Cliven Bundy.^[27]

After the roundup was suspended due to safety-of-the-public concerns, Bureau of Land Management spokesman Craig Leff said the agency would continue to try to resolve the matter "administratively and judicially." Leff said "The door isn't closed. We'll figure out how to move forward with this," "The BLM and National Park Service did not cut any deal and negotiate anything."^[28]

Confrontations and protests in April 2014

In late March,^[29] Bundy sent letters^[30] entitled "Range War Emergency Notice and Demand for Protection" to county, state, and federal officials.^[29][30] In media interviews, Bundy used the language of the sovereign citizen movement as a rallying call, beckoning support from members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain Militia and the Praetorian Guard.^[31] In early April, armed individuals and private militia members from across the United States joined peaceful protesters against the trespass cattle roundup in what has become known punningly as the Battle of Bunkerville.^[7][32] BLM enforcement agents were dispatched in response to what was seen as threatening statements by Bundy, such as calling the events a "range war".^[33] There was no armed battle.

With many roads closed to ensure safety during the cattle removal, designated First Amendment areas where protesters could safely congregate or exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble were marked with signs and orange plastic fences adjacent to the road.^[34][35] On April 8, 2014, Nevada Governor, Brian Sandoval issued a statement, calling for the removal of the First Amendment restrictions he described as offensive.^[36] After stating that peaceful protests had crossed into illegal activity, the federal agencies allowed protesters to go anywhere on the public land as long as they were peaceful.^[37]

April 10 confrontations and protests

On April 10, protesters crowded around a convoy to find out why a BLM truck was being used.^[7] Bundy's sister was pushed to the ground by a law enforcement officer.^[38] A protestor struck a truck and blocked it with his ATV. Officers protecting the civilian truck driver had Tasers and police dogs. The protesters angrily confronted the rangers. According to CNN, "Federal officials say a police dog was kicked and officers were assaulted. Bundy family members say they were thrown to the ground or jolted with a Taser."^[7]

April 12 confrontations and suspension of roundup

On the morning of April 12, a heavily armed crowd rallied under a banner that read "Liberty Freedom For God We Stand". Camouflaged militiamen stood at attention, communicating with earpieces. Most had signs, many of which chided "government thugs". Addressing the protestors, Bundy said "We definitely don't recognize [the BLM director's] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing power in any way," and "We're about ready to take the country over with force!" After the BLM announced a suspension of the roundup, Bundy suggested blocking a highway.^[31] Armed protesters blocked a portion of Interstate 15 for over two hours causing traffic backups for three miles in both directions.^[39] Protesters also converged at the mouth of Gold Butte, the preserve where the cattle were corralled, where a tense, hour-long standoff ensued. BLM rangers warned over loudspeakers that they were prepared to use tear gas.^[31] Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, who was with the protesters, controversially said that they were "strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it's going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers".^[40] Protestors took position on a highway overpass, seemingly offering cover as horse-mounted wranglers led protesters to face off against heavily equipped BLM rangers and snipers.^[31]

Las Vegas Metro Deputy Chief Tom Roberts defused the situation by announcing that Bundy's cattle would be returned within 30 minutes.^[31] The BLM announced that it would suspend the mass roundup,^[1][41] citing safety reasons. Clark County Sheriff Gillespie mediated the agreement between the Bundy family and the BLM, saying, "[W]hen a group of protesters threaten civil unrest or violence in this county -- it is my job to step in and ensure the safety of citizens."^[39] BLM Director Neil Kornze said Saturday, "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."^[42]

BLM spokesman Craig Leff stated in an email that "The gather is over" but that the agency plans to seek a solution "administratively and judicially" and intended to pursue court action to collect more than $1 million in back grazing fee owed by Bundy.^[43]

Las Vegas police stated that business owners in Mesquite had received threats because of the conflict.^[42]

Aftermath

1,500 Bundy supporters attended a celebration on April 18 where they ate Bundy beef, read cowboy poetry, and wore "domestic terrorist" name tags. Bundy said he would continue holding a daily news conference.

On April 19, Bundy criticized the government and its negative influence on "the Negro." He recalled seeing a government-housing project where some of the older residents and the kids would sit on the porch. He said, "They didn’t have nothing to do ... they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? 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."^[6][44]

Ranking Democratic Senator Harry Reid condemned the Bundy statement, and said Bundy had "revealed himself to be a hateful racist. But by denigrating people who work hard and play by the rules while he mooches off public land he also revealed himself to be a hypocrite... It is the height of irresponsibility for any individual or entity in a position of power or influence to glorify or romanticize such a dangerous individual... For their part, national Republican leaders could help show a united front against this kind of hateful, dangerous extremism by publicly condemning Bundy."^[45][46] A number of Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that previously had supported Bundy forcefully condemned his remarks as racist,^[47][48] including junior NV Senator Dean Heller, who previously had described Bundy defenders as "patriots”, and Senator Rand Paul who also previously had supported Bundy.^[49][50] On April 23, Heller said through a spokesperson that he "completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way".^[6] On April 23, Bundy defended his comments by saying "the statement was right".^[51] Sean Hannity, who supported Bundy in his Fox News talk show, said that Bundy remarks were “beyond repugnant”, and Glenn Beck criticized Bundy’s comments saying that the rancher is “unhinged from reality” and urging his supporters to "end your relationship” with him.^[52][53] Other conservative politicians that distanced themselves from Bundy included Michael Steele and Reince Priebus.^[54]

Reactions by public officials

Public officials reacted to the confrontations and protests. Governor Brian Sandoval sided with Bundy saying "No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans. The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly."^[33]

Arizona Representative Kelly Townsend said that the scenes at the ranch amidst the dispute gave her a "visceral reaction...It sounds dramatic, but it reminded me of Tiananmen Square. I don’t recognize my country at this point." Her colleague, Bob Thorpe of Flagstaff, said that he was with about three dozen other state legislators to question federal and Nevada officials.^[55]

U.S. Senator Dean Heller of Nevada complained of Federal actions while the standoff was ongoing, saying "I told him (BLM Director Neil Kornze) very clearly that law-abiding Nevadans must not be penalized by an over-reaching BLM,"^[33] after the resolution he stated "emotions and tensions are still near the boiling point."^[39]

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore who supported Bundy, aiding him with his returned calves, said that "It's time for Nevada to stand up to the federal government and demand the return of the BLM lands to the people of Nevada."^[43]

After the BLM left the area for safety concerns, Nevada's Senior Senator to the United States Congress, and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid stated "Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over."^[56] Reid also referred to the militia supporting Bundy as "domestic terrorists".^[57][58]

Reactions by media personalities

Media personalities have weighed in on the confrontations. During the stand-off Bundy was interviewed (via remote link) by television host Sean Hannity. Hannity stated that some fear events could wind up mirroring the Waco siege and Ruby Ridge and asked how far Bundy was willing to take his cause, he replied "my statement to the American people (is), I’ll do whatever it takes to gain our liberties and freedom back."^[59]

Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), now a talk radio show host and Tea Party activist, also supported the protesters. Walsh, who traveled to the area and stood by Cliven Bundy as the BLM released the cattle, described the outcome as "talk radio, social media, grassroots activists, and boots-on-the-ground patriots joined together...[&] overcame the tyranny of big government." Walsh added "we should be smart enough to know that this isn't the end. The BLM could easily show up again tomorrow, next week, or next month. ...We must be vigilant."^[60]

Reactions by Bundy and supporters

Some protesters termed the stand-off as the Battle of Bunkerville,^[61] although there was actually no armed battle.

Some Tea Party Movement supporters expressed solidarity with the Bundys, including three Southern Nevada tea party groups which organized a protest outside of the Las Vegas police headquarters Friday April 11, 2014 claiming Sheriff Doug Gillespie had failed in his duty to protect Nevadans from abuse by the federal government.^[62]

The Bundy family claimed victory on having its cattle returned.^[63] In an interview after the withdrawal of the BLM, Sean Hannity asked if he had a reply to Senator Harry Reid's comment that the situation wasn't over. Bundy stated, "I don't have a response for Harry Reid, but I have a response for every county sheriff across the United States. Disarm the federal bureaucrats."^[56][64]

Legal and rule-of-law reactions

Atlantic reporter Matt Ford pointed out that Cliven Bundy's claim, "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing," is at odds with Nevada's law, specifically the state's constitution. Framed during the Civil War, Nevada's constitution specifically mentions the rights of the federal government, stating at Article 1, Section 2, "The Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States...whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."^[65]

The Salt Lake City Tribune published an editorial on 15 April entitled Bundy is a lawbreaker, not a hero, in which they said "Don't let him get away with it." and "The only winner in this was a scofflaw who has twice lost in the courts for running cattle where they don’t belong and skipping out on grazing fees. Some 20,000 ranchers in Western states abide by BLM regulations, so what makes Bundy special?" To sum it up, the Tribune said "When some manage to avoid justice by extralegal means, the rule of law is weakened for all Americans."^[66]

Some of Bundy's neighbors aren't impressed by his actions.^[67] "I feel that the rule of law supersedes armed militias coming in from all over the country to stand with a law-breaking rancher, which is what he is" Mesquite resident Elaine Hurd told local television station KLAS.^[28][67]

Roger Taylor, a retired BLM district manager in Arizona, 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.^[68]

Dallas Hyland, in his column in Utah's St. George News, wrote, "The stand-down was necessary to prevent bloodshed, but it must be recognized that if Bundy and a multitude of his supporters, militia friends, and even family members who broke the law, are allowed to go unpunished, anarchy will follow.^[69][70] In the case of Bundy and the Gold Butte designations, the government did it right. They continued to do it right in the face of the lawless behavior of a rancher and his militia henchmen."^[69]

Political commentary reactions

David Damore, a University of Nevada, Las Vegas political science professor, said that there is "a great ability on the part of these folks to overlook the reality of how much the federal government subsidized Nevada in terms of big projects – the Hoover Dam, the mining subsidies. It's a welfare cowboy mindset."^[31]

Brad Knickerbocker of the Christian Science Monitor, saw the events as echoing the Sagebrush Rebellion, a 1970s movement to transfer control of public domain lands to the states.^[71][72]

Environmentalist reactions

The nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity stated, "Despite having no legal right to do so, cattle from Bundy's ranch have continued to graze throughout the Gold Butte area, competing with tortoises for food, hindering the ability of plants to recover from extensive wildfires, trampling rare plants, damaging ancient American Indian cultural sites and threatening the safety of recreationists."^[5]

Rob Mrowka also with the Center for Biological Diversity held the BLM "is allowing a freeloading rancher and armed thugs to seize hundreds of thousands of acres of the people's land as their own. It's backing down in the face of threats and posturing of armed sovereignists."^[43]

Environmentalists held that the BLM's withdraw sent the wrong message to law-abiding ranchers that did secure grazing permits and operated within the law.^[43]

Wild horse rangeland reactions

Supporters of wild horses, such as Bonnie Kohleriter, complain that the government is favoring sheep and cattle allowing them to feed at taxpayer's expense and at the physical expense of mustangs sharing the same overgrazed rangeland. Ranchers retort that the government is not rounding up enough mustangs for removal and slaughter as the herds of these wild horses doubles every five years. Environmentalists such as the Wildlife Society hold that both livestock and mustangs are destroying the native habitat for native species.^[43]

Bundy family background

The Bundy family purchased their farm outside of Bunkerville in 1948; the farm would serve as headquarters and base property for their ranching operation, which began in 1954, on federal land. They had moved to the area from Bundyville, Arizona (near Mount Trumbull, Arizona). Cliven Bundy's father, David Bundy, was born in Bundyville in 1922.^[73] David Bundy had married Margaret Bodel Jensen of Bunkerville, and after starting a family in Arizona, they purchased their property outside of Bunkerville in 1948.^[20]

Cliven had argued in court that his "Mormon ancestors began working the land in the 1880s".^[74][75] This argument has basis in Cliven's maternal grandmother's ancestral line, but not among his paternal or other maternal lines. Cliven's mother's father, John Jensen, was born in Utah, but her mother, Abigail Christina Abbott, was born in the Bunkerville/Mesquite area. Abigail Christina Abbott's parents, both born in Utah, were among early settlers of Bunkerville/Mesquite in the 1880s; this includes lines from the Leavitt and Abbott families. These early families moved in and out of the area on several occasions, and polygamous marriages meant some wives and their families were kept in different towns. As such there is no continuous line of family births and habitation in Bunkerville/Mesquite from Cliven Bundy to the few ancestors who settled the area.^[20]

Leavitt family connection

Bundy's maternal family had some connection to Bunkerville through his ancestor, Dudley Leavitt, a Canadian who moved to Utah after joining the LDS Church.^[c] After marrying wives in Utah in 1853, 1855, 1859, 1860, and 1872^[76] and selling his Gunlock, Utah property, he moved to Bunkerville, Nevada. The original location he settled was south of Mesquite, 2+1⁄2 miles (4.0 km) northeast of present Bunkerville. The community was named after Edward Bunker, Sr., the leader of the group of 23 men (the United Order) that originally agreed to move west. All property was originally shared in common, which caused great strife within the community. The communal property was then divided up, with Dudley expressing displeasure at his small portion.^{[citation needed]} He then moved from the community across the river to Mesquite by 1881. When the Virgin River flooded, he moved again and was contracted to carry mail across a 180 miles (290 km) round trip distance from St. George, Utah to St. Thomas, Nevada.^{[citation needed]} He placed his five families in various locations along his route. Mary Jane Leavitt's family (Cliven Bundy's great-grandmother) was kept at Leavittville, Arizona.^[77]

Abbott family connection

Cliven Bundy's great-great-grandfather was Myron Abbott.^[76][d] He left Ogden Canyon, Utah to join Edward Bunker, Sr., in forming the United Order, serving as teacher of the workers and as the second counselor to Bunker who was made bishop of the community.^[78] After the United Order dissolved, Abbott spent his time plowing and tending farmland in addition to transporting salt from St. Thomas to Santa Clara, Utah.^[79] His son, William Abbott, married Dudley Leavitt's daughter Mary Jane Leavitt at the St. George Utah Temple in 1890;^[78] Cliven Bundy's maternal grandmother Abigail Christina Abbott was their child. William Abbott traveled through the United States on Mormon missions and served as the bishop of the Mesquite Ward (1901-1927). He wrote the story of his family settling in Mesquite and his missions across the United States in The Story of My Life, an autobiography and family biography.^[80]

Similar federal grazing legal cases

Several other legal cases in Nevada run parallel to the Bundy case. They involve public domain lands that are controlled by federal agencies and ranchers who were taken to court for cattle grazing permit violations or trespass cattle.

United States v Gardner

Cliff Gardner, a defendant in an illegal cattle grazing court case in Nevada,^[67] US v Gardner,^[81] drew comparisons to his case when he said "I think Cliven is taking a stand not only for family ranchers, but also for every freedom-loving American, for everyone.^[67] I’ve been trying to resolve these same types of issues since 1984."^[67] Gardner argued and lost on states' rights similar to Bundy,^[2][67][81] and eventually served time for ignoring court orders and contempt.^[67] The Gardner case is cited in Bundy court filings. In United States v Gardner, decided in the District Court and later affirmed by United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, the Gardners did not contest that they grazed livestock without a permit, nor the amount of the fee assessed. Instead, the Gardners asserted that the lands in the state of Nevada where they grazed, did not belong to the United States, and therefore the Forest Service did not have jurisdiction to regulate use of the land or levy fees for unauthorized activities within it.^[81] In March 2002, Cliff Gardner was sentenced to a month in a Reno halfway house, along with a $5,000 fine and a year of probation.^[67]

United States v Hage

Elko County commissioner, Nevada rancher, and conservative Republican political activist Demar Dahl notes that Bundy might benefit from following Nye County rancher Wayne Hage, who won a protracted battle with the federal government by successfully arguing that he had the right to graze his cows within two miles of water sources he developed. In a similar case^[82] to Bundy's, ranchers in 2007 were sued by the Justice Department for trespassing on public domain lands in Nevada.^[82][83] The ranchers are alleged to have repeatedly grazed livestock without federal permits despite repeated trespass notices from the BLM and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service.^[83] The court found in favor of the ranchers for all other charges, including water rights,^[82] grazing rights and all but two livestock trespass charges in United States v. Wayne Hage (2013). In the ruling, the judge said, "government officials ... entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order."^[84]

Notes

References

External links

• July 2013 ruling