So apparently the Bureau of Land Management was corralling some guys cattle out of public land (or government land, as the BLM claim) in Nevada. Supposedly the cattle rancher and his predecessors have been using the land for decades. They came to a dispute, and a bunch of people in various militias started flying in to the cattle ranchers home. The BLM released the cattle they had rounded up and have ceased using any sort of force to enforce what they're claiming their jurisdictions are. Overall they got a weak stomach over coming to blows, as many of the militiamen were armed and ready to fight. There's some questionable stuff that went on prior to this final event. The BLM marked off "1st amendment zones" where people could protest that was nowhere near their operations, and they used what could be said to be intimidation tactics. This whole thing kind of sets a different kind of precedence for action that I'm used to hearing about. I can't find a ton on this event by any mainstream media other than ABC. There's a major difference in opinion about the events, basically a "freeloaders need to pay rent for government land vs. government has too much say in things" camps. What do you Europeans think about all this? http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...cy-backs-down-in-standoff-with-cattle-rancher This is a picture of a standoff between BLM enforcement and the militia members.
The article I posted is a bit out of date. The BLM released the cattle to Bundy. This article is a bit more up to date, but the media source is kinda shady. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-ranch-ends-with-photo-of-the-year-so-far.php
It's really hard to know what to make of this mess, the news coverage is so poor. I guess we're not tired of airplane stories yet. I don't seem to remember a huge uproar from conservatives when Bush jr. was re-elected and they set up "protest zones" two miles from the inaugural site and well off the parade route!
This is definitely an escalation of the way Americans usually protest and defy the government. And if any country needs an escalation like that it's America.
"a Nevada rancher who refuses to pay grazing fees for the use of federally protected land" This seems to be the key point, people want federal services and protection, but arnt willing to pay for it. Either pay the fees, or dont use the land. Threatening people to get your own way seems a very stupid choice.
I feel like the anti-government and general anti-authority sentiment has been growing. (or being fed) I hope this isn't a sign of things to come.
It's not that simple. Supposedly this guys family has been using the land to graze since the 19th century, and the feds came in a took the land for "protection of tortoises." It doesn't sound like the state of Nevada is on the same page as the feds either in this situation. There's definitely sympathy for the cattle rancher that can be generated from people who are fed up with the federal government (and with good reason, in a lot of cases). I would be interested to know if there are natural resources in this area, and if there are plans to develop extraction of them in the near future. I'm also interested in why an agency such as the BLM has the right to declare "1st amendment zones?" I think it's growing and being fed. It makes me a little nervous honestly. I can't say I don't think it's time for some radical changes in the U.S. when it comes to the government, but I don't think the changes I want to see are in line with what people like this want to see.
I'm with you on pretty much every point there. The precedent it sets is the biggest concern for me. Waco and Ruby Ridge's anti-government elements were regarded by the half-listening masses as radicals and cultists, so all the nuance (which largely reflected badly on the government) was mostly overlooked. This could very easily be painted as a Robin Hood type story and encourage armed confrontation as a workable tactic in some groups that already feel victimized.
Isn't that because, in the case of Waco at least, they were anti-government radicals and cultists? Mitch
Oh absolutely. But there were several not so good tactical decisions that many suspect were selected for political reasons. The deployment of light armored vehicles (tanks, basically), an extended lockdown of the facility, the constant use of stress-inducing noise and finally an assault so tactically unsound that at least one team leader refused to allow his team to participate... All this used on a populace with an apocalyptic NWO worldview when the charismatic leader of the group made regular, unprotected or lightly protected jogs and could have easily (at least relatively) been arrested without a fortified standoff. At least according to wiki. In any case even those incidents fed the anti-government movement. My fear is that an incident like this does so even beyond the tinfoil hat crowd. EDIT: Maybe I should make it clear, I take no issue with the prosecution of illegal activity as in Waco, just that the approach as I understand it was deeply flawed.
My thoughts are that if it is common land then giving its use to common people, especially those who have been using it before, is generally a good step. However I'm nervous to endorse the american militias because they don't really seem to view militias as one tactic among-st many but rather as the be all and end all to solve problems. A lot of un-necessary bloodshed lies down that path. The "first amendment zones" however doesn't seem to different to how protest is dealt with today (you have to agree and plan with government authorities where you protest and breach of these conditions can result in arrest), which is an approach I don't particularly like and I'd question what these guys would do if someone protested them outside of these "first amendment zones". That being said the idea that the Ranchers are "trying to steal land of the government" is something that could be legally true I'm not really wanting to condemn it to heavily. One reading of it is to say that government is suppose to be a representative of the people ergo federal land surely belongs to everyone and unless it's being sequestered for private use, thereby depriving others of the ability to use the land, then we shouldn't have a problem with it. Though this might be a separate question if the land has come under "federal control" for the sake of environmental purposes. Edit: Just a thought is there a difference in America between federally protected land and common land? Does "common land" exist in the U.S.?
Federaly protected land is not up for grabs in terms of use. This specific land is protected because it is inhabited by the endangered desert tortois. Although at least according to one source there is a deal in the works to use this land for solar collectors, through a chinese company. Oh, and Harry Reids son is supposedly a part of the buissness deal. Wouldn't be a big surprise if this was the real reason for it all. I am curious to know how the feds arrived at 1million owed and if his family has ever paid to use the land and at what point they began being charged. If his cattle can't be there because of an endangered animal how can they have accrued grazing fees? The whole thing sinks, I'm just glad it appears to be resolved without bloodshed.
The thing is its not sorted though is it, you don't get to threaten people enmasse with guns and not have something bad happen to you, eespecially when its government workers your threatening.
Meh. The government comes in force to threaten you with guns, can't say I feel sympathy towards people who work for the government being threatened back with guns. They were also rounding up and getting ready to sell the man's livelihood. I have a hard time seeing the government being capable of getting the support of gov. workers, whether police or military, to fire on American citizens. The discontent with the government is deep and runs through all walks of life (whether gov. worker, military, or just some ol' joe). A mass slaughter would probably be the tipping point. I'm sure they'll try to do something in the courts, but if the state of Nevada gets involved the feds might not be able or willing to enforce it. Example: Weed in Colorado and Washington State.
Q: Has the guy been using federal land without permission and without paying for it? A: Yes. The rest is just decoration.
How can the state of Nevada get involved in any meaningful way? We're talking about federal authorities enforcing the law on federal land. As far as I can tell, the State of Nevada has nothing to do with it.
