Bundy Ranch Standoff

[Riggerjack]

There seems to be some confusion of timeline for those still posting to this thread. Here is my understanding:

1. Bundy family starts ranching in NV could be 1860's could be 1940's. I don't claim to know or care.

2. In the 80-90's some kind of drama between BLM and Bundy. Bundy stops paying fees, BLM thinks tortoises should be ranched there. Again, don't know, or care about details.

3. Continuing drama for 20 years. As bundy continues to pocket the money that should go to BLM, and BLM starts adding interest and penalties to what they speculate he owes.

4. Feds show up with OVERWHELMING numbers. The only place that references numbers under 250 I've heard were here. That doesn't make 250 right or wrong, but 50 seems entirely speculative, yet still overkill.

5. Emails go out, and friends, neighbors, media and yahoos arrive. The drama continues, Feds close down shop, and we all talk about it on forums.

Am I wrong on any of these points?

So, golly if the poor feds were just overwhelmed, maybe they shouldn't have INSTIGATED step #4. As to the restrained federal agents, they didn't show up with overwhelming force to a protest, they showed up with overwhelming force and INSTIGATED a protest.

Again, a few agents and a dozen contract cowboys, a court order and this woulda been fine. We have a civil court, and proceedings for when civilized folks need to settle a dispute. Bundy ranch is an easily seized asset, legally speaking. Get judgement, place lien, foreclose on lien. It would take a lawyer a few hours, there is no stand off, just another redneck moving to a trailer in the middle of nowhere, collecting welfare, telling his story of how he got screwed, to anyone who would listen. And everyone woulda been pretty cool with that.

Nobody shows up to stop the local sheriff from eviction proceedings. They show up because they want to prevent the next Waco. And there wasn't any indication before they did show up, that this wouldn't be another Waco.

[Riggerjack]

Felix, I honestly don't know what the market rate is for grazing rights in desert. I strongly think that there is none. By that I mean I don't think anyone does it out there except BLM. Certainly not enough to have an established market value. This is just my opinion, based on just what a hellish pit this area is.

Now, if this was a subsidized great deal, I would expect a waiting list, or some other restriction on supply. People would be trying to get this great deal, more than would be available. That's just what happens when anyone sells at below market price.

So I looked at the local BLM website, here's what I found:


on the range
Grazing Quick Facts

A permit or lease includes:

The number and kind of livestock;
The period(s) of use;
The allotment(s) to be used; and,
The amount of use, in Animal Unit Months (AUMs). An AUM is the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or its equivalent for a period of one month.

BLM Arizona Grazing Permits and Leases in Force as of January 2007

759 grazing permits and leases
824 allotments
659,990 active AUMs
103,445 suspended AUMs
11.5 million acres of BLM public lands open to grazing
834 operators

Arizona Grazing Permits in Force on Grazing Districts (Section 3) Lands

394 Section 3 grazing permits
506,292 active AUMs 1
92,657 suspended AUMs 2

Arizona Grazing Leases in Force on (Section 15) Lands

365 Section 15 grazing leases
158,057 active AUMs 1
10,788 suspended AUMs 2

1 Active animal unit months (AUMs): AUMs that could be authorized on public lands; these totals differ from suspended AUMs

2 Suspended AUMs on public lands are not authorized for use.

Source: The BLM Rangeland Administration System (RAS).

I found this here: http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/grazing.html

In every area, there is far more forage available than is being grazed. That tells me that the areas not being grazed, aren't worth the price BLM is asking. I'm not a rancher, I couldn't tell you why one area is suitable, and others are not.

None of this is justification or Bundy grazing and not paying. I'm just disputing the idea that he is somehow getting subsidized. If there is a subsidy, it is just incompetent BLM management not resolving this issue for 20+ years.

Trust me, if you owe me rent, then refuse to pay, and continue to use my property, I'm not going to wait 20 years to resolve that issue.

[Felix]

From my understanding there's been an extended legal battle about the legitimacy of the BLM's claims with Bundy that was resolved just recently and they tried to collect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... overnment/

The government has more breathing room than a private owner, I guess.

You don't just have cattle there, but also wild horses, which are being managed by the BLM and need their forage, too.

There being less permits than possible may likely be the BLM cutting down on permit size deliberately restricting sales and grazing as in the Bundy case. You need a certain herd size to make a living. Isn't the whole conflict based on the fact that the BLM restricts access to this resource and that Bundy's permit has been reduced by the BLM? Again, the BLM isn't at this to maximize profit but to "maintain land health" as the site says. The fees for grazing don't even cover the cost of management. They can and do restrict grazing because they have other goals for their land. And there's a natural conflict between these goals and what the ranchers want, obviously.

Also, isn't Bundy's Ranch in Nevada, not Arizona?

[Riggerjack]

Oops, yeah. Arizona strip, southern Utah, Nevada all blend into a dusty burning hell in my mind. Ecologically they are one region, just divided by surveyors.

In any case, while it seems too barren for forage, it's pretty clear it works for some folks, and that blm is managing it for a loss. That seems a good enough reason to shut the program Down.

[JohnnyH]

Isn't that study from Missouri? Missouri pasture is about as far from dry land desert grazing as earthly possible... Frankly, I find it fairly miraculous that cattle manage to stay alive in places like that (or Australian outback). It is so unmarketable I doubt that any private land owners near Bundy would even bother. Probably takes an entire section (640 acres) for 1 cow.

I believe the 200 was reported as the initial response sent to keep Bundy sequestered from the proceedings... In reality there where WAY MORE.

Here's a picture of the camp from the early stages. After these started popping up online the FAA enacted a no fly zone so I'd guess this camp almost doubled before demobilization started.
http://cdn5.gunssavelives.net/wp-conten ... 8615_o.jpg

Any way you can see command trailers, showers, meal tent ... and at least 100 vehicles. Having experience working in similar camps, I imagine this 'incident' was costing about $100k to $250k per day. Perhaps more due to aircraft and military... stuff... which I am not experienced with pricing, but I imagine it is expensive.

[George the original one]

Are you sure that is the "command center" and not the round-up contractors?

[Felix]

Yeah, that study is not particularly useful.
It is pretty hard to find decent info. At least I did not find much. Google results are filled with Bundy articles.

[JohnnyH]

99% sure that is a camp setup by government. Contractors get work done, efficiently and with minimal resources... Federal government might get work done eventually, but it is incredibly inefficient and uses a profane amount of resources.

The contractors are usually on the fringes of camp; a truck or two, a camper, whatever equipment they're being paid for.

[George the original one]

Well, if it's the federal agents, then they're guarding three pens of cattle and 6 horses.

[Felix]

More on that subsidy thing:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-869

The grazing fee BLM and the Forest Service charge, which was $1.43 per AUM in 2004, is established by formula and is generally much lower than the fees charged by the other federal agencies, states, and private ranchers. The other agencies, states, and ranchers generally established fees to obtain the market value of the forage. The formula used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service grazing fee incorporates ranchers' ability to pay; therefore the current purpose of the fee is not primarily to recover the agencies' expenditures or to capture the fair market value of forage.

[Chad]

4. Feds show up with OVERWHELMING numbers. The only place that references numbers under 250 I've heard were here. That doesn't make 250 right or wrong, but 50 seems entirely speculative, yet still overkill.

50 is completely speculative, but I haven't seen anything yet that would suggest the 200+ number is any better.

The more I think about it the less I think the number is important. The plan for using theses agents is the important part. You would need a lot of manpower to round up all those cattle if the manpower was inexperienced with rounding up cattle.

[Riggerjack]

Felix, you google fu is in fine form. I sincerely doubt you will find, or I will find a good source of fair market value for forage in deepest darkest NV. I concede.

Clearly, forage is being subsidized, if only because the forage for the region wouldn't pay for the massive enforcement mission that was called in.
You can call Bundy a welfare case if you like, it still seems like the kind of abuse of authority that should get the BLM liquidated, to me. Sell the land to the highest bidder, no more subsidy, no more enforcement costs. Impose the same ESA restrictions currently in place.

I'm guessing that means that in 6 months, promotions are in order, all the way down the line, and a bigger budget for BLM "law enforcement".

[jennypenny]

Re: 200 federal agents (I didn't forget )

After two days of looking into this, the biggest revelation is that most media are completely incompetent. I was told by several sources (including a producer at a top cable news show) that they couldn't get a lead on where the numbers came from, but as long as everyone was reporting the same thing they were in the clear using the unsubstantiated information. *sigh*

I found a couple of reporters in Nevada willing to talk to me. They said the earliest official reports they got from the BLM stated they were dispatching "several dozen additional agents" to secure the area. Private contractors were also hired to round up the cattle, adding to the number of "federal" people. Federal officials implied that they were doing this (closing off the area and limiting access for the public and media) to protect the public at large, but it was understood by the media present that the main purpose was to support the contractors trying to confiscate the cattle. That report was from April 3. If you can watch the video with this article, it will give you a good idea of the situation that week. http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25168654/ ... blic-lands

Other facts I've learned that color that number somewhat ...

* Bundy sent letters in March to every official from the local sheriff to federal officials stating his intention to fight the issue any way he needed to, and call upon large groups of supporters to assist him if necessary. Off the record, Bundy was naming names of groups like Oath Keepers he said had agreed to help him and put the word out.

* The first use of '200' federal agents I can find comes from an interview with Sheriff Mack the second week of April. I'm a little surprised that media outlets, particularly the usually left-leaning MSM, used his number. Maybe they didn't realize it came from him, or maybe there's an earlier use that I missed.

* Reid didn't give specifics on the record, but constantly intimated to reporters that the entire area from Bundy's ranch to Las Vegas was "crawling" with "armed and ready federal agents." Both reporters used that language, so Reid probably used it.

* Local reporters feel the actual number of feds in the area (not necessarily at the ranch) was much, much higher by the end. They credit state and local law enforcement for convincing the feds that they couldn't win this round by repeatedly referencing Ruby Ridge.


My personal feelings have changed a bit. Bundy putting the feds on notice that he was going to call in the cavalry makes me think the BLM was just acting cautiously, and rightfully so. Whether the continued build-up of force was necessary, I'm not sure. They may have taken advantage of the opportunity to display a show of force. Reid is a loose cannon who seems to throw lighter fluid onto any situation and needs to go. His constant stoking of the 'domestic terrorist' idea is dangerous. So is the rhetoric of people like Sheriff Mack.

[jennypenny]

I just talked to a local camera operator who was out there filming a couple of days before Drudge picked up the story and it became a circus. He said he counted almost 100 feds himself from the BLM, National Park Service, and the Forest Service. He said that count is just who was visible to the press and doesn't include any law enforcement. He said they could see a camp beyond where they were allowed with dozens of cars and more people, but they were actively discouraged from filming it. He said he would agree to that 200 number even if you didn't include the contractors.

He said at the time there were fewer than 50 Bundy supporters, and most of them were 'the usual locals.'

I asked him how he felt when he was out there. He paused, and then said he'd been a little surprised that everyone was armed, and that it felt 'staged.' Because of that, he said there was speculation that it must be about something else other than Bundy. He also said (without being asked) that he was surprised and glad that it ended peacefully, and mentioned Ruby Ridge. (You gotta wonder if the Feds realize the full impact of that incident.)


I'm going back to work now. Good night, and good luck.

[Chad]

Holy shit! That's some impressive follow-up Jenny. Thanks.

It's fascinating how what appears to be a fairly simple story has so many levels and twists/turns.

Were reporters during the time when broadcast companies expected to lose money on the news better than today? Probably difficult to determine, but it would be interesting to know. I'm referencing the use of the unsubstantiated "200" number in Jenny's first response (seems semi-substantiated in 2nd post, but other reporters don't reference it).

[jacob]

I recommend this again:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Watch-TV-News ... 0143113771

The media is not reporting the news. They're not selling a product. They're in the business of keeping eyeballs at intermittent advertising at the highest efficiency and greatest "inventory turnaround" possible. There's a reason why the anchors on practically all networks look like some idealized archetypical family.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Holy shit! That's some impressive follow-up Jenny. Thanks.

x2! Nice detective work.

[Dragline]

I recommend this again:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Watch-TV-News ... 0143113771

The media is not reporting the news. They're not selling a product. They're in the business of keeping eyeballs at intermittent advertising at the highest efficiency and greatest "inventory turnaround" possible. There's a reason why the anchors on practically all networks look like some idealized archetypical family.

Yes, I completely agree. Almost everything on TV has a staged quality to it, because the real purpose is as you say, keeping eyeballs on ads. I remember during the government shutdown, there were some tourist veterans who went to the WWII memorial when it was closed. That was a small news story. For the next week, the WWII memorial was covered with politicians and reporters, with nary a veteran in sight. I would ride my bike by in the morning watching them get "set up" to "make news" -- it was one big staged story.

[jennypenny]

An update to the Bundy story ... http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... misco.html

"A scathing memo from the lead investigator who assessed how federal officers handled the 2014 armed standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy accuses agents of far-reaching misconduct, recklessness and unrestrained antipathy toward the family."

[BRUTE]

no surprise. this shit had Waco/Ruby Ridge written all over it. brute suspects it must be some kind of in-group/out-group penis size battle between federal agents and <whoever dares question agency power>. with the good old over the top violence proving to the rest of the in-group that they're still boss.