You are here

Decades-Long Cattle Trespass Comes To A Head For Lake Mead National Recreation Area And BLM

Share

A view of the former Bunkerville Grazing Allotment in April 2012, with the Virgin Mountains in the background. Photo copyright Ralph Maughan.

In a situation that reads like a bad plot from an old western movie, officials with the Bureau of Land Management and Lake Mead National Recreation Area are hoping for a peaceful resolution of a cattle trespass dispute with a Nevada rancher that has lasted more than 20 years. It's a tense and tricky situation.

What's going on the desert northeast of Las Vegas?

The answer goes all the way back to the 1800s, when parts of the West were settled by ranchers who controlled vast areas of open range simply by securing relatively small tracts that included scarce and essential water sources'”and then grazing their livestock on the adjoining land.

As more settlers looking for their own land arrived, open range was often overgrazed, disputes arose, and the resulting conflicts provided fodder for many a western novel and movie. Order was eventually secured by a combination of land surveys to define property lines, systems such as the Homestead Act to allow orderly transfer of public land to private ownership, and institutions such as courts and law enforcement to keep the peace.

Grazing Leases and the Bureau of Land Management

Public land which was not legally converted into private ownership remained in the public domain, and some ranchers continue to use public property to supplement their private range. Much of that public land is being managed today by the U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and that agency faces a challenging and often controversial task: "to manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield."

Alternate Text
The BLM manages grazing permits on public land all across the West. BLM photo.

One of those "multiple uses" is grazing, and a dispute between a rancher named Cliven Bundy and the BLM over the use of land in southern Nevada has lasted for more than 20 years. The former grazing lease, known as the Bunkerville allotment, includes public land managed by both the BLM and National Park Service at Lake Mead National Recreation Area, with the BLM handling grazing issues for the NPS.

"Multiple Use" Can Lead to Conflicts

A mandate to manage large areas of land for such diverse uses as grazing, wildlife, recreation, mining, timber and energy development often leads to conflicts, and that's the case on the Bunkerville allotment.

Beginning in 1993, the BLM informed Mr. Bundy about limits on the number of cattle he could graze on the allotment in order to meet regulations to protect wildlife, particularly a threatened species, the desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy refused to accept the limits and stopped paying the required fees for his grazing permit ... but continued to run his cattle on the property.

The BLM subsequently cancelled the grazing permit, and in 1997, Clarke County, Nevada, purchased all the active grazing permits in the area to conserve them for wildlife needs. A tentative proposal was made to Mr. Bundy to compensate him for any stock water rights or range improvements he might have in his former allotment. He rejected the offer...and continued to run his cattle.

Failed Negotiations Lead To Court Cases

After further attempts to negotiate with Mr. Bundy failed, a series of court cases that extended up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction which permanently enjoined Mr. Bundy from grazing cattle on the Bunkerville allotment, and ordered him to remove all trespass cattle. He refused, despite notices that the livestock would be subject to impoundment and removal if they remained.

While the legal wrangling continued, the number of cattle in the area continued to grow. In 1999, the BLM was able to document 51 head of Bundy cattle on federal range in the allotment; by 2011, over 900 cattle were counted by a helicopter survey of the rugged terrain.

Mr. Bundy apparently concedes that he has never owned any of the land in question, but disputes the BLM's jurisdiction; he contends he has the right to continue to use the property, since his family has been doing so since the 1880s.

Alternate Text
Damage to soil and vegetation from concentrated use by trespass cattle in the former Bunkerville Allotment. BLM photo.

The BLM Still Manages Lots of Grazing Permits

The BLM has taken pains to point out that it is not anti-grazing, noting that it "administers approximately 18,000 grazing permits and leases on 157 million acres of public lands..."Ranching continues throughout Southern Nevada on public and private lands," the agency notes. "BLM currently has three active grazing allotments on more than 100,000 acres of public lands in Southern Nevada."

Kirsten Cannon, spokeswoman for the Nevada BLM office in Reno, says, 'œHis cattle have been illegally trespassing on federal land for two decades and it'™s just unfair for those who ranch in compliance,' she said. 'œWe made repeated attempts to resolve this. The courts have ordered him to move his cattle. Now we'™ve reached the last resort, which is impoundment.'

You can read a summary of the history of the dispute at this BLM link, and the agency, under increasing pressure from other local landowners and conservation groups, has decided it's time to remove the cattle and resolve the issue.

There's no doubt that Mr. Bundy has flouted the legal system for years, but you might wonder what else is at stake in this situation.

A Long List of Problems Caused by Trespass Livestock

The BLM cites a long list of problems caused by Mr. Bundy's cattle. Among the issues are damage by the cattle to springs and vegetation on public land and trampling of artifacts at cultural sites. Crops on adjacent private property have been damaged by foraging livestock, and residents of the communities of Bunkerville and Mesquite have complained about the impact of trespass cattle on city facilities, including the Mesquite Heritage Community Garden and the Mesquite golf course.

If you've even been around cattle which aren't accustomed to being "worked" regularly by humans, you'll understand the safety concerns for visitors and employees using the BLM and park lands in question. According to the BLM, "a State of Nevada employee at the Overton Wildlife Refuge has been attacked by a Bundy bull, and a feral cow was hit by an automobile within Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Cattle are frequently seen on public roads, including State Route 170, and pose a danger to vehicles and to members of the public traveling on public roads."

There have been other economic costs from the trespass livestock. The Nevada State Department of Wildlife has had to build extensive fences to protect state and federal lands in the Overton Wildlife Refuge from the cattle. The Walton Family Foundation had offered $400,000 for a matching grant to restore wildlife habitat in the area, but has withdrawn the funds until the trespass cattle have been removed. It's a reasonable decision; restoration efforts would be a waste of money as long as the cattle continue to roam and damage the area.

Two Decades of Waiting May Be Coming to an End

So, what's next?

Alternate Text
These trespass cattle, removed off public land in northern Nevada, are being cared for until they are claimed and fines/impoundment fees are paid. BLM photo.

According to a statement from Lake Mead National Recreation Area, "The BLM and NPS have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially. Impoundment of cattle illegally grazing on public lands is an option of last resort. The BLM and NPS are working closely with local, state and federal officials to ensure the gather of unauthorized cattle occurs in a safe and orderly manner."

During what will undoubtedly be a challenging roundup, the area involved will be closed to public use from March 27 through May 12. The park website notes, "Only a small portion of the northern and eastern part of the park will be temporarily closed, and Echo Bay, Stewarts Point, Redstone and the hot springs along Northshore Road remain open." You can view a map of the area  within the park involved in the closure  at this link.

Bundy's Response

So, what's Mr. Bundy's reaction to the latest developments? That's a cause for concern, and at least part of the reason for the closure of the area to the public during the impending roundup.

A previous roundup scheduled for 2012 was cancelled due to fears of a violent confrontation with Bundy, and the BLM opted for one more try at a solution in the courts. That cancellation in turn brought threats of a lawsuit against the BLM from an environmental group, for failure to enforce court orders to remove the livestock. In 2013, the BLM prevailed once again in court.

Bundy's response to the numerous court orders to remove his cattle has been succinct. "At first I said, 'No,'" he told The Los Angeles Times last year, "Then I said, 'Hell, no.'"

"I've got to protect my property," Bundy told the Times. "If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

The County Sheriff Urges A Peaceful Solution

It doesn't appear the county sheriff plans to intervene on the Bundys' behalf. According to Carol Bundy, the rancher's wife, 'œWe want him to step in and tell these federal characters that '˜This is Clark County, Nevada, land and you have go through me to get these cattle.'™ But we have not heard a word.'

For his part, Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie understands the days of the 19th century range wars are long past. The Las Vegas Review-Journal quoted Gillespie as saying: 'œI'™m always concerned when there are situations like this where there is so much emotion. I hope calmer heads will prevail like they normally do. You'™re talking about rounding up cattle. You have to keep that in perspective. No drop of human blood is worth spilling over any cow, in my opinion.'

He absolutely right. Let's hope everyone else involved in this situation agrees.

Comments

Thank you Jim, informative post. People believe what they read and hear, it is always interesting to read the different viewpoints. I am in complete support of the BLM effort here, our public lands maybe not be around much longer what with population increase, diminishing resources, water and air quality issues, well the list is quite lengthly. The public lands we do have are a tremendous blessing to all Americans, turning them over to local control will just speed up the prospect of their demise in my own opinion.


"I don't know where you got that but I will again ask you to cite where in the Federalist papers (to which neither Franklin nor Washington contributed) is there a call for a stronger(vs states) central government.

Yes, Federalist wanted more power in the central government than non-federalist but even the most strident of Federalist that participated in the formation of the Constitution wanted a LIMITED federal government. Thus the enumerated powers and later the 10th Amendment."

Hi, ecbuck.

First, the Federalist Papers were good for expounding on the thoughts of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, but they were not law.

As far as "enumerated powers" go, most Federalists in no way believed that the enumerated powers of the Constitution were the limits of the national government's powers. Please feel free to reference the debate about the First Bank of the United States, in which Hamilton expressed his belief in implied powers (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp) -- essentially that the Constitution empowered the national government to take any steps necessary to carry out its duties, as broadly defined as they may be. Thomas Jefferson disagreed with this interpretation. George Washington sided with Hamilton and agreed with the implied powers idea.

Washington, you'll also recall, when faced with a situation similar to Cliven Bundy's -- some rural folks in the states not wanting to pay their fees to the federal government -- rode out at the head of the army to crush them.

Hamilton's idea of broad, implied powers was reaffirmed by another Founder, John Marshall, in the Supreme Court decision McCulloch v. Maryland, which reinforced both the idea of implied powers and also ruled that states had no authority to interfere with exercises of federal power.

My point is this: your claim ("Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the dangers of a Federal government and worked hard to place the power in the hands of the States. It is a basic principle of the founding of this nation.") is not true. Hamilton did not see the Federal government as a danger and he did not work to place "the power" in the hands of the state. He saw a powerful Federal government as being necessary in order to create an industrial economy. Agrarian politicians like Jefferson disagreed; he went so far as to say that the states had the power to nullify any Federal law they disagreed with. Madison initially sided with Hamilton but shifted over to Jefferson over the issue of the national bank. Adams, if you'll look at the Alien & Sedition Acts he signed, certainly didn't shy away from Federal power.

It's been a source of continuous disagreement in this country, and vigorous debate (as I said) where power should reside. This manifested during the debates over the Constitution, it manifested over the debates on the First Bank, on the debates over the Second Bank, on Calhoun's desire to nullify Federal tariffs, and it manifested during the Civil War. But the end result of all of this is that the law in this country recognizes the supremacy of the Federal government over the states -- that is, in fact, the entire reason we created a Constitution in the first place, because the weak centralized government created by the Articles of Confederation wasn't doing its job.

Nevada isn't a "sovereign state." It doesn't get to impede Federal laws. Neither does some bass-ackwards rancher who claims not to recognize the power of the Federal government. You can complain about the amount of land that the Federal government owns, but it STILL OWNS THAT LAND, and more to the point, Nevada as a political creation never owned the land to begin with. It was conquered by the US's Federal army in the Mexican-American War, it was ceded to the US government, and the US government subsequently created a Federal territory which it then allowed to become a state -- and in so doing, that state accepted the authority of the Federal government (more explicitly than most, given its own Constitution in which it recognizes Federal supremacy and the Federal ownership of much of its land).

Cliven Bundy has no leg to stand on.


Ec says: "If that is indeed the case (damage caused by Bundy's cattle), they have recourse (that has nothing to do with BLM lands). Do you have evidence of this happening?"

That damage has been widely cited, and a brief search indicates those cites stem from a BLM document summarizing that damage. I've not seen any evidence that refutes that information, so I'll accept it until proven wrong.  http://archive.today/nvlzr

Yes, those who feel their property and interests have been damaged by Bundy's roaming cattle "have recourse," which is the courts. As clearly explained in previous posts, the courts at multiple levels have ruled that Bundy must round up and remove his cattle. He's refused to do so, and has mounted an armed resistance to those court orders.

The recourse to damage by Bundy's cattle does in fact have plenty "to do" with BLM lands, since the cattle are roaming illegally on public land managed by the BLM and then trespassing from there onto adjoining private property. Under those circumstances, it's entirely proper for citizens to expect the BLM to follow directions of the courts and see that the cattle are removed.

Given the above, and years of efforts by the BLM to resolve this problem in the courts, I'd be interested in hearing how ec thinks this situation should be resolved.


As far as "enumerated powers" go, most Federalists in no way believed that the enumerated powers of the Constitution were the limits of the national government's powers.

Baloney. Madison was the primary author of the Constitution. He also was the author of Federalist paper #41. In that paper he specifically addresses the issue and states that if the powers were to be broader, there would be no reason to provide a list. The list was the definitive set of powers.


indicates those cites stem from a BLM document summarizing that damage.

But the incidents have nothing to do with the BLM

As clearly explained in previous posts, the courts at multiple levels have ruled that Bundy must round up and remove his cattle.

Those court decisions WERE regarding BLM land and had nothing to do with private property. If someone's private property was damaged they have recourse through the courts themselves.

, I'd be interested in hearing how ec thinks this situation should be resolved.

Fines, judgements, jail. Not military force and killing cattle.


"Baloney. Madison was the primary author of the Constitution. He also was the author of Federalist paper #41. In that paper he specifically addresses the issue and states that if the powers were to be broader, there would be no reason to provide a list. The list was the definitive set of powers."

Hamilton disagreed, which is pretty obvious if you read his opinion on implied powers articulated in arguing for a national bank. Washington also disagreed, when he sided with Hamilton and agreed the bank would be constitutional even though the Constitution's enumerated powers conferred no such authority upon the federal government. John Marshall subsequently agreed as well.

And you're right, Madison did disagree with Hamilton, Washington, and Marshall when it came time to argue about a bank. That was my whole point. There were disagreements amongst the Founders. They weren't a monolithic bloc. They didn't unanimously fear federal power and want to vest all authority in the states, which was your original claim. Your attempted airbrushing of history is just false.


hey didn't unanimously fear federal power and want to vest all authority in the states, which was your original claim.

No that wasn't my claim. The Federalist didn't want to vest "all" power in the states. They recognized that some issues (primarily foreign policy) needed to be addressed at a national level. They did however, agree unanimously that the power of the national government be limited and as Madison wrote, both in the Constitution and the Federalist papers, the powers were limited to those enumerated. If not why not just have the Constitution say - "congress can make any law they want" I know some of you would like that, but that isn't what it says.

Boy this thread is a testament to sorry state of our education system. The fact that so many people are ignorant of the original intent of our founding fathers, ignorant of the fact that our nation was founded under the principles of limited government is appalling.


Thank you, ethelred, for two more intelligent and well informed essays on our history. I admit that I'm not an expert on our founders and their disagreements, but do know enough to recognize when the truth about our history is being distorted for whatever reason. It's frustrating to try to reason with or debate one whose "expertise" comes only from propaganda broadsides issued by very questionable sources.


The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.