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."
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.
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, 'His cattle have been illegally trespassing on federal land for two decades and it's just unfair for those who ranch in compliance,' she said. 'We 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?
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, 'We 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: 'I'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.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
beachdumb--Racism is a thing of the past? Did you read what he said? I would hardly characterize that as just "dumb".
Rick
Rick, racism certainly isn't a thing of the past, the National Park Services has given us a good example in recent years of return to institutional racism with the "Pro" ranger program -where they bypass more highly qualified candidates who have given them in some cases years of dedicated service by using Jim Crow like tactics to rig the system to ensure that those from favored groups get hired.
I think it's safe to say that had he complied with the law, and court orders, we wouldn't be on page three of comments to this story. It's just the latest iteration of the Sagebrush Rebellion of four decades ago.
"He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' " Halperin and Heilemann say.
"Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination,"
Rick, then Harry Reid is a racist too or are Democrats excused for making "dumb" comments. I did read the entirety of what he said, not just the clips. I am not going immediately call him a racist for pondering his thoughts...
Kurt, you don't get it. This is about government overreach, dishonesty, and abuse that has been happening for years and a lot folks are sick of it. BLM's attempted land grab in Texas is just latest example.
Beach, the land in question in Nevada was owned by the federal government long before Bundy came along. No overreach here. Perhaps a poor action plan on the part of the BLM, but Bundy's not in the right and he's no American hero.
Kurt, I never said or thought he was a hero or right. I am solely concerned about the way my federal government continually has these poor action plans and tries to justify their militarized and "species protection" bullying.
Lots of emotional issues involved here. The image of the rugged cowboy and rancher still strikes a chord with many Americans – and Bundy has played that image to the hilt. I can certainly sympathize with responsible ranchers who have paid their grazing fees and relied on cheap public grazing land for decades, and who see their way of life threatened by increased demands for other uses for that same public land.
However, as time passes and the nation's population grows, the "best uses" for some of that public land may change. As pointed out in the original story above, there are rarely any easy answers when "multiple uses" (in this case, grazing vs. wildlife habitat) collide.
A 2012 Dept. of Interior report cited here illustrates the competing economic forces at work on public lands: "Grazing on BLM Public Lands Accounts for only 0.41% of the nation’s livestock receipts and only 17,000 jobs. In contrast, recreation accounts for 372,000 jobs and contributes $45 billion to the economy." You may question the exact numbers cited, but the differences in magnitude remain.
The pressure on the BLM over conflicting uses will likely only grow, and when a user such as Bundy doesn't agree with decisions by managing agencies, there are legal avenues for appeal. Bundy did so, and lost, mutiple times, and at that point his wishes or opinions don't justify armed resistance to the rule of law.
The Nevada Cattlemen's Association (NCA), while expressing sympathy for Bundy's situation and disagreeing with the BLM's decision to reduce the number of cows Bundy could graze on public land, recognizes the correct process to resolve such disputes. It said in a recent statement, "... in accordance with the rule of law, we must use the system set forth in our Constitution to change those laws and regulations. Nevada Cattlemen's Association does not condone actions that are outside the law in which citizens take the law into their own hands..."
"...This case was reviewed by a federal judge and a decision was rendered to remove the cattle. Nevada Cattlemen's Association does not feel it is our place to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter. Additionally, NCA believes the matter is between Mr. Bundy and the Federal Courts."
The courts have spoken clearly, multiple times, and have ordered Bundy to remove his cattle. He's refused,and has mounted violent resistance to our legal system. That being the case, it's very hard to find any "BLM overreach" in this specific situation.
Beach, the guy went 20 years without paying for his grazing allotment (to the tune of $1 million) with court rulings against him. And the time-line shows Bundy was given plenty of notice to move his cattle before the BLM arrived to round them up. Where's the bullying?
In August 2013 he was served with a federal court order giving him 90 days to move his cattle. In October 2013 a federal judge told him not to interfere with any seizure of his cattle. In March the BLM sent him notice that they were going to impound his cattle if they weren't moved off the land in question.
As for a poor action plan, could anyone have predicted the estimated 1,000 or so gun-toting "militiamen" who showed up to side with Bundy. Are you concerned about their actions?
Texas Land Grab:
"Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is the latest state official asking that question in relation to a looming U.S. Bureau of Land Management decision about what to do with a swath of federal and American Indian land in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas — including the acreage in Texas along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River."
So, the BLM is looking at FEDERAL and AMERICAN INDIAN land. NOT A LAND GRAB.
"On Tuesday, Abbott sent a letter to Neil Kornze, BLM director, seeking information about the agency’s plans for the land, some of which North Texans have long considered theirs, using it for cattle grazing and growing crops."
So, some Texans, who have been using the land (not owning it) are wondering what is going to be done with the land (they don't own).
"“Private landowners in Texas have owned, maintained, and cultivated this land for generations. Despite the long-settled expectations of these hard-working Texans along the Red River, the BLM appears to be threatening their private property rights by claiming ownership over this territory,” wrote Abbott, the Republican candidate for governor."
Wait, how can they OWN land OWNED by someone else? Just because Abbott, who is running for Governor, says its theirs?
"For what it's worth, BLM regional spokesman Paul McGuire responded to Abbott's concerns:
The BLM is categorically not expanding federal holdings along the Red River. The 140 acres in question were determined to be public land in 1986 when the U.S. District Court ruled on a case brought by two private landowners, each seeking to adjust boundary lines for their respective properties. The BLM was not party to any litigation between the landowners. The 140 acres were at no time held in private ownership. [BLM]"
Abbott of course, is screaming that it is 90,000 acres because, well, it sounds so much better that way. In the meantime, he just confiscated 1700 acres and has helped private companies such as Trans-Canada use Eminent Domain to confiscate even more. Of course, that is nothing new in Texas, where governors and the government has been doing it for years to their advantage (check out George Bush's baseball stadium).
Jim, you may need to have your vision checked. The BLM's establishment of little fenced off "First Amendment Area" is a very serious overreach in this specific situation. I have always thought the area between Canada and Mexico was the First Amendment area?
And when in the hell has the DOI put recreation ahead of anything, you must be kidding me!
I understand your reason for skepticism about BLM's interest in recreation, although the folks at that agency would probably take exception to your lack of respect for their recreational opportunities :-) http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recreation.html
They offer a number of campgrounds, for example, and another frequent visitor to this site should be pleased to note the BLM does not charge any fees for backcountry camping, which they refer to as "dispersed, primitive camping." For better or worse, there seems to be quite a bit of public use of the BLM's areas for ORV use and mountain biking in places like California and Utah. At least that takes some pressure off of NPS lands.
The BLM also manages "221 Wilderness Areas with 8.7 million acres in 10 Western States (3 percent of BLM's total acreage in the coterminous United States. " http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS/Wilderness.html
Your comment is a good illustration of my point that there is quite a bit of disagreement about how the BLM should meet it's "multiple use" mandate - and which uses should receive priority.
At least the BLM allows people to recreate on their land.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/24/politicians-denounce-bun...
April 24th, 2014
12:00 PM ET
21 minutes ago
Politicians denounce Bundy's racist remarks
Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough and Paul Steinhauser and Leigh Ann Caldwell
Updated 9:29 p.m. ET 4/24/2014
(CNN) - What started out as a standoff over land rights may be turning into a controversy over race.
Racist comments from Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy - who earlier this month appeared to win a highly publicized standoff against federal authorities over his two-decade long illegal grazing of cattle on public land - are giving Democrats a new weapon to attack some top Republicans who earlier came to Bundy's defense.
And the controversial comments also call into question moves by Fox News and some other conservative media that highlighted the story and painted Bundy as a hero in his battle against federal authorities.
Bundy, 67, won his standoff against federal rangers after armed militiamen came to his side. Even with the incident over, Bundy continued to talk to a dwindling crowd of media from his ranch, about 100 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
The comments that sparked the latest controversy came this weekend when Bundy recalled to supporters about a time he drove by a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, according to a report from The New York Times.
"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," Bundy said, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids - and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch - they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do.
"And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?" Bundy continued. "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
What Cliven Bundy's comments on race reveal
In a press conference Thursday, Bundy defended and repeated his comments but emphasized he was merely "wondering" whether African-Americans were better off as slaves.
"And that's a question I put before the world: Are they better, or were they better then? I'm not saying I thought they should be slaves, or I wasn't even saying they was (sic) better off; I'm wondering if they're better off," he said.
Bundy said he questions whether those living under government subsidies are living as slaves to the state, but denied he held racist views.
"I might not have a very big word base or vocabulary, I guess, but let me tell you something: When I say slavery, I mean slavery...Slavery is about when you take away choices from people, and where you have forced labor," he said. "You think that's what I'm about, America? If it is, you're sure wrong, because I don't believe in any type of that stuff."
And Bundy didn't back down in an interview Thursday night with CNN's Bill Weir. He questioned whether blacks are better off now when "they don't have nothing to do with their children, their family unit is ruined (and) I don't think they have the life that they should have."
"I don't think I'm wrong," he told CNN, insisting that he'd spoken "from my heart." "I think I'm right."
'Comments are completely beyond the pale'
"Every Republican elected official who risked inciting violence to gain political capital out of Cliven Bundy now owes the people of Nevada an apology for their irresponsible behavior of putting their own political future ahead of the safety of Nevadans," added the Nevada Democrats.
Some top national Republicans quickly condemned the remarks.
Sen. Rand Paul, who originally supported Bundy's case, issued a statement Thursday morning decrying Bundy's racial comments.
"His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him," said the Kentucky Republican, who's seriously considering a 2016 presidential run.
GOP Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, who earlier called his supporters "patriots", also "completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy's appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way," according to his spokesperson, Chandler Smith.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who had not previously weighed in on the land dispute, said in a statement that "Bundy's comments are completely beyond the pale. Both highly offensive and 100% wrong on race."
Democrats had already been on the attack against Bundy before his racial comments. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – Nevada's senior senator - last week blasted Bundy's supporters as "domestic terrorists," saying they were arming themselves with automatic weapons and positioning "snipers in strategic locations."
One man, former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack told a reporter the militia were considering putting "all the women" on the front lines.
"If they're going to start shooting, it's going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers," he said.
Read more...
I strenuously disagree with beachdumb's comments that racism is done with, and the comparison with Reid's comments falls flat -- Reid's comments were tone-deaf and ill stated, but the use of the word "negro" is not in and of itself a demonstration of racism, and it isn't the part of Bundy's race comments that people have a real problem with (that would be the suggestion that blacks would be freer if we re-enslaved them and got them back to picking cotton).
But I agree that "First Amendment zones," utilized extensively during the George W. Bush presidency and regrettably continued under President Obama, are a travesty and should be criticized. It's a bad practice and one federal agencies absolutely shouldn't be utilizing.
That being said, pointing sniper rifles at BLM agents and obstructing law enforcement agents from carrying out their duties is not a valid exercise of free speech. Protestors have (or should have) the right to protest government action. Militia members do not have the right to threaten law enforcement or obstruct the execution of court orders.
Bundy is wrong. This should have been resolved long ago. It is sad to see so many misled into supporting this kook. Just as it was wrong for Jarvis to allow the neo communists who occupied McPherson Square to stay for 100 days, it is wrong for Mr. Bundy to use that piece of land in Nevada without conforming to the rules for its use.
As misguided as it is, the support Bundy is getting is symptomatic of the frustration many have toward an inefficient, bloated, bureaucracy that is controlling more and more aspects of our lives. And I've seen first hand that too many of those with power inside it are without honor, and serving the pubic, and honestly administering the rule of law, is usually sacrificed when it conflicts with serving their careerist ambitions.
Which is nothing near what he said. Ethel,you have a real problem of accurately representing what people say/mean.
Bundy's point, as inarticulate and non-PC as it may have been was - are people better off being enslaved by our welfare system, by dysfunctional families and by the gang/prison culture than by the plantation culture. A valid question and nothing racist about it.
And, by my count of the past 20 some years, only 7 of them have been under this administration. You can't give President Obama a hard time because this leech has given three Presidents of both parties the finger.
"Ethel,you have a real problem of accurately representing what people say/mean. "
You know what, I'm pretty comfortable with my representation of Bundy's suggestion. And I'm also comfortable with my representations of your repeated attempts at dodging your own words and your refusal to engage with any of the historical evidence I provided you. But I don't care to reengage that debate.
I said that Bundy made the "suggestion that blacks would be freer if we re-enslaved them and got them back to picking cotton." His exact words were that to wonder if they would be "better off as slaves, picking cotton" and he stated that "they got less freedom" now than they had as slaves. My paraphrase was accurate. I'm not misrepresenting him. His viewpoint is despicable.
"Bundy's point, as inarticulate and non-PC as it may have been was - are people better off being enslaved by our welfare system, by dysfunctional families and by the gang/prison culture than by the plantation culture. A valid question and nothing racist about it."
Bundy isn't inarticulate (another nice dodge there). In fact, he expressed what he thought perfectly well. His problem isn't that people are misinterpreting what he said, it's that they understand exactly what he's saying and what he's saying is reprehensible. There is nothing valid in suggesting that blacks might be better off under chattel slavery, and yes, that is racist. It's such a disgusting thing to suggest.
People receiving government assistance are not "slaves." They are not barred from voting, they are not forcibly torn apart from their families, they are not forbidden education or exercises of religion, they are not being beaten or whipped.
He is a kook, Perpetual Seasonal. And his comments, in making pejorative generalizations of race, or "the Negro," are, by definition, obviously racist, not too mention utterly nonsensical.
Perpet, I know fully well that racism, sexism, homophobia, and all the other prejudices are still around. Trying to hopscotch from Bundy's blatantly unapologetic racism to twist it to "Oh, and the NPS bad guys are this too" is flat assed ridiculous.
Rigging a hiring system in order to favor certain people because of their race is worse than anything Bundy has to say about race because he has absolutely zero power to inflict his racism on others. But the NPS is damaging many with their discriminatory practices.
And by the way as repugnant as Mr. Bundy's views might be what does that have to do with anything? His opinions should have nothing to do with how he is dealt with and whether or not he should be supported in his dispute with the government. He is wrong on the facts of the case and that is enough for me not to support him. Why does his nongermane personal opinions matter to others when it comes to making a judgment in a land dispute?
"Why does his nongermane personal opinions matter to others when it comes to making a judgment in a land dispute?"
I don't think it does, Perpetual. Has anyone who judged Bundy's claims of land use valid subsequently changed his or her mind based on his repugnant comments about African-Americans?
Well, if we've gone far enough afield of the topic - a scofflaw who tried to piggyback on the disaffected anti-government minority - to try to include your chronic complaint about your employment prospects, then I want to get in a complaint about how hard it is to my favorite types of black licorice.
Your historical evidence is Hamilton's plea for a national bank. Hamilton, whose ideas had been totally dismissed at the Constitutional Convention. Madison's ideas were accepted, were written in the Constitution and discussed broadly in the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers. In those papers the Anti-Federalist expressed fears that the Constitution would be interpreted too broadly and thus they were against it. The Federalist - i.e. those that wanted the Constitution, argued that wasn't the case. That argument was highlighted in Madison's Federalist 41 were he discussed the powers being limited to those enumerated. There is no "historical evidence" that I have seen or you have produced that indicates that those that wrote and voted for the Constitution thought any different.
As to the national bank - the Constitution provided in its enumerated powers "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
The argument was not whether the functions of a bank were outside the enumerated powers, the argument was over whether a bank was "necessary and proper" to perform those functions. Hamilton invented the concept of "Implied Powers". A concept no one had discussed while the constitution was being written and discussed. Even with "implied powers" and McCullough V Maryland the powers were to pass laws that enabled execution of the enumerated powers. Neither Hamilton nor McCullough V Maryland provided for Congress to make laws establishing authority outside those enumerated powers.
From the McCulloght V Maryland decision:
"Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."
And I would say that is worth pondering for the population as a whole.
As to Bundy being a racists, he may or may not be but there is nothing in his statements that is racist, prejudicial perhaps, but certainly not racist in the true sense of the word.
My simple point is that I would be more concerned about racial discrimination being carried out by a federal agency than by the rantings of a deranged old man.
And Rick B. It isn't just me complaining about dedicated highly qualified people being passed over in order in order to give jobs to less experienced, less qualified people because they are more likely to be from the favored demographic. Recently, several prominent US Park Rangers with law enforcement commissions, several of them Chief Rangers at their parks, have committed career suicide by delivered letters to congress expressing their objections to the discriminatory practices of the NPS exemplified by the pro ranger program. And the Fraternal Order of Police has called on the Inspector General of the Interior Dept. to investigate the program.
Meanwhile the self promotion society for careerists in the Park Service known as the ANPR sits on the sideline and says nothing about most controversial issue of greatest interest to the NPS workforce in years. Apparently they don't want to displease the Yosemite Mafia by opposing pro ranger and they don't want to alienate the workforce as a whole by openly supporting it.
"Hamilton, whose ideas had been totally dismissed at the Constitutional Convention."
TOTALLY dismissed?
Even a beginning high school debater should know that use of absolutisms is silly. You're trying to tell us that NO other delegates at the Constitutional Convention supported any of Hamilton's ideas? None? Nada? Zilch? Zero?
If that were the case, why was there so much argument in the convention at the time? How about showing us a record of the vote count that proves your exaggerated claim that NO OTHER DELEGATE VOTED IN FAVOR OF HAMILTON'S PROPOSALS?
But then, you'll probably try to tell us that's not what you said when you said totally . . . .
In other news today, the national weather map shows much of the country experiencing some good weather. Let's get out and enjoy it.
Jees, Perpetual, the "Yosemite Mafia" has been retired for years. What do they have to do with what ANPR does?
I think it is good that rangers have surfaced what seems to be a problem with a program that may not be producing the desired results. Whether it is the greatest issue in years--you and I both remember some others--remains to be seen. It certainly seems to be your greatest issue.
Rick
Yes
"At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton played little part in the writing of the Constitution itself, although he served on the committees that outlined convention rules and writing style. His proposal for the new government was modeled on the British system, which Hamilton considered the "best in the world."
Under Hamilton's system, senators and a national "governor" would be chosen by special electors, and would serve for life. Members of an assembly would be elected directly by citizens; each member would serve a three-year term. State governors would be chosen by the national governor.
Although his fellow delegates politely listened to Hamilton's proposal, it received endorsement from no one. But if the delegates rejected the extreme degree to which Hamilton's plan concentrated power at the federal level, they understood that giving more power to the central government was necessary for the nation's survival."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/hamiltonusconstituion.html
"received endorsement from no one" You can use absolutism when it is true.
"My simple point is that I would be more concerned about racial discrimination being carried out by a federal agency than by the rantings of a deranged old man."
Sure. But there's probably not an either/or here. One can be concerned about intersections of race and power at an institutional level, and still marvel at the spectacle of racism, backwardism, and sheer idiocy that is Bundy.
At this point looking for a little humor and the required bit of reality it'd be fun to see Bundy, Sharpton, the Ghost of Robert Byrd (KKK Era), Nancy Pelosi and Mel Brooks do a sit down on late night TV comedy parody. Probably all come out in a group hug having touched on just how ridiculous their public selves are at this point. Bundy's slipping into the rest of the mentioned mode, sadly.
Yep, how bout a little humor and a touch of reality:).
Rick, the original group is all retired but the type still exists and even the the retired ones still hold a lot of influence.
Hmm, surprise, surprise. Those that wanted to immediately pull out the racist card once again seem to have left out important parts of the story.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/unedited-tape-bundy-emerges-sheds-light-...
How can any federal agency think the "First Amendment zones" concept is legal?
Thanks ecbuck, I read the entire transcript before and just could not jump on the racism bandwagon. As usual the biased liberal media always cherry picks and distorts. They were dying to vilify Bundy.
Okay, I agree the liberals are still proliferating racism, so I stand corrected. But despite liberals trying to keep racism alive, I believe we have made progress.
Surprise, surprise, surprise, right wingers continue to apologize for a right wing racist.
Here's the latest from Bundy: '"I took this boot off so I wouldn’t put my foot in my mouth with the boot on," Bundy said. "Let me see if I can say something. Maybe I sinned, and maybe I need to ask forgiveness, and maybe I don't know what I actually said, but when you talk about prejudice, we're talking about not being able to exercise what we think.
“If I say 'Negro' or 'black boy' or 'slave,' if those people cannot take those kind of words and not be [offended], then Martin Luther King hasn't got his job done yet," he added. "We need to get over this prejudice stuff."'
His words. It is the fault of those people for being offended. MLK shouldn't have allowed himself to be assassinated before his work was done. Sheesh. Ec, you're digging yourself into a deeper hole where no amount of right wing website links will give you any credibility.
Sounds pretty prescient and not a bit racist to me.
That was my point. He doesn't sound racist to you.
I would be interested to know exactly what part of his words you find racist. The fact he won't conform to your value judgements?
ethelred -
Appreciate your input, and the civil manner in which it's offered. You summed up some of the key issues in the current debate with this statement: "...pointing sniper rifles at BLM agents and obstructing law enforcement agents from carrying out their duties is not a valid exercise of free speech. Protestors have (or should have) the right to protest government action. Militia members do not have the right to threaten law enforcement or obstruct the execution of court orders."
Some seem to conveniently forget that the same 1st amendment which deals with freedom of speech also refers to the "right of the people peaceably to assemble."
"I would be interested to know exactly what part of his words you find racist."
The whole thing.
"I don't think I'm wrong," he also told CNN's Bill Weir on Thursday night. "I think I'm right."
and that is saddest of all.
If I said, "Whites beat their kids, abuse their wives, and can't do an honest day's work," would you find that racist?
"If I said, "Whites beat their kids, abuse their wives, and can't do an honest day's work," would you find that racist?"
Nope And of course Bundy didn't say anything like that.
OK, folks, we've beaten this topic into the ground. Time has come to shut it down and move on.
Pages