Bundy Ranch Standoff

[George the original one]

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/ ... ly-history

[Chad]

For what it worth:
1. I think Bundy and his clan are probably racist. This is based on my being in the area my senior year. Lots of backward going on out there.
2. I think the NYT is perfectly willing to sell any previously held creditability to sell another ad, and they know that their reader base want a certain storyline.
3. Legally, I don't think Bundy has a leg to stand on.
4. I'm perfectly comfortable with a change in federal policy forcing Bundy to do something else, somewhere else.
5. None of these is justifications to bring in 200+armed federal agents. There were ways to accomplish what we are told were the objectives without the force that was mobilized. So either we were being lied to about the objectives, or EVERYONE in the BLM chain of command is incompetent to wield armed force.

I'm not ruling this possibility out.

I like the summary.

On another "is that really true" tangent, are we fairly certain there were 200+ agents? All the photos I have seen suggest only 50 or so tops. I'm not suggesting that's ideal either or even really arguing that their weren't 200+, as there could easily be photos I haven't seen or agents in other areas outside of the photos. I'm just trying to determine all the correct info.

[Felix]

I still do not see how Bundy is not subsidised. If you get land from the government for grazing your cattle at grazing fees below market rate, that is a government subsidy. The only "argument" I hear against this is that I am a leftie who hates freedom. I do not hate the independent lifestyle. I want that lifestyle myself. my retirement plan is buying a little farm. But on my own land to which i hold the legal title. Just because you have a cowboy hat and a shotgun it does not mean you cannot be subsidised by the government, which you simply are when you use government land at below market rate. If you want to be that shining example of freedom, you use your own land or pay the market rate for the land you use. You do not put your cattle on federal land and then even dodge the below-market-rate fees.

[jacob]

@Felix - I think it's because you see "government=public, all of the people", whereas your opposing side sees "government=any other organization no different from a corporation". To the opposing side there's no such thing as "government land" just like there's no such thing as "General Electric land" or "Siemens land" beyond what they own. In this case public land means that the public(*) can use it (remember under the assumption that the public is not the same as the government). This also means it's not subject to market rates because it's public not private. Public land is seen in the same way as public air.

(*) This does not mean the "government's patrons/users/consumers" but "all people/humans".

In trying to find something that might make you pick up your shotgun and cowboy hat, suppose IBM showed up at your home with a private security force to encapsulate your house because you hadn't paid your air supply fees. Alternatively, suppose a chemical company shows up demanding that your garden be razed because you haven't paid the genetic licensing fees that all your neighbors paid resulting in crosspolination of your plants despite you never asking for them [the genes].

[Riggerjack]

@ jacob, good examples. Add in a history of violent suppression, then see your reaction.

@felix. what do you think market rate is, exactly? Why do you think the government is charging less than that? I mean other than it allows you to paint ranchers as welfare cases?

In most places, grazing fees are only charged by Gov. The reason for this is grazing fees are so low that unless there is an enormous scale, admin costs exceed the fees. The Gov can take the loss, nobody else will. This isn't a subsidy, this is the max the gov can get for the land use. If this were private land, grazing fees would be close to property taxes. That is why cattle are industrially farmed (fed corn, in pastures) rather than free ranged for the most part. Grazing on someone else's land in extremely rural areas has been going on forever. That this is Gov land has nothing to do with it, other than bad management practice.

[Riggerjack]

I live in WA state. We also have grazing fees for DNR and BLM land. There is far more ungrazed land than grazed. This wouldn't happen if there were some big money in government subsidized ranching.

And this is WA, where even the land over the Hanford Nuke Burial Grounds is richer soil than you'll find anywhere in NV.

[Riggerjack]

I don't think folks who haven't been there understand how empty the desert we're talking about is. Spend some time on google maps, go 20 miles away from I-15. What'd you find? The feds tried selling this land and couldn't find buyers. This isn't some special reservation set aside to protect anything. This is the leftovers that the BIA couldn't even force tribes onto.

In 150 years the Bundy family has managed to build up the ranch that they have, only to then have that tradition and accomplishment wiped out by bureaucratic decree. Now, it doesn't seem like they've built some heavenly estate, it seems like they have managed to produce a chunk of land that allows them about middle class lifestyle, using the grazing rights on neighboring land. Now, their gov wants them to stop using the gov land. I can understand being pissed about that. I can understand them wanting to continue to live the way they were raised, and as they raised their own. I can understand the hostility that comes with having some chair polisher decree that your lifestyle and livelihood are less important than a tortoise, or a senators solar power scam.

What I can't see is my tax dollars paying for hundreds of feds to roll up to take his cattle. I'm fine with BLM ending the grazing rights, and putting him outta business. It's not my business. I'm not fine with using hundreds of agents to do it. Nor 50, if that were the number. It only took 76 to kick off Waco.

[Felix]

@jacob: if I understand you correctly, the idea is that the government does not really own the land. This raises the question: Which land does it own and which does it not?
Can the government legitimately own land in this view - like General Electric can? Or is all government land up for grabs?

I'm still trying to understand this mindset. It still doesn't click.

From what I see the government holds the title to the land - just as GE would. They let Bundy use it, first for free, then for a fee, then not at all. GE would be allowed to do this, right? Why not the government?

It's not like Bundy held any title to the land.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the idea of allowing people the right to an independent lifestyle. Previously in this thread, I shared the story of English self-sufficient farmers who were driven off public land by changes in policy to destroy their self-sufficiency and make them wage-slaves in factories as told in Polanyi's "the great transformation".

Is the idea that this is something similar here?

The question seems to be one of basic legitimacy, right?

[Felix]

@Riggerjack:

As seen directly on the BLM site from March 2014:
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regula ... 4-061.html

Interesting is this direct recognition that it is a subsidy there:

Table 1 lists the grazing fee surcharge rates in effect for the 2014 Grazing Fee Year. The surcharges vary by state and equal 35 percent of the difference between the 2014 grazing fee and the 2013 private land lease rate for the state where the pasturing agreement occurs.

So for Nevada we have: (Market Rate Nevada - 1.35) *0.35 = $4.78
Market rate Nevada = $4.78/0.35 +1.35 = 15$

That is well in line with the numbers I found here (around 16-17$ in 2009):
http://www.nevadadailymail.com/story/1535026.html

So the market rate is 15$ per AUM, whereas the BLM charges only 1.35$ per AUM. That's only 9% of the market rate or a 91% subsidy.

[Riggerjack]

So the daily mail piece is a reprint of a University of Missouri study. That is done at regional level, "A 2009 review of nine Great Plains states shows their average monthly charge per cow-calf was $16.80. The 11 states west of the Great Plains ran slightly higher at $17.40 per unit. "

Yeah, i'm sure that applies to open desert equally.

Let's use your links, as I don't have any:
"A few respondents did indicate they rent pasture on a per head per month basis. The average for that was $9.44 per cow-calf per month. The range varied from $4 to $27 and the average time on the pasture was 7.1 months."

As we are talking desert, we are on the extremely low end. $4 for a cow + calf per month for private land, and $1.35+2.68=$4.03 per animal per month BLM rate. Looks like your "subsidy" is to charge twice market rate for BLM land. Or, charge around the average pasturage charge for desert grazing. Now let's be clear about what we are comparing here. Pasturage, vs desert grazing. That there are cows on both does not make this an apples to apples comparison. The value of the pasturage is in how productive it is in beef. if the cow can eat wherever it goes, it grows faster than if it travels between meals. If it takes more time and effort to round up again, if it can be taken out by predators or snakes, that is increasing rancher risk and lowers price.

Yup, ranching like that is bound to get you rich!

[Felix]

I never said it makes you rich. I said the BLM program is a subsidy program. Which it is.

In Nevada, the average range is 15$, nationwide it's 16-20$.

Even if the market rate for Bundy's land is at the Riggerjack special rate of only 4$, he will "only" have a 66% subsidy at 1.35$ per AUM. The additional 2.68$ you added is the surcharge for having someone other than the lessee on the land in AZ.

But whatever the market rate is, the point of the matter is that Bundy stopped paying for using land that is not in any way his altogether, then stayed there despite not having any right to be there. That is the whole issue. He paid no fees at all. The rest is distraction.

The idea that this is Bundy's land and now the evil government comes and steals it is nonsense. It's been US federal land since 1848 when it was taken from Mexico.

[Riggerjack]

This is not to imply that i think farming subsidies are a good idea. I just don't see charging grazing fees as a subsidy.

As a taxpayer, this should reduce my taxload, rather than increase it, if it is managed properly. That's a big if.

On that note, BLM law enforcement is called rangers, and they are paid between GS-5 and GS-13, according to their recruiting flyer. So call it an average of GS-9 approx 50k/year plus gov employee benefits.

$4.03/month/per animal. 900 head of cattle for a full year is $43,524. That's enough money to send out some agents to do collections/confiscations. I'm OK with that. I'm even OK with making an example of him so others toe the line. But there will never be a way to pay for this operation out of the revenue from Bundy. That is just bad management.

[George the original one]

And the Bundy family didn't reside in that county in Nevada until the 1940s.

[Riggerjack]

Oh, Felix, I don't think anyone is claiming it's Bundy's land, I certainly didn't. I'm saying that 200 agents is, at best, a complete misallocation of resources.

That when 200+ armed rangers show up in the heart of nowhere, there is good reason to think there will be bodies in their wake.

That is the only issue here. Welfare cases/subsidies/grazing rights/racism/bad reporting/gun rights/religious freedom are all distractions from the massive overkill approach the Feds took.

[Felix]

$4.03/month/per animal. 900 head of cattle for a full year is $43,524.

The rate is 1.35$, isn't it? You don't pay the surcharge if it's your own cattle.

At that rate to pay, a generously assumed 4$ private rate and a generously low estimate of 500 AUMs, this still amounts to quite some subsidy.

The BLM does not charge grazing fees at a rate that covers costs. It exists (among other things) to manage grazing and prevent the tragedy of the commons. And the 1.35$ rate is already the lowest possible legal rate. It cannot go any lower. The fees are not set by the BLM to cover costs, they are calculated by a formula that was written into law decades ago by executive order.

If it is in fact all you're saying that 200 government men are a waste of resources for this, then yeah, you are probably right with that. But you must admit the whole thing would be easier for the BLM if Bundy didn't have a private army of armed government-hating infowarriors by his side and if the whole thing had not become a ridiculous media spectacle.

I thought this was about if Bundy owns the land or not and wondered why that is even up for debate. Jacob's comment also pointed in that direction. Hm.

[jennypenny]

[If it is in fact all you're saying that 200 government men are a waste of resources for this, then yeah, you are probably right with that. But you must admit the whole thing would be easier for the BLM if Bundy didn't have a private army of armed government-hating infowarriors by his side and if the whole thing had not become a ridiculous media spectacle.

It wasn't a private army. Most were citizens concerned about the Fed's show of force. IIRC, most of those 'domestic terrorists' that came to help Bundy showed up in response to the fed's move. If I lived closer, I would have been one of them.

I sincerely hope that anytime the federal government shows an unnecessary and heavy-handed use of force that it becomes a media spectacle.

[Carlos]

Has the exact number of agents sent for the operation been confirmed? Where does the 200 figure come from?

[Chad]

[If it is in fact all you're saying that 200 government men are a waste of resources for this, then yeah, you are probably right with that. But you must admit the whole thing would be easier for the BLM if Bundy didn't have a private army of armed government-hating infowarriors by his side and if the whole thing had not become a ridiculous media spectacle.

It wasn't a private army. Most were citizens concerned about the Fed's show of force. IIRC, most of those 'domestic terrorists' that came to help Bundy showed up in response to the fed's move. If I lived closer, I would have been one of them.

I sincerely hope that anytime the federal government shows an unnecessary and heavy-handed use of force that it becomes a media spectacle.

Again, were there 200+ officers? I haven't seen a possible confirmation yet. Plus, they were surprisingly restrained compared to cops at other large scale protests over the past few years. Of course, they weren't the same cops at those protests and most of the federal personnel were probably their to help roundup the cattle.

[Felix]

I can imagine that the BLM is a bit out of its depths here, too. From what I've read they handle about 4 cases of collecting cattle a year and that's usually in the range of a dozen animals. This is out of the ordinary. Media attention, memories of pipe bombs going off in Sheriff offices, heavily armed opposition in high numbers. These people just try to do their job and enforce existing law, too. I guess they are quite a bit overwhelmed by the situation themselves. Drama for everyone involved.

[jennypenny]

I'll find out where that 200 number is coming from tomorrow. I don't want to bug my usual sources on a Sunday.