Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy by John Hinderaker

[mystery-ak]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/why-you-should-be-sympathetic-toward-cliven-bundy.php

 Posted on April 14, 2014 by John Hinderaker in Federalism, Harry Reid, Obama Administration Scandals
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy

On Saturday, I wrote about the standoff at Bundy Ranch. That post drew a remarkable amount of traffic, even though, as I wrote then, I had not quite decided what to make of the story. Since then, I have continued to study the facts and have drawn some conclusions. Here they are.

First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument.

That being the case, why does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.

Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one. When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that?



continued

[Oceander]

Bundy has also started grazing his cattle on land to which he never had a permit in the first place, which makes him a trespasser in an uncomplicated way.

I don't disagree that Bundy deserves our sympathy, he finds himself in a tough situation where he will have to give up the way of life he's used to and adapt to changing circumstances, and this will require that he stop using the federal lands he's always grazed his cattle on.  But sympathy shouldn't blind us to the fact that he doesn't have the right to use the federal land he's grazing his cattle on and that it's only reasonable for the owner of those lands - the federal government here - to seek to remove him.

We can all have sympathy for someone who loses his or her house to foreclosure because they can't afford  the mortgage any longer, but it would be wrong for us to put a stop to all foreclosures so that the owners can continue to stay there without even paying as much as they can afford to pay to the bank.  That was what Obama's administration has done with the various mortgage modification programs it put into place, and I don't think anyone here thinks those programs were a good idea.  I don't see any real difference between someone like that and Bundy.