Skip to main content

As someone born and raised in Nevada, I have been following the Bundy Ranch situation for a few days with interest.  The debate on who "owns" the land and therefore has the "right" to manage it has been simmering here in Nevada for a long time now.  From time to time it boils.

I know there are extreme views on both sides of the issue and I see and hear a lot of labels being thrown around....they are "thieves", "terrorists", labels used by both sides either the BLM or ranchers depending on what you believe about the facts of the case.  

Which is what I am wondering...what are the facts of the case?  I don't know much, but since I am pretty sure there are constitutional questions and probably treaty questions I thought those were two good places to start.  I would recommend that all people on either side of the issue, please start reading and researching as much as you can on the facts of the case and other similar cases that have been and may still be working their way through the courts, because if you don't you may base your opinions on false information and that is when things get scary.

Below are links to a couple of articles that I find interesting.  I like how the tribes down south are beginning to get some justice, but there are a bunch up in the northern part of the state that could use a little justice too.  I am just not sure the Federal government is their best bet on that ever happening.  I know this is a liberal leaning site, but the labeling I read in many of the posts worries me about the prospect of ever coming to win-win solutions.  Discussions digress rather quickly to name-calling and labeling...both sides are guilty of it!

Anyway thanks for letting me put my 2 cents worth in....

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  I'm going to give her another go (6+ / 0-)

      based on her private request for help. I'm going to assume she didn't realize the issues with Newsmax until people objected here. I hope we will find the interaction here mutually beneficial.

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 08:31:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lesson learned! (0+ / 0-)

      Sorry I am not seasoned to this site so did not know the rules.  Anyway my point of referencing the article is to find out if it was true are they really euthanizing the tortoise and if so why if it is endangered?  It seems like sometime the government says one thing and does another so that is why issues like this get scary. I live here in Nevada so I want to see win-win solutions. It is a great state with a lot of land.

  •  just joined the site on the 10th I see (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Your first time on this site, and you suggest ... (10+ / 0-)

    frigging Newsmax as a place to begin getting information? How about suggesting the opinion of a United States District Judge, appointed by Ronald Reagan no less, indicating that Bundy and his supporters don't have a remotely credible legal argument.

    Your stay here will be a brief one.

    Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

    by leevank on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 07:27:10 PM PDT

  •  Call Guinness (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leevank, ranger995

    27 minutes from first diary and comment to Bojo...that has to be a record...

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 07:29:09 PM PDT

  •  It's all quite simple, dear: (10+ / 0-)

    Rancher Bundy grazed his cattle for 20 years on BLM land without paying the required grazing fees. Because you and I (and Rancher Bundy and his family and every other taxpaying American citizen) are the true "owners" of "BLM land" and the BLM administers these "public lands" in trust for us, Rancher Bundy's failure to pay his legally owed grazing fees constitutes theft from us, the other owners of the public land. Any damage his cattle caused to fragile environmental areas or endangered species living there constitutes further harm to this commons for which the rest of us should be compensated, in the form of legal fines paid to the land's administrator. BLM land is not Rancher Bundy's private fiefdom, to do with as he alone pleases, and perhaps one day someone will be able to explain this reality to him in language he can understand.

    "Either way, if we surrender, it is the end of us, and of the government. They will repeat the experiment upon us ad libitum." — President Abraham Lincoln

    by vahana on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 07:38:22 PM PDT

    •  What do you want to bet that Rancher Bundy ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pilotshark, vahana, Otteray Scribe

      isn't even a tax-paying American citizen? The guy brags that he obeys hardly any federal laws, and these nuts seem to start with the tax laws being among those that they ignore.

      Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

      by leevank on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 01:43:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd bet Bundy's ranch! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Otteray Scribe

        Wait, before you say, "But you don't own the ranch, so how can you stake your wager on it?" let me clarify. I think I have the same rights to use his property without paying for it that he claims for his private, unpaid, illegal use of public lands.  ;)

        "Either way, if we surrender, it is the end of us, and of the government. They will repeat the experiment upon us ad libitum." — President Abraham Lincoln

        by vahana on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 08:30:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ok another question (0+ / 0-)

      What are your views on the Ruby Valley treaty of 1863, because I was raised up here in northern Nevada and I learned about that treaty and how the local tribes up here feel about it.  I am white, but was raised with a lot of the Temoak's....I wish everything was as simple as you state, but I don't think the standoff that happened last week and the others that have happened in the past (Dann sisters) would keep happening if the answers were all so simple.

  •  First, NewsMax is not going to be a go-to source (10+ / 0-)

    for anything looking like real-live news and information for folks around this site...

    Second, you will want to do your own research so that you may be better informed about this specific situation.  I would suggest starting with the Property Clause of the Constitution of the United States.  Through over a century of case law, there is a well-established trail indicating that there are no 'constitutional issues' in this episode.  You will also want to acquaint yourself with the specifics of the Sagebrush Rebellion and the Wise Use movement, along with various initiatives coming out of Catron County in New Mexico and Nye County in your own state of birth, along with the Western Federal Lands Conference...

    This is about a Sage Brush Rebellion/County Rights/Wise Use/Nye County/Pick-Your-Title guy who bought into the suggestion that the Federal Government didn't have the authority to manage public lands that the states had ceded to public control at admission because, quite frankly, they didn't want them...

    This particular conflict appears to have started during the County Supremacy movement back in the early 90's, about the time that Nye County, Nevada,  passed a packaged set of ordinances that became all the rage in rural counties throughout the intermountain west and which  - to put it simply - criminalized federal management of public lands.  Having lived through this era during my four decades in wildland resource management, I don't really have to research anything or give consideration to anything to better inform myself, except to say that nothing about this ongoing episode has anything to do with - and, in the eyes of those who are showing up in Bundy's defense, are directly antithetical to - tribal ancestral rights...

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Jack K on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 07:56:08 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for having patience with me! (0+ / 0-)

      Lesson learned on Newsmax, but since I don't consider myself a conservative or liberal I like to look at different sides and views. Anyway the point of referencing the article was I was just wondering if they are really euthanizing the tortoise because this is the kind of thing that gets people riled up. We are told that the Federal government has to come in and take over these huge tracts of land. I have lived in Nevada my whole life so I am familiar with the Sagebrush Rebellion etc...the issues to me do not seem as cut and dry as some on both sides think, so that is where some of the frustration comes in. I remember not too long ago the BLM using their heavy handed tactics on the Dann sisters I just don't like it. Well looks like I got the BOJO taken off so I will try to be careful moving forward. First and foremost I am a mother who enjoys living in Nevada, so when this issue rears its head things get scary. So I would like to see if it is possible to have conversations and discuss win-win solutions since I would bet that even the most extreme people on both side could find one or two things to agree on...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site