BHA Responds to Mistrial Declaration in Bundy Case

Ammon Bundy
BHA Responds to Mistrial Declaration in Bundy Case

MISSOULA, Mont. -( Backcountry Hunters & Anglers stated that “justice must be served” in the conspiracy case against scofflaw rancher Cliven Bundy, his sons and a supporter following a federal judge’s declaration of a mistrial in the case this morning.

BHA President and CEO Land Tawney issued the following statement:

“Cliven Bundy and his followers are lawbreakers who continue to disrespect our government, our public lands and waters, and the citizens who own them. Today’s decision fails to change this fact: The Bundys and their comrades employed violence and lawlessness in an effort to steal from the American people. We as a nation cannot tolerate such actions, and these individuals must face the consequences. We anticipate a new trial being pursued against the Bundys and their accomplices. Justice must be served.”

Tawney continued:

“Worth remembering at this crucial moment is that that's America’s public lands – including national wildlife refuges, Forest Service lands and BLM lands – belong to all of us. We, their rightful owners, must stand up on behalf of our shared heritage and the outdoor opportunities they represent. To do otherwise is to neglect our patriotic duty.”

Ammon and Ryan Bundy led a group of anti-government extremists in a 40-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in early 2016. BHA members traveled to the refuge to witness the occupation and speak up on behalf of public lands and public landowners.

What would Theodore Roosevelt do?

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the sportsmen’s voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

Backcountry Hunters and AnglersAbout Backcountry Hunters & Anglers:

Our freedom to hunt and fish depends on habitat. While many of us enjoy hunting and fishing on a range of landscapes, including farm fields and reservoirs, there is something special – even magical – about hunting deep in the backcountry or fishing on a remote river.

Wilderness hunting and fishing deliver a sense of freedom, challenge and solitude that is increasingly trampled by the twin pressures of growing population and increasing technology. Many treasured fish and wildlife species – such as cutthroat trout, grizzly bear and bighorn sheep – thrive in wilderness. Others, like elk and mule deer, benefit from wilderness. From the Steens Mountain Wilderness in Oregon to the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho and the Boundary Waters of Minnesota, BHA members treasure America's wilderness system and strive to add to it.

We take the advice of Theodore Roosevelt: “Preserve large tracts of wilderness … for the exercise of the skill of the hunter, whether or not he is a man of means.”

  • 112 thoughts on “BHA Responds to Mistrial Declaration in Bundy Case

    1. BHA can rot in hell if this is their stance. The Bundy’s are good people who have been railroaded by an out of control government.

      1. @Vincent

        Actually, they came to deserve that long before “This stance” from other numerous actions they have pulled over the years. Spread the word, help drive a stake through the blood suckers known as BHA. End the farce.

    2. Hey…enough already. I disagree with BLM’s BS as many of you do, and there are many opinions stated here, both accurate and inaccurate, but which is which? Even BLM doesn’t know. Courts will decide eventually, but it’s decision will probably be suspect and controversial.

      1. @Charlie, I, too, disagree with the BLM’s heavy handed, disgraceful, police state tactics. I wish the Bundy’s every success in their criminal cases. But the S.Ct, as early as 1838, has already spoken on the issue of wether the federal government can own land beyond the Dist of Col. and forts. If the enclave clause controlled the issue of federal land ownership rather than the Territory Clause, Yellowstone National Park would be called Yellowstone National Fort. The Los Angeles National Forrest would be named the Los Angeles National Fort. All federal land not appropriated to states or others would have a name ending in Fort so as to fit within the enclave clause.
        The territory clause controls federal land ownership. Gratiot explains it. Not my opinion. Not my wish, want, or aspiration. Just well settled law.

        1. For all others, See comments directly below addressing this issue, as the Territory Clause and Gratiot are being misused to violate multiple sections of the Constitution currently.

          Please Remember, Judicial activism is not an excuse. It is not settled law when it violates the constitution.

    3. Bha stay the FlOCK out of Oregon! We already have enough people from other places trying to tell us how to run our state and use our lands!

    4. Mr Tawney is evidently not familiar with the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) or the Enabling Acts by which states were admitted to the union of the United States of America. Mr Tawney has some more research to do.

      Why is our country called the “United” States of America? It’s because each of the 50 states is a sovereign state and they are unified for the purpose of a national government. But in forming that union, they did not give up their sovereignty. In accordance with the Enabling Acts admitting successive states to the union, the federal government was supposed to turn over the public lands to the new state. Thus the public lands rightfully belong to the respective states.

      1. @BG, Article IV, section 3, clause 2, the Territories Clause and Case No. 15,249. UNITED STATES V. GRATIOT ET AL. [1 McLean, 454.]. June Term, 1839 are controlling. The federal government has the power and authority to own land other than the Dist of Columbia and forts ect. Sorry.

        1. Take another read of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, which explains that the land must be purchased with the approval of the respective state legislature. Also be sure to consult the State of Nevada enabling act, by which public lands go to the state. Keep in mind that Nevada has not been a territory since 1864. All this makes your court case unconstitutional.

          1. @BG, No one ever questioned the Federal Government’s authority to own land until 1838. No one has reasonably questioned the Fed. Gov’s Authority to own land since. Gratiot is based upon a different section of the Constitution. It is controlling and has not been challenged.

            As a practical matter, how could the federal government buy land from a state, before it was a state? For example: How could the federal government buy land from any of the states that were made from the Louisiana purchase, when none of those state existed? Under your theory, the Congress would have left the many states as territories of the U.S. just so the Federal Government could own the land.

            1. Been Absent due to an illness, and family issues, so this is my first post in I believe three months. Suffice to say, I think you are wrong on this one Wild Bill. Does the Government have the right to own land? Yes, absolutely as locations such as naval bases, post offices, mints, and national monuments fall within Constitutional Charter. However, there is a major difference between what is called for in the constitution and the current practice of obtaining vast amounts of land for “public use.”

              What Bill Goodie was referencing is commonly called the “Enclave clause.” It bears pointing out that the intent of this passage seems to have been the ability of a state to grant consensual permission to maintain authority over lands within state borders once a state is formed(Such as military forts and so forth). Indeed, you will find no clause within the constitution itself granting the Federal Government authority to Purchase or acquire lands within state boundaries to retain for “Public Use.” The closest you will come is the 5th amendment clause stating just compensation is required for private land being taken for public use, but that is strictly in regards to situations such as having no alternative for another solution. Example, your home is right in the opening to a canyon pass with vertical walls two thousand feet high. A road cannot be built up over those walls so it must pass through. Now, In addition to the laws concerning statehood, the federal government has a duty(legal word meaning obligation/requirement) to disperse or dispose of lands held by the government. It cannot be given just to the state as a whole, but is opened up for the residents within that state. Agriculture(See also grazing), resource production, housing.. This is what prompted much of the homesteading common throughout our early history, not because our nation was seeking to encourage expansion, but rather because they were required to constitutionally.

              Now, I know why you feel the way you do. Our first debate between ourselves was over this very issue, and not surprisingly started by the idiots of BHA(may they burn in hell), and their attempts and pushing a left wing socialist view under the guise of fooling the gullible with a cry of “Protect your hunting lands”.

              I know you Bill, so I am going to be very honest, and very blunt with you. You can’t pick and choose parts of the constitution based on what you feel is necessary or important to your opinions. For everything else that you have been right on when it comes to the constitution, whether historically or factually, when you turn around and violate it because you want to believe that the BHA is actually worried about you being able to hunt out west kinda maybe sorta if you get permission, or draw a special tag, or pay for the privellage…….. What you are doing is throwing every single ounce of Credibility and integrity you have away. YOU ARE SELLING OUT.. You may not believe it. You may not agree with it. And you can stand there and say you wont accept it. And you are right, you don’t have to. But it does not change the fact that you are wrong on this, on every single facet possible.

              You once tried to tell me that because I did not accept your view, I needed “Special Government Training to understand a properly approved of view of the Constitution”….. I’m asking you now as a friend, it is time to choose. Do you Support the constitution, even if it runs contrary to your opinions, or are you going to live a Californian lifestyle? You can’t have it both ways and say “But the courts have said…” BS!! You and I both know the courts have overstepped their bounds and done everything they could to trample on our Constitution and our God given rights! The time to decide which side you are on is now, because if you continue to support the communist Nanny State land ownership view, then you no longer have any right or authority to complain about violations of rights to self defense, firearms ownership, due process, or any other right enumerated or not.

              I cant force you to make the right choice. Whether or not you will be able to overcome yourself and do the right thing is entirely on you. That has been where idiots like Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Sanders have been able to win. By controlling selfish human ego that screams “ME!! MINE!! I WANT!!!” If you can’t choose to wake up, then from now on you will never be able to be trusted again. The respect you have earned on every other subject is yours to seat firmly, or to toss into the cesspit alongside the likes of Antifa, PETA, and Michael Bloomberg. This is not the message I wanted to write on Christmas day, and it pains me to have to do so to someone I considered a colleague. I hope you will take some time, not only because of the holiday in question, but as we are heading into a new year that the constitution will once again be under a constant and belligerent attack.

            2. Obviously before the state is admitted to the union, the land belongs to the federal government. However, if you read the enabling acts of the respective states, you will find that the public lands were lawfully turned over to the states. Read the enabling acts, which admitted the states to the union.

            3. @The Rev, I am sorry to read that you were ill. Glad that you are back, and I hope that you had a Merry Christmas.

            4. @WB, The Louisiana Territory was not obtained from a state. Neither was Alaska. Thus there was no state legislature to consult.

              The federal government obtaining land from France & Russia is somewhat different than the feds obtaining land from Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Arizona, etc. Don’t try to confuse the two different relationships.

            5. @ Wild Bill

              Thank you, and much the same to you and your loved ones. Despite the content of my first post upon returning, I have been continuing to pray for the safety and well being of those here whom I consider friends. God Bless.

            6. @ Wild Bill,
              No section of the Constitution may over rule another and make defunct another section except through the Amendment process whereby the passage in question is altered or removed to permit said change. The one area where this may not be done is in regards to inalienable rights.

              The question at hand is not that the United states had power to purchase land outside the states. In fact, it is territorial land that was cited, being land acquired by the United States but not owned by or within a State. No one is debating the Constitutionality, at least that I am aware of, of the Federal Government to purchase and hold land existing outside the boundaries of a State within the United States of America.

              What is being rightly questioned is the illegal, unconstitutional practice of the federal government annexing land existing within the borders of states within this nation. They are two wholly separate issues, and as such Gratiot has zero relevance on this issue. The United States Currently holds somewhere in the area of fourteen to six or seventeen territories. If this had been something that happened there, then that case could be rationally argued. As it is not, Gratiot no longer applies to land residing within a formed and accepted State. Raising the Louisiana Purchase as an example is therefore a gratuitous non-sequitur.

          2. @Rev, I am not advocating a position here. I am merely bringing a section of the Constitution and the leading case to BG.I have done everything, but Shepardize it for him. He can believe anything that he wants. The federal government is not casting a greedy, furtive glance at my land. I have no standing to complaign. Nor will any debate here change any federal law.

            1. Gratiot is all about the federal government’s authority to own land in a state and what the Federal government has the authority do with the land that it owns inside a state. The Territory clause can not be ignored, either.
              The Louisiana purchase was included because it established the pattern of the federal government owning land prior to a state existing. Thus the Federal government does not need to purchase land from a state that does not exist. The federal government simply reserves, to itself, land unappropriated to the proposed state.

            2. @ Wild Bill
              Article 4 Section 3 States
              “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
              The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

              While you point to the second clause, the first also maintains state sovereignty over the Federal Government except in areas specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution in that State consent is required. The second clause does address TERRITORIES specifically, and also mentioned “Other Land”. The definition of which is encompassed within the constitution being Military Bases, Post Offices, Mints, Embassies….. At no point within that Clause does it grant the Federal Government the right or ability to dictate land use within the state that is not part of its constitutional charter. To do so would be a Violation of the 10th amendment.

              In addition to this, let us look at Gratiot. Have we acknowledged that the Federal Government has a right to own land within a state? Yes we have. So your second response is intentionally misleading. The problem resides in that The Constitution Dictates what land and for what purpose the Federal Government may hold. That is what is being ignored.

              The Territory Clause is also important, but as I stated it may not over rule any other part of the Constitution. It does not grant the Government Carte Blanche control within the borders of a state formed out of land that was held as a territory. Once a State is Formed, it has full right to the first clause of Article 4 Section 3 Requiring consent of the State. Lands may not be Annexed or withheld from the state outside of its control. Any Agreement made to the contrary is as such null and void as being constitutional.

              Now, what interesting points in Gratiot are there? First, there was a Lease agreement already signed, a contract. It was within the state of Illinois yes, but the plaintiffs were trying to back out of paying according to the contract. This is why I stated it is more appropriate for contract law.

              Next, We know that Courts get things wrong. We know that the Supreme Court has been in error since 1801, when it appropriated powers for itself not listed within the Constitution. With that in mind, I have a question for you to see if you would be honestly consistent.

              If The Supreme court would be to rule that the Federal Government can institute Gun Control and Confiscation, Would you support that authority?

            3. @Rev, People here, before you, have been stating with exacting certitude that the Federal government can not own land beyond the DC and forts. As if that were some kind of defense for the Bundy. I was just trying to bring what they were missing to the discussion. As to the Bundys lawyers, I hope that they do not pin their legal hopes to that theory. As to me, I hope that everybody believes what they want to.

            4. @ Wild Bill

              Ok, I’m going to say this clearly and say it once. Stop it Bill. This last comment of yours continuing to allude to “Only Forts and DC” is fictitious nonsense, as I have stated multiple times an acknowledgement of Territorial law, and other cases of land ownership for which the Constitution provides.

              That is the key, The Constitution dictates what the Federal Government may hold.. Not the Courts, Not Congress, Not whatever opinion you believe in. Attempting to change the subject or pretend as if I had said “Only Forts and DC” is not going to garner any support for your argument since it is flat out false.

              Now, I would like to know why you avoided answering my question.

              Yes, I’m aware it was a pretty dirty tactic. Put forth a question in which you could answer in the negative and publically showcase a hypocritical view. Answer in the Positive, and you effectively alienate yourself to 99% of the readership on ammoland as a full fledged traitor. Like I said before, I know why you are wanting to cling to this, but that underlying opinion is wrong and it is doing damage to the Constitution. So I am not going to let this go. Lets get back on point, answer my question or acknowledge what I have been pointing out to you. It’s your choice, it’s your reputation. I’m sorry to have to do it this way.

            5. @Rev, I don’t know what your question is. I only provided the controlling case, and controlling clause, used by the court, to answer the question “Whether the federal government can own land?” Gratiot explains it pretty well. Personally, I do not care one way or the other because the government is not after my land.

            6. @Wild Bill – Besides the Constitution being quite clear on what the government can own, the fact remains that the GOVERNMENT doesn’t actually OWN anything. The money used is from “We the People” and the ownership is “We the People”! The government only has a duty to MAINTAIN public property, build appropriate “infrastructure” (like forts, administrative, roads, etc.), and only appropriate what is necessary for that purpose. When the government appropriated the Louisiana territory and the western territory it did that (presumably) FOR THE PEOPLE (not for itself). Our present government is NOT the government that the founders envisioned, in fact it is the opposite. Our present government is a corporation (owned, by the way, by the British – look it up). Our “representatives have added amendments that are contrary to the original document, like the 16th, as well as MANY laws that are unconstitutional.

            7. @Wild Bill
              Since that is what you are claiming, here is the question once again.

              Q. If The Supreme court would be to rule that the Federal Government can institute Gun Control and Confiscation, Would you support that authority?

              Once again in your current post, you are deliberately trying to ignore that the point of the government holding land has been acknowledged. It happened, stop pretending it didn’t. And the reason that you are doing so is so asinine and obvious… Do you think others aren’t going to read your comment and NOT think that you are either clueless or stoned out of your gourd?

              The points dealing with Territorial ownership and Constitutional law regarding the formation of States has been talked about. The question is not “Whether the federal government can own land.” To keep repeating it as if it has not been addressed is a lie that would be worthy of Barrack Obama, so knock it off.

            8. @ Wild Bill

              Then you admit to blatant hypocrisy?

              That is what I have been trying to tell you. You can’t hold up one court case which ignores the constitution and “Interprets” things according to the opinion of a judge just because you are ok with that verdict, then turn around and condemn the court for doing the same thing against something you don’t want them to do. It’s two faced and indicative of a liberal progressive mindset.

              The Constitution plainly and in clear language spells out what land the United states government may hold. It may purchase land outside of state boundries as territories, it may request states to grant land or maintain hold of land for post offices and military bases, but IT MAY NOT AQUIRE WHOLESALE LAND RESIDING WITHIN THE BORDERS OF A STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF WITHOLDING THAT LAND UNDER THE FALSE CLAIM OF “PUBLIC GOOD”. You can shout “Gratiot! Gratiot! Gratiot!” all you want, but that does not over ride what the constitution says, and right now you are arguing against the constitution.

    5. Oldshooter is right. The Constitutional amendment process is the only legitimate process in these cases where the Government wants to over-reach (good or bad motives). The problem is the amendment process doesn’t work anymore. We’ve become too big and too divisive. We need to come up with a new process that preserves the careful balance of power of the original but will allow us to adapt the Constitution to the needs of today’s realities. Leaving things the way they are (fear of change?) dooms our greatest document to be a dusty, yellowed wall decoration. If we don’t do something to breath new life into it we will see it disintegrate into dust and irrelevance. Then we will be in real trouble. This would be, of course, a huge undertaking. With all the brilliant minds at our disposal today it would seem a do-able task and one that any patriot would be proud to tackle.

      1. The Old Process is the correct process Don, if only anyone would get around to enforcing it.

        That means rights are untouchable, even by constitutional amendment because they pre-date the constitution.

        That means 99% of federal Regulation is automatically thrown out as unconstitutional since it was never enacted by the legislature, and the legislature itself cannot grant its powers to any other body.

        All Federal Entitlements end immediately, except in case of the Military(Constitutionally that is the only entitlement that the American people agreed to in contract and we have been messing it up since day one. The states can set up whatever system they want but it must be paid for within state taxation.

        Tax dollars no longer are appropriated for “Redistribution” to the rest of the world, and our federal debt begins getting paid down immediately.

        I could go on and on. Our constitution has not changed, its just been thrown aside, illegally! To you, it may be some dusty outdated document, but it was written the way it was for a reason. The real issue is that for all the “Brilliant minds” you allude to, the majority of the populace is a dumbed down, complacent, selfish, cry baby generation that has chosen by and large to take what little brain cells they have and addle them with mind numbing drugs.

        So with that, I will leave you to ponder this little piece of wisdom.. Real Patriots don’t try to change what they love, they protect it. It does not matter what the times or the place may be, Liberty remains their focal point. There is a word for this type of belief. It’s called integrity. Anyone who claims to be a patriot and says otherwise is a liar and a traitor.

    6. This just in: VICTORY! Fed. Dist. Judge Gloria Navaro declares mistrial in Bundy case. Navarro’s decision apparently was a reflection on federal officials. It follows release of a memo by BLM investigator Larry Wooten that described “a widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff” in the BLM’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security.

      BLM Investigator Wooten wrote that he had seen “excessive force,” described officers grinding Bundy’s son Dave’s face in gravel and opined that federal officials were intent on commanding “the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic cattle impound possible.”

    7. So many good arguments on this subject! I am however slightly confused.
      Can somebody come up with a true timeline relating to the chain of custody of the Bundy property? Is or was it a land lease or was a more specific right granted and paid for?

      I ask this for several reasons.
      1) By what agreement did the Bundys have grazing rights on the land in question?
      2) when was the agreement executed?
      3) with whom was the agreement made?
      4) Was this agreement “grazing” specific or was it more broadly a property lease?
      5) What agency was originally responsible for parceling off the land? Was it county, state or federal?

      If the agreement is with the federal government; if the land was never ceded by the state to the federal government, then The federal government never was in legal possession of the property according to the US constitution. Did the Bundys only begin paying when the BLM was established or were payments made one time in the past for grazing rights? Land use rights can be transferred by sale or lease but only by agreement with the property owner.

      I haven’t done homework on this so please forgive any apparent ignorance. If any of the above regarding the federal government’s possession of this land are true, why hasn’t the state or several states filed suit? If they have, what is the status of ongoing litigation or what are any decisions previously rendered and by what courts?

      My heart is with the Bundys here and I pray for a positive outcome for them. However I’m not naive and understand this could take decades to rectify.

      1. @Mickt, Most of what you ask became moot when the Bundys stopped paying the fee for grazing rights. Nor was it ever a lease in the normal land lease sense, just grazing rights for a fee, which the Bundys stopped paying a number of years ago. Nor is it relevant how long the Bundy family grazed cattle on that land. So the Bundys are not entirely clean either.
        Having shared those facts, the BLM acted so foolishly and brutally that their own investigator admonished the BLM, and the US Attorneys office acted so unethically that the US District Court dismissed the case.
        No one has clean skirts in this case. And I think that there are other actors and actions that need to be investigated, too.

        1. Thank [email protected] Bill. I take it then the Bundys stopped paying out of protest of one thing or another. Stopping payment for property use, legitimate grievance not withstanding, is never a good idea! Also, thanks for the update above.

          1. Wild Bill is WRONG! The Bundys BOUGHT the grazing rights more than 100 years ago. Before there was a BLM, the US government sold the grazing rights, just as today farmers own tobacco allotments, or individuals or companies can also buy mineral rights. It is NOT a lease, and there are NO additional payments. Those rights can be sold to another rancher or the government can buy them back,

            1. @Rattler, ownership, lease or grazing rights seems to be an issue in dispute, but owning is the way to go. If the Bundys owned the grazing rights, then there would not be much of a court case.
              If the Bundys owned the grazing rights, they why were they paying grazing rights fees at all, much less the BLM or to Clark County, Nevada, as some have suggested?

            2. @Wild Bill. This information was released when the incident with the BLM happened. Cliven Bundy or his son gave a history of their farm and land use rights. They mentioned that they paid the fees to the State of Nevada for two reasons: 1) Because the State didn’t know what to do with the money and basically put it on account. 2) When the BLM first initiated these fees the Bundy’s knew that they were NOT responsible for paying these fees to the federal government and stood their ground to PROVOKE a legal battle they knew the government couldn’t win. This case went to court on at least two occasion (if memory serves me right) and both times the case was dismissed for some BS reason. Enclosed is the opening statement of Ryan Bundy at the trial and he briefly explains about the water and grazing rights. The Bundy’s figured that if the state held the money then they would get it back once they won, but if they lost then the state would have those funds to pay the government, kind of like having the money in escrow. If they had paid it to the government then a judge or lawyer could establish that since they were paying the fees the feds must be right. Understand?


              Here is the paragraph where he mentions the rights:
              “They say this issue is over grazing fees… it’s terrible, terrible, he must be a freeloader – it’s only rhetoric – I’ll tell you why – You don’t pay rent when you own your home! We own those rights! Not the land, I know we don’t own the land, but access…you and others have rights on that land. We own water and grazing rights. We don’t pay rent for something we own.”

          2. The Bundys did not stop paying their grazing fees. They paid them to Clark County, which has never cashed the check.

            Since the federal government is not the proper steward of the land and the State of Nevada is, the Bundys declined to pay the federal government. In any case, the BLM has not been managing public lands. They merely claim control of public lands. It’s the ranchers that do the management of the public lands being grazed. So the feds are not doing anything to earn the grazing fees.

        2. @WB, The Bundys did not stop paying grazing fees. The fees were paid to Clark County, which has declined to cash the check. Per the State of Nevada Enabling Act, the public lands within Nevada belong to the State of Nevada, not the federal government.

          Whether or not federal land ownership has been challenged in the past is irrelevant, as it will most certainly be challenged at some point after the current Bundy trial in Las Vegas. It was challenged in the Portland trial concerning the Malheur Refuge standoff, a trial in which the Bundys were found innocent.

          The Bundy Ranch predates the BLM by 69 years and by that dating the BLM has no lawful jurisdiction to charge grazing fees. The Bundys own their grazing rights by virtue of predating the BLM and you don’t pay rent on things that you own.

          So there are your challenges and more to come. I refer to the Constitution and Common Law, not case law, which often violates the Constitution and Common Law.

          You need to review the states’ enabling acts, under which lands within respective states was lawfully turned over to the respective states. Then if the federal government wanted land, it would then purchase that land, with the permission of the respective state legislature, and in accordance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, which you persist in ignoring. Article IV does not negate or void Article I.

          1. @BG, No, I read both pertinent sections of the Constitution. Article IV merely implies the standard powers of ownership that people, corporations, and governments were commonly understood to have at the time that the Constitution was written.
            Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, purchased the Louisiana Territory from France. Under the interpretation that you want to believe, Jefferson would not and could not have purchased the land from France.
            But when Jefferson did purchase the land, that territory belonged to the Federal government. Title transferred. There were no states in that territory for the land to belong to. Congress created the states, later. Congress created the boundaries of the states, and even today Congress could shrink the boundaries of a state to the size of a parking lot, if Congress so desired.
            Just as the Louisiana purchase created the Louisiana territory, from which the states were created, thus has it been for all the territories, and creation of states. The federal government owned it. Congress determines what to do with it and when. Congress reserving for federal government ownership, what ever land that it does not want to give up.

          2. @BG, the Ammoland is making it difficult to get back to answer you. This will not be in the correct place, but it does address your contention that “…states enabling acts, under which lands within the respective(sic) states was lawfully turned over to the respective (sic) states.”
            What you contend is not in the act enabling statehood for the prospective state of Nevada. The Congress did not require the federal government to turn over all land to the prospective state of Nevada. But rather at Section four paragraph third Congress required:

            “That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the
            United States;…”

            The government of the United States clearly reserved to itself the unappropriated land and still owns all of the unappropriated land in Nevada, and has a clear Constitutional power to own that land.
            Article IV, section 3, clause 2, the Territories Clause, takes us to Case No. 15,249. UNITED STATES V. GRATIOT ET AL., which takes us to Section four paragraph third of the act enabling the creation of the state of Nevada.

        3. The Bundy family had use of this land before Nevada was a state. The Federal Government just came in and started demanding that ranchers that had been using the land start paying them money for the use of this land. That would be like someone moving into your neighborhood and telling you that you had to pay them back taxes on your home. The true reason (it has been suggested) the BLM cracked down on them is that a son of Senator Harry Ried needed that land to make a multimillion deal with a Chinese Company to build a solar farm and for mineral rights. If it were not for that the status quo would not have changed.

          1. Robert, I like your sentiment, but the Bundys didn’t settle on their ranch until 1877. Nevada became a state 13 years earlier in 1864.

            You make a very good point. Ryan Bundy made that point in his opening statement to the jury in this current trial that has again been delayed.

    8. BHA is not speaking for the people of Oregon. To put in plain and simple they are nothing more then a leftest organization to stop the common people of America. If they stood by the people they would know that BLM is not suppose to own any land at all. But for a few individuals in congress they changed it to make themselves rich and to control the land. If you really think you own it you are really stupid. BLM should give back the land to the forest service and let them take care of it like they use to. Even the forest service must get permission to go onto BLM land duiring hunting season to inspect laogging operations. Thats pure crap.Hopefully Mr. Trump will change all of this.

    9. BHA is a worthless, elite bunch of tree huggers. The Bundy’s are ranchers that produce the food we eat, does that make them bad? We could be buying Chinese beef and dying of botulism or some other bad illness.
      I don’t see anything bad about the states controlling these lands and selling them or making a wildlife refuse out of them. Guess what, the federal government doesn’t pay any property taxes on any land they latch on to. All those acres could help the tax base of the state and county they are located in. Anyone that disagrees could give the feds their property.

    10. BHA should be truthful and call themselves, Big-moneyed Hunters and Anglers who want to keep the lands to themselves.
      The article confuses the Malheur Oregon event and murder with the peaceful patrol and protection of cattle against Federal cattle thieves in Nevada.

      1. the Malheur Oregon gathering was peaceful from the standpoint of the “occupiers” of that open, unlocked, public land and facility. Remember, it was ONLY FBI, Harney COUnty Sheriffs, armed BLM agents, and Oregon State Police who were the ONLY ONES who fired upon any humans. Had it not been for that illegal ambush and assassination of a harmless peaceful man, the Melheur event would have been less violent than Bunkerville…… leave it to government goon squads to initiate violence.

    11. Wow, bha is becoming more and more like the msm, They’re not even trying to hide their leftist bias. Oh, and Ed nice try pairing bha and RMEF.

    12. MOST of the people here have already spoken my points very clearly. The government “acquired” the land illegally, unconstitutionally, and thus has no authority over it. It “stole” the land. Even if we neglect the reasons land can be acquired by the federal government as written in the Constitution, they, the government, FAILED to follow the procedures, also written in the Constitution, to acquire the land legally! Specific reasons for federal land use and the procedures that must be followed to acquire state land are laid out in the Constitution and then further restricted to that and only that by the Tenth Amendment! Acquiring state land for federal use for any other reason and in any other manner is illegal!

    13. “America’s public lands belong to all of us.” No, actually, they don’t. The lands within the borders of a state belong to the people of that state, and the federal govt has, and has never had, any legal right to own such lands for any purpose other than military facilities, postal facilities, and roads used for military or postal communication. Far from being scofflaws, the Bundys are the only ones actually following the law in these cases. By “the law” I am referring to our US Constitution, which is quite clear on this issue, Teddy Roosevelt, be damned. The fact that he violated the Constitution for possibly good purposes, suggests that HE was the scofflaw, and his actions led to our government sliding right down that slippery slope. His National Park idea, probably a good one, required a constitutional amendment, and probably had enough popular support to get one. Absent such an amendment, the whole system is quite illegal, and was from its inception.

      1. US Constitution Section 8
        To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as
        may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the
        United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings
        This does not include Federal wilderness area, parks etc and REQUIRES consent of the State.

        1. And do I need to add that thousands =upon thousands of acres not “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings” does not meet the requirements of that section? Furthermore, note that only in the west does the federal government “own” upwards of 70% of every State, thus depriving the State of adequate revenue for education? This was due to the illegal sections of the Enabling Acts passed by Congress on the declaration of statehood of these States, and are a violation of State sovereignty superior to that of the federal government.

      2. @O, But see: Case No. 15,249. UNITED STATES V. GRATIOT ET AL. [1 McLean, 454.]. June Term, 1839.
        Mr. Forman, Dist Atty., for the United States.
Mr. Breese, for defendants.

        “It is insisted that this is a government of limited powers, and that unless specially given, no power can be exercised by it No one can dispute the position, that the powers of the federal government are limited, and that it can exercise none, as principal powers, which are not delegated to it. But it is impossible in a constitution to specify in detail, every power which, of necessity, must be exercised by every government Congress have power, by the constitution, to establish post’ offices and post roads, and under this delegation of power, the post office department, in its numberless details, is regulated, and severe punishments inflicted for a depredation upon the mail or a wilful obstruction of its conveyance. There is no express power authorizing congress to regulate the duties of post master, or the duties of the post master general; or to punish for stealing a letter from the mail; and yet no one has ever doubted, the power of the federal government to act on these subjects. It necessarily results from the exercise of the main power, to establish post offices and post roads. It would be in vain to establish, unless there be power to protect and sustain, that which is established. Hence there are powers of a secondary or dependent character, which result from a principal power, that may be exercised though not specifically given in the constitution…
        In the third section of the sixth article of the constitution it is declared “that congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property BELONGING to the United States; and nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.”
        If, under the constitution, congress have power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States, there would seem to be no ground to doubt, that they may authorize the public lands to be sold or leased as they may deem needful. “

        1. Furthermore, Mr. Higginbothem, and how right you are, but if that Official from the BHA and all his other friends wants to go hiking, hunting, fishing, birdwatching, or tree hugging on “THEIR” land, then they have thousands of acres to do so on the land of the ranchers who had their land stolen from them by the BLM and Harry Reid. Close to 60 other ranchers were run off by the same tactics employed against the Bundys. What a bunch of murderous thugs we have these days employed by the BLM, the FBI, the IRS, the CIA, the NSA, etc., etc., etc. These Cork Stuckers have totally forgotten who pays their friggin salaries, and who is the boss. Even your local librarian has a “better than you” attitude around them now-a-days. I think it’s getting near time where we need a tax strike to reign these bastiges in. Quit paying their salaries and before long they will change their tune. Less than 10% of taxpayers could bring them to their knees if they stopped paying taxes.

    14. BHA needs to recognize that those “federal lands” have no business being in federal hands. They are and rightfully should be State lands, and their possession by the feds is in direct violation of Article I Section 8 Clause 17: The land in possession of the feds was not ceded by the legislatures of the western States and are not for the “erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings”.

      1. @DLC, But see: Case No. 15,249. UNITED STATES V. GRATIOT ET AL. [1 McLean, 454.]. June Term, 1839.
        PUBLIC LANDS—STATE SOVEREIGNTY. In pertinent part above. That case says that the Federal Government can and does own land.

        1. Just to remind you, Nevada has not been a territory since 1864.

          Are you suggesting that Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is void?

        2. You don’t suspect a government stooge getting his check every month from said government won’t find some convolution to excuse ruling in favor of government?

          It is obvious that lawyers and by extension the judges they become have trouble understanding the simple wording of the Second Amendment. Any wording even remotely mentally challenging should be interpreted by a semanticist.

          Article: The Unabridged Second Amendment by J. Neil Schulman
          **If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
          That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

    15. Unless the BHA changes their stance on this I wouldn’t consider joining this organization. I love to camp, hunt, and fish and use public lands alot. Unbelievable that these government thugs had military operations with snipers ready to shoot down American citizens peacefully protesting this Big Brother land grab. These are the ones that should be on trial. Looks like the BHA is in cahoots with the scumbag BLM.

    16. What part of “public land” am I missing here? It’s owned by every legal citizen, not just by some family who pays almost nothing to use it. And haven’t paid even that. The owe a bill, pay it, if not, collect it. Just like any other debt.

      1. And you’re just plain STUPID! The Bundy’s have been ranching that land for several generations, long before there was a BLM; and have been good/great stewards of that land. And for your information, the grandfather or great-grandfather of Cliven Bundy bought the grazing rights to that land, much like someone buys the mineral rights. The government broke their contract when they initiated grazing fees and required the Bundy’s to pay when they already PAID FOR THOSE RIGHTS, and only lose those rights when they SELL THEM! The fees that the government was claiming the Bundys owed were BOGUS!
        Secondly, the Bundy’s do NOT have a lease so the property CAN be accessed by the public as long as the public adheres to whatever the state rules are, which may include contacting the Bundys for access through their gates.

      2. What you are missing is that the Bundys have the right to graze their cattle on public land just as you have the right to hike on the same public land. Sure public lands belong to legal citizens, of which the Bundys are, just as you presumably are.

        The Bundys did pay their grazing fees to Clark County, State of Nevada, but the county has not cased the check.

    17. Paul has the right of it, Dirty Harry and his son where making a deal with the Chinese to cover the desert with solar plants. They had to chase the land owners who leased the grazing rights off ,and used the BLM to do it.So ED and Casey who would be better to take care of the land a chinese corp or the land owners who have used the land for over a century. If they where as bad as you say they are how would they last as long as they have.

      1. The Bundys aren’t the landowners. They only own 160 acres. A solar farm is much more useful for the citizenry than feral cattle. The solar farm also wasn’t on the land the Bundys are trespassing on and is minuscule compared to the trespass area.

        1. Again, you’re just plain STUPID! The Bundy’s have been ranching that land for several generations, long before there was a BLM; and have been good/great stewards of that land. And for your information, the grandfather or great-grandfather of Cliven Bundy bought the grazing rights to that land, much like someone buys the mineral rights. The government broke their contract when they initiated grazing fees and required the Bundy’s to pay when they already PAID FOR THOSE RIGHTS, and only lose those rights when they SELL THEM! The fees that the government was claiming the Bundys owed were BOGUS!
          Secondly, the Bundy’s do NOT have a lease so the property CAN be accessed by the public as long as the public adheres to whatever the state rules are, which may include contacting the Bundys for access through their gates.

        2. Why don’t you volunteer your land for a chinese energy farm and all the ancillary construction and ecological devastation? BTW, yo won’t get a dime for your property but harry reid and his family will get much richer. Of course, energy prices will either skyrocket or require taxpayer subsidy to remain within the realm of sanity.

          1. Huapakechi, your comment is confusing, non-sequitur & irrelevant.

            If Harry or the Chinese need land for energy development, there is plenty of BLM land in Clark County that’s not being grazed, which could be used for solar panels or wind turbines. Harry & the Chinese don’t need the land on which Bundy cattle graze.

    18. BHA is wrong. On the wrong side, mis-informed or just another liberal left-wing front group. I live near the Bundys, this land is open northern Mohave Desert land. The cattle do not harm a darn thing, other than get in the way of a few dirtbikers and people 4-wheeling once in a while. BLM has never gone after us for tearing up the Desert! Besides, after one monsoon season the Desert looks just like it did the the day God made it. The Bundy’s put in the wells for the water, not the feds. The well also saved countless other wildlife from a horrible death. BLM has arrogantly chased us down, nearly causing traffic accidents to write speeding tickets, they quit that practice when our local judges threw out Every citation they wrote, citing they had no jurisdiction. They are an arrogant bunch of young punks from back east throwing their “federal” weight around. These are the guys that started harrassing Cliven and his family for a corrupt “harry reid” land deal. There was no crime here other than government over-reach and harrassment.

    19. I don’t see how letting a foreign government use US land instead of citizens is the right thing to do. Besides those Obama “wind farms” are already standing idle or being phased out. I would rather eat a stake than look at one of those ugly wind mills standing still.

    20. Let’s just get to the heart of this. If Harry Reid hadn’t made a deal with the Chinese for a land swap for a solar farm, none of this wold have happened. I believe that when the dust settles, we will find out that it wasn’t the Bundys who are the criminals, but the ex-Senator from NV and his abuse of his office that is the real culprit.

      And the criminal actions of the judge and prosecutor in the NV trials will come out (the mistrial decision shows that even the Harry Reid appointed judge can’t turn her back to the crimes of the prosecution forever – I think she is waking up to her own possible criminal prosecution if she allows the prosecutor to keep breaking the law with impunity)..

      And the BHA needs to look into the REAL facts before they spread egg all over their faces.

      1. Harry Reid Owns 93 Acres Next to Bundy Ranch. You can find the article on Truth and Action dot org.
        It also has parcel numbers and satellite images.

        1. @Mechanic….Wasn’t there something about URANIUM ONE, the company that Killery Klingon and others of our Traitorous Piliticians, sold 20% of our uranium to the Russians through, figuring in there somewhere ? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that some high ranking traitors were using the BLM as the sledgehammers that were kicking the ranchers off the land, so that the Uranium leases could be consolidated under one company, and then farmed out to other companies. And Russian companies were in line for 20% of it ? I think we should all focus on that angle for awhile and see what we can find out. Because that is “Our” uranium, not the property of the International Bankster Gangsters and their Network of Global Corporate Control, with their bought and paid for high ranking TRAITORS who need their necks stretched after a proper tar & feathering after being found guilty of TREASON. (Sh*t, its no wonder they are trying so hard to get you all disarmed. They don’t want any back talk as they get you in position for a old fashioned butt fu….oh never mind, you know what I mean).

    21. I have read the comments above, Rangers or they call themselves rangers, are NOTHING MORE THAN FREE LOADERS ! They have No land ! Or very , very little . They have been useing The United States Of America’s Plublic land, by the form of a lease . And let it be know. They (these and all land Leasees think they own the land . Especially after they have leased Land allotments for several decades they think that they know best how to take care of the public lands. However,
      They are stupid. The government, has hired some of the best scientists
      In the world to care for these lands . This is what the Rangers are fighting. THINK ABOUT IT. If you owned a business, and I hired the best people to help you , and paid for the land improvements, like water for your cows , pens for you cows , etc. all free , HOW CAN YOU AS THE LEASEE OF THE LAND SAY YOU OWN IT , AFTER YEARS OF PAYING PENNIES FOR leasing the land . it amounts to raping the land by your cows. Mine and your government has come in to tell you to stop destroying the public lands you need to do this . and you fight them ? you’re stupid Ragers you don’t make enough money or have enough brains to even make a dent in the world . The laws and rights of all Americans to, play , hunt, and enjoy, these lands as part of what is America . GO BACK AND HEAR WHAT THESE RANGERS ARE SAYING, they say you as an Americas you do not deserve these lands! They do because they’ve least them so long . Oh and by the way. If they did not have the welfare of the government helping them with the land, …cheap leases and land improvement for cows. They would be OUT OF BUSINESS. RANGERS = Federal welfare .

      1. The only truth in you whole rant is that idiots like you should have been aborted! Federal lands are a theft by government under the CONSTITUTION! There are very minimal lands that the government is allowed to own, and ONLY what is needed to perform their actual duties. States can set aside land for the public, BUT when they severely limit access to the very public that it is set aside for then it is WRONG! Leasing large expanses of “public” property is a way to provide revenue to help pay for improvements, just as hunting permits do. Most of these public lands have minimal lease fees because the land itself is pretty “useless” for anything else, even wildlife in most cases. Usually wildlife multiply because of improvements, like drinking water locations and irrigation.
        And your idiotic claim about “The government, has hired some of the best scientists In the world to care for these lands” can’t be further from the truth. As we have seen with ALL government agencies – FDA, USDA, EPA, BLM, etc.- the government hires people that will do the government’s bidding. It is a proven fact that the Bundy’s improvements actually helped the proliferation of the Desert Tortoise in the area, but the BLM alone destroyed a large number of the tortoises because they needed to maintain the endangered species lie to maintain tight control on these lands.
        You’re just another misinformed or just stupid fool!

        1. Bingo, you have it right our Constitution is pretty specific on what the Federal Government is allowed to own and for what purpose. Organizations like BHA who champion Progressive Teddy Roosevelt are cheerleaders for a massive central Government, in a word Totalitarian. They perpetuate the myth of Federal Lands…those lands were stolen from the States. The only question here is, the Constitution. BLM, NFS, Department of the Interior all do not exist Constitutionally.

          1. That rings very true. It would have been very easy (maybe) for the Federal Government to amend the section and article in the Constitution pertaining to land ownership by them. An amendment under the authority of Article V, as an addendum, to the Government’s existing authority to own more land for purposes other than enumerated would be Constitutional. It’s unlikely that such an Amendment would have passed muster under the provisions of Article V. Do you think the people in the State of Nevada would knowingly and willingly cede or give up 80% of the land within the State to the Federal Government for nothing or just to gain statehood? Or all of the other western States where the Feds allegedly own half or more of the land. I think Teddy’s idea of National Parks was a good idea, but it was not pursued in a lawful manner according to the U.S. Constitutional – that authority did not and does not exist.

        2. @Rattler, Michael is just jealous. But what is he jealous of? Ranchers and their whole families work their work their butts off to provide food for the nation. Yet they live a life of poverty, barely making ends meet. Without family ranches, beef would be $99 @ #. A McDonalds burger would be $25.
          Family ranches also produce self sufficient children, and patriots for our military. Ranchers are people that do all the dirty work that michael and his liberal know-it-all friends would not get their hands dirty doing. So where is the welfare?

          1. Wild Bill, you just listed the reasons these technocrats are going after family ranches and farms. Self sufficient people who can think for themselves are a danger to the globalist agenda.

      2. Are those the “best scientists” that also push the lie of “global climate change”? Rattlerjake is quite correct in that per the U.S. Constitution, the federal government is ONLY allowed to own land for military bases and government functions (like the federal government buildings in DC and federal courthouses around the country).

        1. @ atort, Please see: Case No. 15,249. UNITED STATES V. GRATIOT ET AL. [1 McLean, 454.]. June Term, 1839. “… In the third section of the sixth article of the constitution it is declared “that congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property BELONGING to the United States…”

          1. ***The government, has hired some of the best scientists In the world to care for these lands .***
            Those same “scientists” that have managed kaleforneeya’s wild lands?
            Those same “scientists” that have been perpetuating the global warming fraud?
            BTW, these are RANCHERS not rangers. If you’re not some vegan with koolade in your veins, they put the meat on your table.

      3. And this guy talks about welfare? You’d better get some real info on welfare. We all know who abuses welfare. If I were you, I’d also stop eating steak!

      4. Ih and by the way, you’re just plain STUPID! The Bundy’s have been ranching that land for several generations, long before there was a BLM; and have been good/great stewards of that land. And for your information, the grandfather or great-grandfather of Cliven Bundy bought the grazing rights to that land, much like someone buys the mineral rights. The government broke their contract when they initiated grazing fees and required the Bundy’s to pay when they already PAID FOR THOSE RIGHTS, and only lose those rights when they SELL THEM! The fees that the government was claiming the Bundys owed were BOGUS!
        Secondly, the Bundy’s do NOT have a lease so the property CAN be accessed by the public as long as the public adheres to whatever the state rules are, which may include contacting the Bundys for access through their gates.

      5. hey, warn’t it them thar Rangers yer a hollerin about what kilt a cuple hunnert o them TURTLES they say are “endangered”, ones they had captive at wunna their facilities? An warn;t it them RAYNJURS done drove they big trucks an tracters all over the Bundy’s land, diggin huge holes ta burry alla them cattle they kilt, just SHOT em fer nuthin, and warn’t it them RANJURS who hired them souldjers for snipers up in the hills to keep a clear bead on all a them fokes a visitin’ the Bundys? And warn’t it them RAINJERS tore out miles a fencin’, covered in waterin holes, dug them up some DITHES across the roads out thar so NO ONE could git ta whar they needed ta git? An Warn’t it them RAYNJURS who done lit a bunch a FAHRS out thar in Harney Cointy Oregun tryin ta burn out the Hammonds and other hard workin fokes, an when Harney Mister and Son lit them a backburn ta keep thet fahr frum a burnin they HOWSE down, they got the law aftern ’em and put em in prison for ARSON, whut they never done cuz ARSON means ya burnt a buildin, but ‘twar the RAINGERS dun burned down some bildins, whar th’ nayburs uv the Hammonds used ta live till BLM Raynjers burnt down their house……. an warn’t it more a them BLM Rayngers dun tuk a river an turned it out’n its own course, floodin a whole passel a land, some of it owned outright by the ranchers, drivin THEM clean out….. then themsayme RANGERS come back and jes’ TUK UP their land whar the new lake was now th’ owners wuz flooded out…. then turnd that river back agin and dried up the land they’d flooded……..

        Yeah, right.. them RANGERS are the bees knees….. corrupt, dishonest, violent, mean, thievin, bullies, and mebbe they KNOW what’s best for the lands they “manage” but that ain’t what they’re a doin’…… nope, they’re all about gettin MORE and MORE lands under their RANGER boots.

        But funny thing you leave out.. ALL public lands owned/controlled by FedGov before all of those new states were formed out west by law became part of the state in which they were situate…….. yes, even the Malheur Wildlife Refuge lands, ALL of the lands the Bundys used to lease, only soe of which have been rightly surrendered to Nevada (and to whom the Bundys paid their land use fees….. as rightful owners.. read the Nevada State Constitutio)

      6. You call us ranchers “stupid”! We have been managing our lands for decades, we have an interest in keeping our land safe, clean, and profitable. We know how to grow, we know how to manage, we know how to keep our cherished animals, crops, and land healthy. This knowledge has been passed on for MANY generations. We would not live here if we could not manage the BEST way possible. We would be out of business and living in a small apartment in a big city (just like you) if this were not the case. We use the best technology now available to us to maximize the care and health of our land, animals, and crops.

        You, for some reason beleive that some bureaucrats in D.C. and their multitudes of ARMED officers, who come here to harass us know better! They are not scientists, they are not ranchers, they are not farmers that feed our Nation. They are intruders that come to regulate and collect money for work they have not done. If ANYONE in the United States is making money, the Government wants a huge piece of it. When the Feds get a huge piece of it, the industry slows down, and then they regulate it. Then when the industry stops making money and begins to fail because of their Government regulations, the government subsidises it with your tax money. So who are the “stupid” ones? People like you are writing and posting about things you know nothing about. All Governments are a necessary evil, but we have the Constitution to keep the evil in check. Hopefully the Constitution and freedom will prevail in this case. Let the Bundy’s be judged innocent, and let the BLM know that “We The People” will no longer tolerate despotism.

        1. @seanJames and everyone else reading this….it seems to me that certain government agents and certain government agencies have been acting in terrorristic ways against We The People, rhrowing their weight around, and generally acting as enemies of the aforementioned We The People. And I think it’s high time that these criminals who have been acting under the color of law are held accountable. It is becoming increasingly clear that these criminals need to be charged in a court of law and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If and when they are found guilty in these courts of law, (that need a good enema to get rid of the crooked judges and lawyers), then these miscreants need to be publicly punished on national and international TV and made an example of, so that they and their ilk will know that We The People are totally fed up with their evil shenanigans and that there will be consequences to pay. We need this Bundy business and the Finicum murder fully investigated, because it seems to me that the rabbit hole goes very deep and branches off in many directions. Some of those directions seem to point to TREASON, murder, theft, conspiracy, grevious bodily harm, and the list could go on and on. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing rich elitists and their hired gov thugs get away with all sorts of crime, simply because they are rich elitists. We The People need some public hangings of some convicted criminals.

    22. Unfortunately, or fortunately, BHA shows its true stripes when it supports government overreach in states which the federal government controls the majority of the state’s land and restricts its use to the favored few. This was evidenced by the hue and cry they raised recently when the Trump administration took action to set aright and reduce some of the more recent and outlandish government land grabs. The BHA response was full-throated baying of the talking points espoused by the MSM and leftist, statist organizations that hold ONLY the government knows how to manage wildlands, without input from local authorities and citizens.

      Given their little-known status and regular talking points, the BHA is either an astro-turf organization or poorly organized…or both. Whichever, I smell Soros’ or Bloomberg’s or some similar stench in their presence and actions.

    23. I am not familiar with the BHA beyond their statements posted at Ammoland. Going by those posts, they look a lot like an astroturf organization to me.

      1. BHA is anti-gun, anti-hunter, anti-people using PUBLIC lands. Google where their money comes from and where their execs used to work.

        1. I figured it would be something like that, which is why I never took the time to research them. The Leftists have used this tactic so many times that it is easy to recognize at a glance now.

    24. It is a sad day when an organization like BHA isn’t capable of distinguishing between moral protest and government criminality. These sycophants who have leeched onto the MSM mantra need a lesson in freedom starting with the criminal acts the BLM has committed against honest land owners for the last 100 years. Neglecting or refusing that lesson they need to just sit quietly and shut-up.

      1. WOW! You sound like one of those righteous nut cases that believes leased public land belongs to the lease holder. I have been illegally chased off public land in several states and even fired upon by some of those who have held large tracts of land for generations. Many of those areas have been overstocked and overgrazed by greedy ranchers who are not good stewards of public land. The Bundy bunch need to go to jail.

        1. @Casey, Leaseholders have the right exclude uninvited persons. Sounds like you were in the legal category of Trespasser. Did you expect someone to come all that way to explain to you when the noise from a shot placed safely in the ground would do? I am pretty sure that if someone out on the range had “fired upon” you. Then they would have fired more, and you would be just another unsolved missing persons case.

        2. The lease on the property, regardless of lessor, grants all rights and privileges to that property to the lessee. This effectively renders the property “private” through the end of the lease’s term. When you lease something, anything, that is precisely what you pay for, regardless of level of remuneration. You are in a very real way, trespassing on leased property if there without the lessee’s permission.

        3. yu been swallowing the Kool Ade, alright.

          In nearly every case, ranchers prove themselves better stewards of rthe land than government agents. Wherever lands out in that part of Nevada arre used by ranchers, whether owned outright, subject to patent grazing rights owned for generations, of leased from government at various levels, the lands under use by the ranchers ALWAYS are in better condition than the ones restricted as to access by anyone. Stockmen assure adequate water and access, proper wildlife and plant management.. remembe,r the Bundys and Hammonds and others like them have bennusing those lands for a hundred, a hundred fifty years, and they can now sustain MORE cattle production than they could before they began to be used for thispurpose. Theybtake care of rhe land like it is their own… they are carefully looking to that land’s best condition, because thjeir great grandchildren will be dependent upon the land’s being fertile and prosperous. NO ONE treats leased land as if it were trash, else where would their cattle graze next year, or in five years? These people care for the land like they do their own… the plots on which their homes and shops and supplies and equipment are kept. Their surrounding leased lands are in at least as good conditioin ass their own lands, owned outright.

    25. Without groups like BHA, RMEF and others this land would be sold off to the highest bidder. You can call this “collectivism” or whatever you like but the fact remains, without protecting the public lands we will loose them. Here in Texas we have a great example of it…..roughly 4% of the land remains in public hands so we have so little access to wild places. I see that many have been whipped into a frenzy to believe that the and will be better taken care of in state’s hands but history shows that’s just not true. I agree that the federal government is horrible at almost every thing they do, but this is one area they have gotten [mostly] right.

      I guess at the end of the day you have to decide between the feds overseeing and protecting the land or letting the states sell it to the big money players and we all loose access forever. Your choice…………….

      1. Ed you are spot on. I lived in Iowa for 30 years and had little to no access to public hunting there and what land I did have access to was sterile to most game species. It’s frustrating when you can afford to by land where even land deemed for recreational use is going between $5k and $10k an acre. In the areas I’ve hunted in northern Wisconsin we have access the thousands of acres of national forest that we can have a quality hunt on.

      2. No9, they didn’t get it right. If it is not pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, it is the action of a rogue occupation government seeking to make the western States subservient to federal demands, when in fact it is the federal government that is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign States that created it, own it, and told it what to do and what it may not do in the U.S. Constitution compact between the sovereign States. And BTW, what it MAY NOT DO is absolutely everything it is not delegated the lawful authority to do from the sovereignty of the States.

      3. states will do with their lands whatever the citiens of that state tell their lawmekers to do. Some will be sold and worked for profit, to increase the tax base and prosperity of that state. Some will be held by the states, to be leased or worked as best suited. Some will be reserved for public use. I live in a state that has set aside a LOT of public land, and, while they do control access to some extent, it is generally accessible. FedGov “owns” and/or controls about 55% of this state…. and it has been FedGov putting the squeeze on profitable uses, shutting down long standing operations that were not ony profitable for the businesses, paid HUGE amounts of wages to they who worked the lands, generated taxes, and were good stewards of that land, maintaining it into perpetutity. and contributed greatly to the overall prosperity of the state and region. But FedGov decided to shut much of that down…. killing businesses, creating ghost towns and poverty zones, mismanaging the lands in ways that have set the stage for massive fires that have destroyed much of that land….

        No, FedGof have proven themselves incompetent in nearly every measure.

    Leave a Comment 112 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *