In 1994 the BLM cancelled the grazing permit of Cliven Bundy, 4 years later a federal court required the removal of cattle from the Bunkerville allotment in southern Nevada, the BLM is still struggling to get them removed.

We reported on this ongoing case of trespass last May, shortly after the BLM decided not to round up the trespass cattle from the southern Nevada grazing allotment due to a perceived threat. If the BLM can’t do this then how can they be trusted to manage lands properly?

This year I have seen several instances of trespass cattle in Idaho. In at least two of these instances cattle were being willfully grazed despite court orders which closed the allotments. The most egregious case involved cattle that were seen on the closed allotment for nearly 3 months. Some of the individual cattle were documented in the same place on 3 different occasions and were never rounded up. Who knows? Last week I was told that cattle were still there even though I didn’t personally see them on my visit. Other instances were due to cattle being allowed to graze in exclosures that weren’t properly maintained.


View Bunkerville.kml in a larger map

BLM mum about grazing beef
Las Vegas Review Journal.

avatar
About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole, Western Watershed Project’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Coordinator, is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is also serves as a member of the board of directors for Buffalo Field Campaign and as a member of the Sierra Club Grazing Core Team.

71 Responses to 18 years of trespass and BLM still hasn’t removed the cattle

  1. avatar Mark L says:

    What happens if wolves predate trespass cattle?

  2. avatar chukt says:

    Sounds like a job for the ATF!

  3. avatar WM says:

    Ken,

    Presumably you have photos, dates, descriptions of cattle (maybe even some with brands/ear tags, etc.), that have been given to the local BLM office, along with the accusations for the ID infractions. What has been their response? Any chance WWP will go back to court to seek sanctions from the operators or force BLM to remove the ID cattle? What are the remedies?

  4. avatar mikepost says:

    What is really surprising is that this is some of the most barren unproductive land you could put a cow on. On top of that, the area around and in Mesquite is terribly economically depressed. Boarded up casinos and hotels.

    See http://www.rangemagazine.com if you want to educate yourself on the extremist perspectives of the ranching world.

  5. avatar ramses09 says:

    And the BLM has the nerve to round up wild horses.

  6. avatar DLB says:

    There won’t be any meaningful solutions to problems like this until there is a change in philosiphy at the the BLM.

    I would leave this Nevada idiot alone for the time being and start hammering the violators in other areas that haven’t received the press headlines. No need to make this guy a martyr. He’d provide an opportunity for enforcement in due time.

  7. avatar Richie says:

    Great article Ken,shows more corruption in our society,espically how things are stacked against theb wildlife.

  8. avatar Jeff N. says:

    So DeChristopher gets 2 years in the slammer for his phony oil lease bids, which seems pretty harmless, although I’m sure it caused a few technical problems. But Bundy can defy the Feds for 18 years, while his cattle continue to do damage the range and…….zzzzzzzz. WTF.

    • avatar Savebears says:

      Just a bit different situation Jeff, this guy knows his leases are no longer valid, he has just not moved his cows and the BLM has let it slide.

      In the DeChristopher case knew he did not have the money to honor the bids he placed, he committed fraud, under the law.

      The BLM needs to follow through and get this deadbeat off the land, but until they do, he is going to continue to graze his cattle.

      • avatar JB says:

        Hmm…the way I see it the difference is between fraud (DeChristopher) and actual THEFT of public property.

        The implicit message is, get in the way of big oil and you will pay dearly, but if you steal from the public…hey, who cares?

        • avatar Immer Treue says:

          Alla Bernie Madoff, screw the general public, nothing happens, screw rich people and you go to jail.

        • avatar Savebears says:

          Jeff,

          Both of the parties you have brought up are criminals, I guess it just come down to… Which one is worse.

        • avatar Savebears says:

          Until such time as we can clean house in Washington DC, this is the way it is going to be, at least you understand that Jeff.

          Right now, running cattle on public land is not considered a crime and the agencies are not doing anything about it.

          On the other hand, DeChristopher broke a recognizable law, that anyone is aware of, he was made an example, don’t defraud the Government or your going to jail.

          That pathetic thing is these ranchers are also defrauding the government, but not in a way the rest of the US can understand, to the majority of the US, they are simply cows eating grass.

      • avatar Jeff N. says:

        SB,

        Upon further review this is one of your stupid-er posts, in a long line of many.

        • avatar Savebears says:

          Jeff,

          It is amazing, I find many of your posts to be really stupid posts, you are so far out of touch, I can’t even laugh about them. I am sorry that you don’t feel others have their right to their opinions.

          But, guess what we do.

          • avatar Jeff N. says:

            SB,

            Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I agree. But here’s a fact. Since you post here more often than I do….you have more stupid-er posts. Cheers. And how am I out of touch? Can you provide an example of my out-of-touchness?

  9. avatar Jeff N. says:

    I realize the situation is different but really how different? Yes DeChristopher knew he did not have the money to bid and Bundy knows his grazing leases are no longer valid on certain allotments. They both have willingly caused financial hardship to other parties…those being the Feds in Bundy’s case since he’s not paying grazing fees on the land that his cattle are trespassing on and impacting. And know doubt DeChristopher cost the Feds cash along with the other companies that were bidding for the oil leases.

    I wonder if Bundy was wearing a pair of Birkenstock sandals while munching on some gorp, instead of sporting a cowboy hat and boots, would the Feds would have already rounded up his cows and dragged his deadbeat ass down to the pokey.

    DeChristopher paid the price for breaking federal law but Bundy continues to operate while laughing at and defying the law. It’s a joke.

    • avatar WM says:

      I see it a bit differently.

      Bundy is a holdover tenant on land. The remedy is monetary damages, and possible forfeiture of property (his cows, to which the government could take title). The government could also get back rent on the AUM’s his cows have eaten for however many years, if it wanted. If I recall there was a judgement against him sometime back, and if it is not current, the government may loose its rights, unless timely renewing. The guy may have a defense for his continuing use, called laches, which means the government needs to timely exercise its rights against him, and actually do something or they may loose a right to damages, assuming there was consent that he could use the land (I haven’t researched this, so can’t say for sure, but it seems equitable).

      On the other hand, DeChristopher committed and was convicted of fraud against the federal government. A criminal remedy is incarceration, which results in his serving time, and going forward he has a federal criminal history. Dumb shit.

      Big difference in my view. And, I do believe the federal government needs to perfect a claim against this Bundy. By the way, Bundy wouldn’t likely do jail time under any circumstances, unless he makes good on alleged but apparently circumspect threats, which would be a federal or state misdemeanor or criminal charge if proven.

      You guys insist on making this little twit, DeChristopher a martyr, on unfounded grounds in my view. The guy committed fraud, acting on his own political and civil disobedience beliefs. Letting people do stuff like this interrupting commerce, and is a form of anarchy.

      And, if there enough like Bundy, that is a form of anarchy as well. Both incidents are deserving of prosecution to prevent others from doing the same sort of thing. Laws don’t mean much unless enforced (and don’t get me going on immigration, or the federal do not call list…there are others too).

      • avatar JB says:

        “You guys insist on making this little twit, DeChristopher a martyr, on unfounded grounds in my view. The guy committed fraud, acting on his own political and civil disobedience beliefs. Letting people do stuff like this interrupting commerce, and is a form of anarchy.”

        No insistence here. Certainly they guy deserves to be punished for his crime. However, it is perfectly legitimate to point out punishments that seem not to fit the severity of crimes; especially when they are inconsistent. At most, DeChistopher’s actions inconvenienced the government by setting back lease dates (and perhaps cost them several hundred dollars)–which (I BELIEVE) he should have to pay. Bundy’s has also knowingly and purposefully broken the law (and probably cots the government a similar amount of money). Moreover, he has apparently threatened physical harm. Yet, as you note, he is unlikely to even do jail time for his crime.

        Again, it is the inconsistency in the punishment and enforcement that bothers me. It sends a pretty clear message about whose interest the government will look out for.

        • avatar wm says:

          The judge intended to send a strong message with the DeChristopher sentence. This kind of conduct by unremorseful nitwits to lie and disrupt large scale commerce will not be tolerated, and will be dealt with harshly. Had he been slapped on the wrist, who would be the next idiot to do the same thing? In a phrase – deterrent effect.

          I am at a loss to explain why BLM hasn’t gone forward with removing Bundy’s cattle for so many years, other than it didn’t seem to be a big deal to eat the government’s grass and trash the ecosystem, as he and his family have done since 1877. Maybe it was an enforcement/prosecution resource issue, for failure to push it up the line for action. Now it seems to be a safety issue.

          I suppose another difference could be that DeChristopher’s criminal act was in an urban environment, involving inconvenience and uncertainty to impatient third parties, by disrupting the auction and the corporate “players,” of course, creating political heat.

          Bundy’s acts, for the most part, are out of sight and didn’t affect commerce, third parties, or give an overt message it is ok to graze in violation of a terminated lease (not that this doesn’t happen anyway with great frequency, as Ken notes).

          • avatar JB says:

            You missed another important difference: Bundy is a member of the dominant social class (i.e., an old, white, landowning rancher) ostensibly protesting big government (a very popular view locally). DeChristopher, on the other hand adopted a very liberal position in a very conservative community–and had none of Bundy’s advantages of power. One wonders if a federal court in Massachusetts would have given him (DeChristopher) the same sentence? Or whether the government in a liberal state would have waited so long to act in the Bundy case?


            I understand and agree that the court was likely trying to send a message (as were those who decided to prosecute DeChristopher). But, whether they intend to or not, the government has also sent a message in the Bundy case. Some of us can’t but help notice the inconsistency and ultimately injustice here.

            • avatar WM says:

              JB,

              I think that difference was covered at the start of the discussion, or at least implied in it.

              DeChristopher’s sentence, if I recall correctly, was on the lower end of the federal sentencing guidelines. And, the setting for his jail time is fairly cushy. He is in a half-way house in UT as of late October, with work – release, and he is apparently seeking a new vocation as a Unitarian minister if he can get into theological school.

              http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865563905/DeChristopher-to-finish-sentence-in-Salt-Lake-City-halfway-house.html

              I think the guy is a bit of a hipocrite. If one seeks to be a civil disobedient, they typically don’t seek a not guilty defense as lame as his was, or seek leniency in sentencing.

              Rather the true civil disobedient says I broke the law and am willing to accept its consequences, based on my higher protest beliefs (in his case doing good to try to call attention to or prevent global warming by tying up the gas leases). DeChristopher didn’t plead guilty; he pleaded not guilty, using a goofy defense that was shot down the first round.

              The guy is a nitwit AND a hypocrite.

              • avatar skyrim says:

                WM
                He is neither. He is a guy with balls willing to stand for something, unlike cowards like you who squat their fat ass behind a keyboard 24/7 and think that effort alone is somehow an honorable one.

              • avatar WM says:

                Uhhhh, Ok skydim. Do we expect to see you behind bars soon?

                By the way, I don’t disrupt public government auctions, shoot wolves or coyotes (legally or illegaly), graze cattle on public lands as a welfare rancher (with or without a current allotment), or poach. Guess that leaves me, for the most part, just a public citizen who believes in the rule of law. And, then there is that part, where in the past, I have engaged in interpreting the law as an officer of the court. And, here, I currently offer opinions (sometimes playing devil’s advocate) with the objective of trying to get some dimrims to do a little more critical thinking.

                What’s your contribution to society, sport? By the way, speaking of [nameless] cowards, you got a real name you want to publish on this forum? If you don’t want to disclose, that is fine with me, and I certainly wouldn’t call you a “coward,” for not doing so, maybe just a little smarter than some who do. :)

                _______

                Just for kicks here are a couple definitions, used in previous posts on this thread:

                civil disobedience – refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest. (A civil disobedient does not defend by saying using a defense to say he didn’t break the law. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/ )

                nitwit – a foolish person

                twit – a silly or foolish person

                hypocrite – See civil disobedience, above and compare DeChristopher actions in defense of self in trying to avoid successful prosecution.

                scum bag (or “skum bag” in reference to Bundy) – contemptable, objectionable person

              • avatar Salle says:

                For those not paying attention or who suffer memory loss or both:

                http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/28/174927/dechristopher-climate-hawk/

                I find it interesting that some important facts are quickly eschewed by some who claim that DeChristopher had it easy and was at fault by pleading “not guilty”…

                DeChristopher was not at fault and he was the victim of a judge who played revolving charges and fought to exclude the main points of his actions and crucial evidence from being considered in his case. As his only option against the kangaroo court situation he was faced with, pleading “not guilty” to barely relevant charges and was the best card he had to play in the face of a court that wasn’t going to fairly adjudicate.

                All the same, he acknowledged from the start that he was willing to suffer the consequences of his actions and said so on many occasions.

                Secondly, for the first 18 months of confinement he was moved around to different locations, placed in solitary and suffered conditions close to those of Bradley Manning. His attorney(s) had to fight a protracted battle to get him into humane conditions (if there is such a thing in or penal colonies). It’s actually a big surprise that he was allowed to finish his two year sentence in a half-way house.

                Not even close when he is wrongly defamed as a nit-wit.

                http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/27/280263/climate-activist-tim-dechristopher-given-two-year-sentence/?mobile=nc

                And there are numerous threads on this case on this blog to peruse as well. And please do follow the links in the articles posted here.

                It’s actually a sad statement in the affairs of the agencies who administer our public lands that this happened as it did. Shame on Kennyboy Salazar and the judiciary of the district where he was tried.

              • avatar WM says:

                ++I find it interesting that some important facts are quickly eschewed by some who claim that DeChristopher had it easy and was at fault by pleading “not guilty”…

                DeChristopher was not at fault and he was the victim of a judge who played revolving charges and fought to exclude the main points of his actions and crucial evidence from being considered in his case. ++

                ????? Victim – the guy committed and was convicted of fraud.

                Judges interpret the law. This one apparently did it right, as the 9th Circuit, one of the most liberal federal appellate courts in the nation agreed, and DeChristopher lost his appeal. It is my understanding that he was mostly unremorseful, as exemplified by his conduct while initially in a federal pen, resulted in his temporary solitary confinement. That would be a matter of his own conduct, and for which he alone was responsible, and apparently he turned it around to get where he is right now.

                Another history revisionist, relying on prejudgement internet news for sources. Now there’s good reporting for ya, from yet another 501c(3) with its own agenda.

              • avatar Ken Cole says:

                Answer this. Do you think that the energy companies that bid on leases and never developed them should do time too?

                Keep in mind that DeChristopher offered to raise the money to pay for the leases and could have easily done so if given the opportunity.

              • avatar WM says:

                Ken,

                If I understand the leasing process correctly, the auction is to purchase the tempoary RIGHT to develop. Bidders are to have funds in hand to pay for such right pursuant to the terms the auction. If anyone buys a right and then doesn’t develop because of market conditions (or in the case of DeChristopher had he been able to raise funds to withdraw the leased areas from extraction).

                Maybe you know more, but why would an entity (oil/gas corporation) “do time” for legally purchasing a right which is not exercised, if they paid money for that right as against other auction bidders, and there was no express duty to develop? Did you have something else in mind?

              • avatar WM says:

                Sorry

                ++If anyone buys a right and then doesn’t develop because of market conditions or other factors (or in the case of DeChristopher had he HAD FUNDS AT THE TIME OF THE AUCTION to withdraw the leased areas from extraction)… WHERE IS THE HARM?

              • avatar Dude, the bagman says:

                WM,

                It’s also cowardly and intellectually dishonest to hide behind the “rule of law” while ignoring how those laws are little more than the dominant hegemony of the dominant social class. You’re smart enough to know damn well that laws are tools, and that if you can’t criminalize a culture, you criminalize (and prosecute) its members’ behaviors.

                The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.

              • avatar WM says:

                Dude,

                Have you a better method of governing – or reflecting cultural/social values?

                I have never taken the philosophical position that all laws are just, for we know many are not. We also know that laws weave the social fabric which holds our society together. When it is not enforced the fabric weakens and fails.

                That blade cuts both ways, otherwise we wouldn’t be having such fits over the interpretation of the ESA as applied to wolves.

              • avatar Ken Cole says:

                My feeling is that DeChristopher took action because he saw that the status quo was a failure. I think it was an honorable thing that he did in the face of the illegal actions taken by the BLM in issuing these leases. The problem is that there is no accountability for the agencies or the corporations that are behind the reckless and wanton destruction of our environment and public lands. He took a stand that I believe is the right one.

              • avatar Dude, the bagman says:

                Better than “democracy?” Well, we can’t really call it democracy when the show’s run by lobbyists. So campaign finance reform would be a good start. Of course, then you run into the “master’s tools” problem again.

                I didn’t say that you took the position that ALL laws are just. Just the ones that you’ve been talking about here. Don’t deflect or mischaracterize what I said.

                You seem to be taking the position that the law is the law, and has some kind of implicit moral authority. But you seem to be doing this in a manner that ignores power differentials, the differences in the way the law is applied, and for whose benefit the law is enforced.

                “laws weave the social fabric which holds our society together. When it is not enforced the fabric weakens and fails.”

                No, some laws are just ridiculous, corrupt, or outdated. Or are just codifications of bad ideas. Remember segregation, slavery, and prohibition? When those laws are ignored, society is strengthened. Sometimes enforcing the laws causes more harm than good. How about that drug war?

              • avatar WM says:

                ++You seem to be taking the position that the law is the law, and has some kind of implicit moral authority. But you seem to be doing this in a manner that ignores power differentials, the differences in the way the law is applied, and for whose benefit the law is enforced.++

                I am ignoring nothing. Law by its nature, in the US zat least, has the moral authority of those who make it (presumably originating in the oath of office taken by those elected by the people to represent them -swear to uphold the Constitution…against all enemies, etc… so help me God, and all that.). That certainly does not imply the system is perfect, and the “law is the law,” and not in need of change. You well know the law is a living thing. If society was static, there would be no need for new/changed laws. Thus, no need for Congress, state legislatures and local councils. Those in power always make the rules, and sometimes/often the laws do not treat all equally. Access to the vehicles to change laws have always been subject to special interests, and those with more money/lobbyists seem to have more. I expect we mostly agree on all that. It is how we go about changing them that is more troublesome for me. WA just passed gay marriage and recreational MJ laws, creating conflict with federal law, for example.

                However, it is interesting on this forum, we often see folks defending the ESA as if it is sacrosanct (I have used that term before here) and must be followed to the letter, carrying forward the supposed legislative intent of those who enacted it.

                Yet there is the flip side, where there is support for ignoring, and being dismissive of certain laws and rules that govern, for example gas lease auctions. They all originate from those legislative bodies with the appearance of “moral authority.”

                And, here, citizen DeChristopher signs up for a lease auction affirming under his own signature that he is truthful in his statements, and acknowledges he will be responsible and criminally liable for misrpresentations. Is this his own form of rogue vigilante justice?

                So, what are we to do, but pick and choose which laws we follow and those we do not, without consequence? Ah, hell let’s just go out and burn down some buildings, like a horticultural center in Seattle. I don’t like the research they do there, and acting on higher moral authority (my own) I can justify my actions. Too radical for ya? OK, I’ll just disrupt a lease auction. Oops, that’s already been done, and everybody is serving time.

                And then there is the BLM and its deadbeat welfare rancher trespassers. I predict Bundy will be the owner of many fewer cattle by late Spring, and maybe, we can hope, he will have a lighter wallet, or if he serves up his own justice, a cell in Leavenworth.

        • avatar Savebears says:

          JB,

          After all of these years, you should know, there is never going to be equality in punishment, there never has been in this country.

          • avatar JB says:

            SB:

            True! So are you suggesting we should just “bend over” and accept such injustices?

            • avatar Savebears says:

              JB,

              I didn’t suggest you bend over and take it, I said there never has been equality in punishment in this country.

        • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

          Jeff N. WM, JB, Save Bears, and others,

          Unfortunately, Bundy threatened violent defense of his “property.” De Christopher, on the other hand, clearly was no threat of violence.

          Which tactic worked the best so far? It’s obvious and sets a very bad precedent.

          • avatar WM says:

            As slow as the Bundy case is moving, this isn’t over by a long shot.
            According to the article:

            “U.S. District Court papers filed Oct. 4 show U.S. attorneys will request a summary judgment before a trial in April 2013 stemming from an unlawful-grazing complaint they filed against Bundy after the BLM suspended the roundup indefinitely for safety reasons….Bundy is representing himself in the trespass case…”

            When this meathead gets in front of a federal judge (again), I expect he will get a lecture, maybe something more substantial if the safety threats he made are credible, and rhe roindup will go forward. At the end Bundy hopefully will get a huge bill from the government. Give this matter until next summer, and it is likely there will be tangible results,IMHO.

          • avatar DLB says:

            I think what’s lost in the Bundy case with some folks is that he is in openly rebelling against policies of the federal government, not just illegally grazing cattle on public lands.

            The problem the federal government created for itself was not booting him off earlier before he could get a bunch of a attention and start a movement in his defense.

            Action was taken quickly in the DeChristopher case to send a strong message, but not with Bundy. That is the travesty here; that regardless of the severity of Bundy’s punishment relative to DeChristopher’s, action was not taken in a timely manner. One can’t help but to assume that there is a greater level of acceptance of a rancher using any and all kinds of rationalizations to do whatever he wants. Maybe it’s because he’s just going against the will of the people instead of powerful corporations?

      • avatar Jeff N. says:

        WM,

        Funny how you describe DeChristopher as a twit and an anarchist but Bundy is simply a holdover tenant on land.

        And FYI, I never mentioned that DeChristopher was a martyr….I made it pretty clear that my feelings were quite the opposite (I do realize that by saying “you guys insist” you weren’t specifically calling me out).

        But what is crystal clear is that your disdain for environmental activism allows you to make excuses for Bundy, who clearly has been a anarchist for roughly 20 years.

        I find it very hypocritical that our federal government can allow for an anarchist, twit rancher to break the law for 18 years but has no problem zealously springing to action against a misguided environmental activist who also broke the law.

        DeChristopher has been tried, convicted, and sentenced for an act that took place a few years ago. Bundy hasn’t been punished for his behavior that has been ongoing for 18 years. I realize you are not defending Bundy, but your disdain for DeChristopher far outweighs your disdain for Bundy. And you and I both know that in the Bundy has attained Martyrdom in the ranching community.

        WM, you appear to have a certain prejudice that affects your reasoning.

        • avatar WM says:

          Jeff N.,

          ++WM, you appear to have a certain prejudice that affects your reasoning.++

          It may not have come across on this thread, but I have commented before on an earlier one that I thought Bundy was a skum bag, and they should go after him. I would live it if they could tag his threats, throw him in the slammer until all his cows are all rounded up, and send him a bill for as far back as they could legally charge him, also charge him for ALL costs of the roundup, and investigation of it.

          I don’t much care for environmental activism of DeChristopher’s type in the real world, because I understand its effects on those who make the laws and the rules. However, in my heart I do believe Heyduke lives (in a humorous literary sense anyway).:)

          • avatar Jeff N. says:

            +++However, in my heart I do believe Heyduke lives (in a humorous literary sense anyway).:)+++

            And in the real world, and my heart, I have a major problem with the perception of entitlement from the dying breed of public land ranchers in a not so funny sense, anyway.

            • avatar Savebears says:

              Well Jeff,

              You need to get over it and start working to solve these problems, just as the rest of us are doing.

              • avatar Jeff N. says:

                I’ll start tomorrow SB. Right now I’m working on my 5th XX Amber and my kids homework. Now you on the other hand, being a loner in the North Fork, just what are you doing about it? And what is the poacher underground saying? You seem to always have your finger on their pulse. Cheers btw.

              • avatar Savebears says:

                Resort to name calling, Jeff, help your kids, I am sure they will grow up to be great citizens..

                In the AM, I will be in Helena, talking to our FWP Commissioner about poaching in the NF, to see if I can help find some solutions to the jerks that break the laws.

            • avatar Jeff N. says:

              Not sure what name calling you are referring to but in the past you have made statements that would make many believe that you have the pulse of those who resent government and would resort to taking illegal action…ie poaching a protected species (wolf) if they had the chance. It’s on the record regarding this site. I am one of many who know this. Just sayin’ Hauss.

              • avatar Savebears says:

                Jeff,

                Just because I am aware of others that will break the law, does not mean that I agree with there actions. I report every single violation of game law and have always done this.

                Where I live, encountering people that resent the government is a fact of life, that is the truth.

                Would have me, confront them, take a shot for the Government(I already did that once, don’t want to repeat that experience!)

                I would rather stay on the QT and get these jerks in the jails where they belong, Yes, I have a handle on what is going on, but no, I am not going to put my life on the line again for our illustrious government. That last time I did that cost me, not them!

              • avatar Savebears says:

                To add, Jeff, I hope everybody knows that I have encounters jerks that will poach when they can get away with it, that does not mean I am willing to let them get away with it.

                You must be living in a fantasy world, cause it is going on, there are people that are doing it, despite the threat of jail and fines.

                Remember there are many of us that are aware of the situation and do everything we can to stop it.

              • avatar Savebears says:

                If you were to look at my Cell Phone, the first programed number is 1-800-TIP-MONT, I also have the Wyoming number as well as Washington, Idaho and Oregon’s number in my phone, I don’t condone illegal actions by anyone..

              • avatar Jeff N. says:

                Fair enough SB. I’ll take you at your word that you served and suffered injury…thank you. My dad also served…..in Vietnam….and I certainly understand your sentiments regarding the federal gov’t.

                But to reiterate Bundy is as much as a criminal as DeChristopher. And the act that the Feds dropped the hammer on DeChirs. And have yet to touch Bundy does not excuse Bundy for his 18 years of criminal behavior. But it totally clarifies the hypocrisy of our gov’t in regard to public lands. It also clearly shows that a 10 gallon hat and a pair of cowboy boots cuts you some serious slack.

              • avatar Savebears says:

                Jeff,

                Yes it does, Yes it needs to be changed, but until we get rid of the status quo in Washington, it ain’t going to change and just as in the 60’s, the most vocal and the most visible are the ones that are going to pay the price!

                I know it is not fair, but it is the real world, now how do we change it?

          • avatar Jeff N. says:

            Again pointing out the need for a “modify post” option:

            I meant to say – Bundy is as much “of” a criminal.

            Also – and the “fact” that the Feds have yet to drop the hammer

            • avatar Savebears says:

              It is glaring, Bundy is a criminal, he has thumbed his nose at the government(The People) and the government and the people have let him get away with it.

              DeChristopher, on the other hand was within their grasp when he made his statement, hence he was thrown in jail, he was an easy target, he was labeled as a law breaker, he paid the price!

  10. avatar Jeff N. says:

    “No doubt” not “know doubt”……sorry

  11. avatar SEAK Mossback says:

    That reminds me, any word on a new Secretary of Interior? That would be one of the best remedies — to get somebody in direct line of supervision who will say this will cease and be timely litigated/prosecuted until it does. Get any remaining animals that continue as instruments of theft of public’s forage deeded to the government and round them up and/or open a public season to get them all removed.

    • avatar Ken Cole says:

      It is sounding more likely that Christine Gregoire is going to be the next Secretary of Interior. She has a very poor record on grazing issues.

      • avatar Savebears says:

        Ken,

        She has been the plague for the state of Washington! My Father said she has been the worst governor the state has ever had and he has lived there over 50 years!

      • avatar WM says:

        Gregoire has the right pedigree (2 term governor, Attorney General, Director of Ecology, Sr. AG environmental lawyer), an urbanite from a moderate state, the right gender, and can hold her own with any group she deals with. She even likes wolves, mostly.

        Got an Interior candidate with a better balanced resume, as many brains, who is political savvy, and can eat ground glass?

        • avatar DLB says:

          WM,

          I was waiting for you to come out and defend her honor.

          She’s been a pretty good governer, aside from her tolerance of status quo grazing & unbending support for indian tribes on any and all matters of relevance to them.

          It would be nice to have a a secretary of interior who would take a tougher stance on grazing.

          • avatar DLB says:

            Not a fan of her vague references to “earned legalization”, either. With her, I think that could easily mean, “cross the border, and you’ve earned it”.

        • avatar Savebears says:

          WM,

          As we well know a balanced resume, does not make a good administrator, she has done quite a bit in WA to circumvent the voters when the vote didn’t go the way she wanted it to.

  12. avatar Ken Cole says:

    Here is an explanation we received from a BLM official about trespass. The big problem is that the BLM either has little will to enforce trespass rules or doesn’t have much authority to enforce trespass rules. This needs to change.

    Trespass is addressed in 43 CFR § 4150.2; settlement of trespass is addressed in § 4150.3. While these regulations acknowledge the distinction between willful and nonwillful, they do not define the distinction.

    The BLM Grazing manual provides more information:

    A willful violation is one which is clearly supported by evidence that the unauthorized use occurred with the full knowledge of the owner of the unauthorized livestock or that the owner clearly failed to take action to prevent the unauthorized grazing use.

    Nonwillful violations are “usually due to circumstances beyond the control of the owner of the unauthorized livestock”.

    As you can see, there is no easy black line distinction between the two susceptible of a ‘sound bite’ type answer to your question. For purposes of enforcement, the distinction in an individual case depends on the BLM’s ability to marshal the evidence to support the allegation.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      “A willful violation is one which is clearly supported by evidence that the unauthorized use occurred with the full knowledge of the owner of the unauthorized livestock or that the owner clearly failed to take action to prevent the unauthorized grazing use”

      I’ve got a piece of BLM land up behind me. Its not a big piece and there is ranchland on both sides of the piece.

      The fenceline on one side is still in decent shape but the fenceline on the other side is almost non-existent, a few old fenceposts and downed barbwire here and there. The ranch on that side has had use of this BLM land for as long as I’ve lived here (20 years)

      Last year a local rancher (who’s been running lease cows on this ranch for the past 3 years) asked a parttime landowner (that butts up to this BLM land) to let him know if any of his cows “get in there”

      Well hello? Nothing is preventing them from getting in there and this rancher is fully aware of that fact since BLM has done nothing to re-build the fenceline.

Calendar

November 2012
S M T W T F S
« Oct   Dec »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: