In regard to that Bundy ranch thing, get a load of this.

I don’t think I ever heard of the Bundy Ranch thing before the current standoff, my bad, and I haven’t commented because I don’t know enough to rate an opinion. From everything I’ve read in the past few days, it’s very complicated and there are no clear-cut good guys. You already know who my jerking knee wants to designate as the bad guys*.

But as I understand it, everything was copacetic until the BLM decided they cared more about a tortoise than about Bundy’s grazing lease. So how are things going for the tortoises?

*Of course I also have opinions about ranchers and their *%$&!ing grazing leases.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to In regard to that Bundy ranch thing, get a load of this.

  1. Farm.Dad says:

    If i understand it right …. This is being driven not so much by BLM as by two enviro groups obtaining a court order to have blm impound the cattle immediately. I lay this crap at the feet of Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of Sloan Canyon. Not getting into the entire grazing rights fight here , but the immediate cause goes back to a lawsuit by the two above groups .

  2. Bear says:

    Farm.Dad, the BLM is an enviro group.

    More about tortoises vs. cattle, from Vin Suprunowizc almost six years ago (and interestingly referenceing Cliven Bundy):

    Anyone vaguely aware of the fact that ungulates have been trodding the Americas since time immemorial won’t be surprised that tortoises not only coexist with cattle cattle, but benefit from their presence.

    Yeah, there’s the whole bit about ranchers and grazing fees (and I’m not exactly pleased with all the usual accepted western practices on grazing and water rights; they need work to respect more individual rights). But the reality is that shared use of open land predates “federal lands” and should be factored into any property rights fix. And the feds never did get around to buying all that land from the states as the -giggle Constitution requires. Then throw in the fact that under the feds own laws, Bundy’s use of the land really is grandfathered under the ’73 law (not merely the “whacko Mormon argument” that the lefty lamestream muddia has played up when they deign to notice at all).

    Of course, if this really were about the tortoises, the BLM would not have simply restricted Bundy’s grazing rights and now be demanding $300,000 in back fees. They would have long since busted him for ESA violations and tossed him in jail.

    Now add in the [unsubstantiated, so far as I’ve found] claim I’ve seen that the land in question isn’t even BLM land (paid for to the state or not).

    It’s a mess. But the fact that Bundy seems (to me) to be an unsympathetic curmudgeon (like some other folks we know, myself not not excepted) doesn’t mean he isn’t 95% in the right. I find a ruling in favor of the feds by a fed-employed judge, in direct conflict with clear text of the Constitution, less than persuasive.

  3. Keith says:

    Is Terry Pratchet right about tortoises being good eating?

    (rhetorical question, please, no one incriminate themselves with even a joke answer! I’d better add that the best bit of land that my extended family farms, is restored from a surface coal mine. No archaeology, no chance of any rare habitats or endangered species, only one generation of land drains, and no big stones in the soil.)

  4. Bear says:

    Careful, Keith. If they left any low spots where water can stagnate, the EPA might come protect your wetlands from your abusive and destructive farming.

  5. Joel says:

    Unless I’m badly mistaken, the EPA doesn’t have jurisdiction where Keith lives.

  6. Bear says:

    I’ll take your word for that,Joel. Although… Manuel Noriega’s crimes didn’t exactly take place in US jurisdiction either, yet that didn’t stop George II from executing the greatest dynamic entry raid in history to arrest him. And I suspect that EPA egos rival Bush’s. [grin – I hope]

  7. Joel says:

    Valid point…

  8. coloradohermit says:

    News this morning says that BLM caved and are returning the confiscated cattle, for safety concerns. I guess having half the country show up to stand with Bundy made an impression?

  9. Keith says:

    That is good news if they are backing down.

    Although the EPA doesn’t have jurisdiction this side of the pond, the shower of shit that does, is no less committed to zealotry.

    As an example, local farmers with traditional grazing rights on the unenclosed hill ground (the traditions date back to medieval times or before) had to register those rights in the 1970s – the registration was open to being contested by the surface owners (often hereditary nobles) who wanted peasants live stock off the hills, thinking it would improve their grouse shooting.

    about ten years ago, local hill graziers received word that dossiers of their misdeeds had been compiled and unless they joined government “stewardship” schemes, then they would be prosecuted out of business – there are so many rules and regulations that few if any doubted that threat.

    The “stewardship” schemes seem to be set up with the same incentives to fight as the big brother house. Needless to say, some of the graziers haven’t needed much encouragement to bicker and snitch. One hill I heard of in Wales, had several people being raided by police to take their guns from them.

    although the stewardship schemes pay subsidies ( OPM ), that subsidy is supposed to buy the compliance of the graziers (on pain of having to pay it back) in following whatever nutty conservation scheme the environmental zealots / central planners come up with. Needless to say, the Grouse shooting interests are able to wine and dine the bosses in a higher style than the graziers are, and it is the grouse shooters interests which the policy usually reflects.

    isn’t socialism wonderful…

To the stake with the heretic!