A recent confrontation between federal employees and protesters over the attempted federal confiscation of cattle (belonging to rancher Cliven Bundy) grazing on federal land (illegally, going on 20 years now) has made its way into several news outlets. The usual suspects have  turned this into some Orwellian takeover and suppression of civil liberties, along with alleged backroom deals involving Harry Reid and Chinese solar farms. Reality is more benign and less dramatic. Claims that can easily be checked (and refuted) are nevertheless being spread across social media and websites that claim to expose the truth.

A few facts about the Cliven Bundy and the BLM incident

For some time, the Bundy’s have owned cattle that have grazed in Bunkerville, NV area.  Since his cattle grazed on federal land, he paid grazing fees to the federal government. In 1993, the local grazing rules changed when a number of things came together; the Desert tortoise became protected under the species act, and the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that this was one of the areas critical to their long-term survival. Grazing rules were also changed in order to accommodate restoration from years of overgrazing and recent fires. These new rules would include Bundy having to reduce his number of cattle. Refusing to comply, he decided to “fire” the BLM, and stop paying grazing fees, while continuing to use federal lands for his cows to graze. Not only did he not reduce his cattle count, but actually increased them over time.

As a result, Cliven Bundy’s cattle have been illegally grazing on federal land for 20 years. Over these 20 years, Cliven Bundy has racked up over $1 million in unpaid grazing fees, and has actually expanded his cattle’s grazing further into federal lands.  He has been taken to court (and defeated) several times.

In Case No. 2:12-cv-0804-LDG-GWF, on July 2013, US District Court – District of Nevada Ruled:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy is permanently enjoined from trespassing on the New Trespass Lands.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to protect the New Trespass Lands against this trespass, and all future trespasses by Bundy.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the New Trespass Lands within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has provided notice to Bundy under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the Interior.

As a result, the BLM attempted to round up at least some of the 900 cattle illegally grazing on federal land.  And because of his implied threats of “armed resistance” (and the fact that an attempted roundup in 2012 was called off due to veiled threats of violence) and previous intimidation of public employees, they came with protection.  It bears mentioning that no one is trying to remove Cliven Bundy from his land/home.  No one is trying to “take his land away.”  After 20 years of Bundy not paying for his cattle’s grazing fees, the BLM was there to remove cattle that were grazing on federal lands.

In response, several protesters (including armed militia members) gathered in defense of Bundy. The standoff came to an end when the BLM, citing safety concerns, decided to stand down. Supporters of Bundy have of course, labeled this successful (and armed, as well as potentially violent) defense of Bundy’s illegal activity as a “win for freedom.”

From the BLM website

[img width="600" height="309" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1200" alt="blm federal land bundy cattle" src="http://www.factandmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/blm-federal-land-bundy-cattle.jpg">

Is Bundy Constitutionally correct?

Bundy says he doesn’t recognize the federal ownership of land he believes belongs to Nevada and has stated that “It’s a statement for freedom and liberty and the Constitution.” Of course, at the writing of the Constitution, much American land was in fact owned by the federal government. There is no “Constitutionality” in not recognizing federally-owned land.  

Some have gone further, and incorrectly argued that the the US Constitution guaranteed that future states brought into the union would be granted full control over the territory of their borders. This is not only untrue, but the property clause, which states that Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” grants the Federal government authority over public land. This is exactly what the Ninth Circuit decided in United States v. Gardner (107 F.3d 1314 ).  Most of the arguments being made by “Constitutional” proponents of Bundy were denied in the above case (which also took place in Nevada).

For example, Bundy proponents have cited the equality clause which was established in 1783 would indefinitely apply to every future incorporation into the union. However in United States v. Gardner, the 9th Circuit held that:

The claim by Gardners that it is the duty of the United States to hold public lands in trust for the formation of future states is founded on a case dealing with land acquired by the United States from the thirteen original states….. This decision was based on the terms of the cessions of the land from Virginia and Georgia to the United States. Before becoming a state, however, Nevada had no independent claim to sovereignty, unlike the original thirteen states. Therefore, the same reasoning is not applicable to this case, in which the federal government was the initial owner of the land from which the state of Nevada was later carved.

The BLM & Public Land vs Bundy Land

In the back-and-forth over states vs federal rights, BLM fees, tortoises, an conspiracy theories about Harry Reid and the Chinese, it’s easy to lose sight of one important fact: this is public land that’s been in use by more than just Cliven Bundy and his cattle. Much of the rhetoric around this subject assumes that this is land that he, and only he (and his predecessors) has used over the years.

But this is public land, in use by animals other than cows. The now-defunct BLM page explained the numerous complaints including cars running into cattle, a state employee being attacked by a bull, crops being destroyed on private property, and damage to the Mesquite Heritage Community Garden and golf course.

The page also lists the destruction of natural and cultural resources, including: crushed artifacts at cultural sites, damage to springs (fecal contamination included), vegetation trampling, etc.

A little digging on the web does reveal local citizens expressing dissatisfaction with Bundy’s cattle.

From Let’s Talk Nevada (Aug. 6, 2013)

Despite having no legal right to do so and in defiance of federal court orders, Bundy has continued to graze his cattle throughout the Gold Butte area without paying a penny to do so for decades, competing with tortoises for food, hindering the restoration of extensive wildfires, trampling rare plants, damaging ancient American Indian cultural sites, and threatening the safety of recreationists. A drive along Gold Butte Road will often require that you dodge trespassing cattle. Surveys by the BLM have found well over 1,000 cattle — many in easily damaged freshwater springs and riparian areas on public lands managed by the National Park Service and State of Nevada as well as the BLM.

InfoWars and other Conspiracy Theorists

[img width="250" height="175" title="infowars bundy ranch reid" align="right" alt="infowars bundy ranch reid" src="http://www.factandmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/infowars-bundy-ranch-reid.jpg">The independent media “sphere” includes a collection of websites/blogs that thrive on continued perpetuation of fear (usually of the government). Situations like this Bundy cattle dispute are described in Orwellian contexts (in this case, Bundy is made to look like an innocent rancher who the government has decided to come after) with no explanation of the actual context (that Bundy’s cattle have been grazing on federal lands for 20 years, has over $1 million in unpaid grazing fees as a result, and has lost numerous court battles).

Common Conspiracy Myths

“This is a federal land grab of sorts!”

This has been US government property since it was taken from Mexico in 1848, before Nevada was an actual state.

“The Bundy’s have worked and maintained this land since 1877!”

As shown above, this has been US government property since before Bundy’s alleged ancestors began settling here.  There is also some question as to the Bundy’s alleged longstanding history with this land.  Cliven Bundy’s father, David Bundy was actually born in Arizona, and would later move to Nevada.  So Bundy’s “lineage” claim is murky at best, if not outright bogus.

“Bundy’s great grandfather bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887″

This claim has been repeated numerous times but there appears to be no record of this.  Since the Bunkerville allotment is part of federal land it is unlikely that any of the Bundy’s would have ever been sold the rights.  This may actually be a conflation of the claimed “pre-emptive” rights, which some have claimed Bundy’s family to have. It would appear that this is nothing more than a subjective belief on the part of the Bundy’s, that their longtime use of federal lands somehow gives them ownership.  Furthermore, given that Bundy lost in court 3 times, it’s unlikely that he in fact owns the portion of the land in question.

“Cliven Bundy stopped paying because the BLM hiked their rates!!!”

The grazing fees are not determined by the BLM.  They are a based on a formula which was originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 and modified via executive order (Order 12548 — Grazing Fees) under President Ronald Reagan in 1986.  The fee falls and rises based on the cost of livestock production, beef cattle prices and current private grazing land lease rates.  Known as the per animal unit month (AUM), today it is $1.35, compared to the $1.23 per AUM that it was in 1966.  This is actually a decrease  when adjusted for inflation, as $1.23 in 1966 would convert to $25.40 in 2013.  Grazing fees from 19814 to 2012 can be seen here (PDF).

These rates were set in stone by way of Ronald Reagan’s executive order as of 1986.  Executive Order 12548 states:

Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year’s fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.

“It’s because of Harry Reid and the Chinese Solar Farm Deal” & The “Why The Bundy Ranch – What You’re Not Being Told” Video

Ignoring the 20 years of illegal cattle grazing and the numerous court battles that Bundy lost, conspiracy theorists have made the argument that this is somehow in connection with a 2012 proposal for ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in Nevada. The problem with this “connection” is that Laughlin (where the solar farm was going to be built) resides  about 180 miles south of the Golden Butte area where the point of contention lies.

[img width="626" height="120" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1244" alt="Harry Reid Chinese Solar Farm" src="http://www.factandmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/harry-reid-chinese-solar.jpg">

There is at least one video (Why The Bundy Ranch – What You’re Not Being Told) falsely claiming that solar farm was to be built where the Bundy Ranch.  The video cites this Reuters article (which actually states that the solar farm was to be built in Laughlin, NV–of course, the video provides no link to the actual article).