What are the facts of the case? Cliven Bundy is a cattle rancher in Nevada, where he grazes his cattle, at least part of the year on land managed by the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Many other ranchers through the western United States do much the same, and the BLM charges grazing fees for allowing cattle to graze on federal land. Bundy has refused for some twenty years to pay the grazing fees. Most (but not all) other ranchers pay the grazing fees, and those ranchers according to local reports have little sympathy for or support of Cliven Bundy.
Bundy claims that his family has owned its ranch since 1877, well before the establishment of BLM, and has been using the land for grazing during that time. He says their ancestral rights should preclude the federal government controlling the land or charging him for its use. Reporters from KLAS-TV in Las Vegas Nevada, checked the property records, and found that Cliven Bundy’s parents purchased his 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Levitt. When they did, they also purchased the water rights for the 160 acre ranch. They did not purchase the water rights to the federal land, nor did they purchase the federal land itself. The BLM was formed in 1946, some two years before the Bundy family purchased its ranch. Court records show the Bundy family did not begin grazing cattle on the land until 1954.
In 1864, before Bundy even claims any ancestral rights, Congress passed and Nevada voters approved what is known as “The Ordinance”. In part it reads: “That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;” That gives the United States federal government effective title to the lands where Bundy has been grazing his cattle. The US Congress also passed the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, which authorized grazing districts on federal land. The Las Vegas area grazing district which includes the area where Bundy’s cattle have been grazing, was established in 1936 on the basis of the grazing act. It appears to me that the federal government has ownership and other rights which predate and preclude any rights which the Bundy family may hold.
Why do we even have a law related to grazing on public lands? Actually it came about at the request of western ranchers. During the homesteading era, public lands were often overgrazed, causing deterioration in the ability of the land to support cattle and grazing. It is a very old problem, when you have a free resource, many people will find it in their interest to use as much of the free resource as they can, regardless of the effects on others. The people using the resource get the benefits, the others get the costs and consequences. In this instance, the ranchers wanted the land managed fairly to benefit the largest number of people. This meant creating and controlling grazing districts and charging for the use thereof. If the US federal government owns the land, which it seems they do, then it has the right to control its use, based on acts of Congress.
Are the grazing fees being charged by the BLM outrageous? As of 2014, the BLM charges $1.35 per animal per month, which compares to private and state fees in various parts of the western US of $20 to $150 per animal per month according to a 2005 GAO study. The GAO also found that the cost of administering the federal grazing program was $144 million compared with receipts of $21 million from the grazing fees – nearly seven times more to administer the program than it brings in. Who pays the difference? American taxpayers do. Even if Cliven Bundy were paying his grazing fees, American taxpayers would still be subsidizing his cattle ranching.
The fact is that Cliven Bundy has not paid his grazing fees for some twenty years. During that twenty years, the BLM has taken Bundy to court several times, during which Bundy has been able to defend his ‘rights’ against what he says is government overreach. Bundy has lost repeatedly. After repeated court losses and repeated refusals of Bundy to pay grazing fees, several months ago BLM told Bundy that he needed to move his cattle off federal land or they would be seized. Bundy ignored that warning, setting up the showdown that we saw recently.
Does the federal government overreach at times? Certainly it does. That is why we have a court system and the ability of people to defend themselves against government overreach in court. Again, Bundy’s case has been adjudicated in court on several instances, and he has lost. How is that tyranny?
No comments:
Post a Comment