By DR. LARRY MOSES
No one asked me but… There has been a great deal of discussion about rancher Cliven Bundy and his cattle. Some people support Cliven; others support the stand the federal government, egged on by environmentalists, has taken.
This caused me to turn to the Nevada Revised Statutes to see what laws Mr. Bundy has violated, if any. Why turn to state law to deal with the federal government on federal land? Because in the 1930’s, the federal government turned over to the various western states the responsibility of “protecting, improving, and developing public lands fit for grazing of livestock” within their borders.
The state of Nevada, which was dominated by ranchers and miners in the 1930’s, took that responsibility to heart and this effort resulted in the state passing The Taylor Grazing Act in 1934. This act is codified in NRS 568, and is in effect today.
According to NRS 568.010, it is “An act to stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range…”
I am not an attorney, and I do not play one on television, but I read NRS. 568 which includes 568.355 which defines the term “open range” as “all unenclosed land outside of cities and towns upon which cattle, sheep or other domestic animals by custom, license, lease or permit are grazed or permitted to roam”.
I am not about to tell you how these statutes should be interpreted. However, it seems that if one is to debate the issue, one should take the time to read the law. Apparently, the law can be read in more ways than one. Mr. Bundy and the federal judges certainly see it differently.
NRS 568.230 states: … “It is unlawful … (to) restrict or interfere with the customary use of the land for grazing livestock by any person who, by himself or herself or the person’s grantors or predecessors, has become established, either exclusively or in common with others, in the grazing use of the land by operation of law or under and in accordance with the customs of the graziers of the region involved.”
That brings into question what does customary mean under the law? NRS 568.240 states: “Customary or established use… to include the continuous, open, notorious, peaceable and public use of such range seasonally for a period of 5 years or longer immediately before March 30, 1931, by the person or the person’s grantors or predecessors in interest, …Any change in customary use so established must not be made after March 30, 1931, so as to prevent, restrict or interfere with the customary or established use of any other person or persons. NRS 568.230 to 568.290, “…does not prohibit any such established user from continuing his or her grazing use, as established by operation of law or in accordance with such customs.” NRS 568.290 states: “Nothing in NRS 568.230 to 568.290, inclusive, amends or repeals existing law regarding the grazing use of the public lands or of water for the purpose of watering livestock, or modifies or compromises any valid rights or priorities which exist therein on March 30, 1931.”
Since the federal government closed much of the contested area to grazing, they surely cannot charge Bundy for not paying grazing fees.
They have charged Mr. Bundy’s cattle with trespass. However, the state trespass law states it is the responsibility of the landowner to fence out cattle, not the rancher’s responsibility to fence them in. According to state law, there can be no damages collected for trespass unless the cattle have breached a “legal fence.” NRS 569.431 states: “a legal fence means a fence with not less than four horizontal barriers, consisting of wires, boards, poles or other fence material in common use in the neighborhood, with posts set not more than 20 feet apart. The lower barrier must be not more than 12 inches from the ground and the space between any two barriers must be not more than 12 inches and the height of top barrier must be at least 48 inches above the ground. Every post must be so set as to withstand a horizontal strain of 250 pounds at a point 4 feet from the ground, and each barrier must be capable of withstanding a horizontal strain of 250 pounds at any point midway between the posts.”
Has the federal government fenced the boundaries of Mr. Bundy’s ranch?
Here is an interesting side note. There are cattle legally being grazed by another rancher in areas being searched for Bundy’s cattle. If the Utah cowboys round up any of those or even herd them without permission of the legal owner they are in violation of NRS 568.350 which states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to lead, drive or in any manner remove … any head of neat cattle, … the same being the property of another person, from the range on which they are permitted to run in common, without the consent of the owner thereof first. …Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. …such person shall be civilly liable to the owner of livestock so removed from the range for the value of all such stock and the necessary expenses incident to their return.”
It should be noted that federal courts don’t give a rip about Nevada State Law. They have ruled against Mr. Bundy and have ordered him to remove his cattle.
It should not come as a surprise that the federal government would ignore state law. This same government sued the State of Arizona to stop their enforcement of federal immigration laws. By imperial decree, the federal government today is selecting which law it will or will not enforce.
It’s not the 1930’s anymore and Nevada politics are no longer controlled by ranchers and miners. They have been replaced by BMW driving snobs who wouldn’t know a day’s work if they saw it.
The bottom line issue is not Bundy’s cattle. It is the environmentalists’ interest in closing the Gold Butte and surrounding area to all but their elite backpacking buddies.
8 thoughts on “No One Asked Me But… (April 9, 2014)”
It seems that the government has singled out Mr Bundy for this crap,,
I wish I had the wherewithall to get myself up there to help out if need be, I am tired of the government doing these things to good people who just want to be left alone,,
Sending best wishes to the Bundy family and all the rest of the good people from your area, its just a matter of time till the feds target the rest of you for something, and that goes for the rest of us too.
NOMI
MOLON LABE
It seems that the government has singled out Mr Bundy for this crap,,
I wish I had the wherewithall to get myself up there to help out if need be, I am tired of the government doing these things to good people who just want to be left alone,,
Sending best wishes to the Bundy family and all the rest of the good people from your area, its just a matter of time till the feds target the rest of you for something, and that goes for the rest of us too.
NOMI
MOLON LABE
I wish you were so accepting of the Open Meeting Law for OPD, Mr. Moses. Seems like you also just want to obey the laws you want to obey. Pretty hypocritical.
I wish you were so accepting of the Open Meeting Law for OPD, Mr. Moses. Seems like you also just want to obey the laws you want to obey. Pretty hypocritical.
Doc Moses,
Thanks for another great article . Thanks for taking the time to look up and teach the rest of us Moapa Vally folks about the NRS codes as admittedly most of us have not done so ourselves. It sure seems more than just coincidental that this all came to a head under our current liberal ruled federal government. I think it’s high time Nevada rules over her own lands not just 16% and the Federal government stick to those powers assigned in the constitution such as maintaining an Army for the general protection of our country.
Doc Moses,
Thanks for another great article . Thanks for taking the time to look up and teach the rest of us Moapa Vally folks about the NRS codes as admittedly most of us have not done so ourselves. It sure seems more than just coincidental that this all came to a head under our current liberal ruled federal government. I think it’s high time Nevada rules over her own lands not just 16% and the Federal government stick to those powers assigned in the constitution such as maintaining an Army for the general protection of our country.
From what this article describes, the Bundys have every right to expect the BLM (since they are the ones who claim the land, by taking grazing privileges from them) expect the BLM to put up fences that enclose and protect them from the cattle trespassing onto their land. After all that is what the law states.
According to NRS 568.010, it is “An act to stop injury to the public grazing landslands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range…”
The FEDS have broken the laws of the land in regard to:
According to NRS 568.010, it is “An act to stop injury to the public grazing landslands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range…”
The FEDS have broken the laws of the land in regard to:
NRS 568.230 states: … “It is unlawful … (to) restrict or interfere with the customary use of the land for grazing livestock by any person who, by himself or herself or the person’s grantors or predecessors, has become established, either exclusively or in common with others, in the grazing use of the land by operation of law or under and in accordance with the customs of the graziers of the region involved.”
Therefore it is very clear that the Bundy’s are not some itinerant land grabbers, nor are they trying to occupy land not belonging to them nor are they as our notorious American Indian robbery Government taking land from rightful owners, and with the use of local law enforcement who appears to be photographed, there should be ways to protect the rights of citizens of our country from Federal Abuse.
There are cattle legally being grazed by another rancher in areas being searched for Bundy’s cattle. If the Utah cowboys round up any of those or even herd them without permission of the legal owner they are in violation of NRS 568.350 which states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to lead, drive or in any manner remove … any head of neat cattle, … the same being the property of another person, from the range on which they are permitted to run in common, without the consent of the owner thereof first. …Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. …such person shall be civilly liable to the owner of livestock so removed from the range for the value of all such stock and the necessary expenses incident to their return.”
Who is protecting the Bundy’s from illegally having cattle taken or better yet why do others have rights to land to graze and not Bundys??
I work for the sheriff’s department in my state and this is where the illegal activities of the Federal Government put at jeopardy the lives of law enforcement who are responsible to serve and protect citizens not to be harassers to do the bidding of Federally imposed activities that appear to be designed to occupy land at the expense of law abiding citizens who are trying to survive in difficult times within out country. I have lived for 12 years in third world countries and this is the way common people, just ordinary citizens are treated in a FOREIGN country, dominating rights of individuals. Someone with more clout than I (unfortunately that might mean large numbers and range wars) needs to step in tell the Feds to back off before someone gets hurt. I am a citizen of my country, born and raised here and have a heritage of hard working farm folks. In Texas we say “Don’t tread on ME”.
A concerned Citizen.
From what this article describes, the Bundys have every right to expect the BLM (since they are the ones who claim the land, by taking grazing privileges from them) expect the BLM to put up fences that enclose and protect them from the cattle trespassing onto their land. After all that is what the law states.
According to NRS 568.010, it is “An act to stop injury to the public grazing landslands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range…”
The FEDS have broken the laws of the land in regard to:
According to NRS 568.010, it is “An act to stop injury to the public grazing landslands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range…”
The FEDS have broken the laws of the land in regard to:
NRS 568.230 states: … “It is unlawful … (to) restrict or interfere with the customary use of the land for grazing livestock by any person who, by himself or herself or the person’s grantors or predecessors, has become established, either exclusively or in common with others, in the grazing use of the land by operation of law or under and in accordance with the customs of the graziers of the region involved.”
Therefore it is very clear that the Bundy’s are not some itinerant land grabbers, nor are they trying to occupy land not belonging to them nor are they as our notorious American Indian robbery Government taking land from rightful owners, and with the use of local law enforcement who appears to be photographed, there should be ways to protect the rights of citizens of our country from Federal Abuse.
There are cattle legally being grazed by another rancher in areas being searched for Bundy’s cattle. If the Utah cowboys round up any of those or even herd them without permission of the legal owner they are in violation of NRS 568.350 which states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to lead, drive or in any manner remove … any head of neat cattle, … the same being the property of another person, from the range on which they are permitted to run in common, without the consent of the owner thereof first. …Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. …such person shall be civilly liable to the owner of livestock so removed from the range for the value of all such stock and the necessary expenses incident to their return.”
Who is protecting the Bundy’s from illegally having cattle taken or better yet why do others have rights to land to graze and not Bundys??
I work for the sheriff’s department in my state and this is where the illegal activities of the Federal Government put at jeopardy the lives of law enforcement who are responsible to serve and protect citizens not to be harassers to do the bidding of Federally imposed activities that appear to be designed to occupy land at the expense of law abiding citizens who are trying to survive in difficult times within out country. I have lived for 12 years in third world countries and this is the way common people, just ordinary citizens are treated in a FOREIGN country, dominating rights of individuals. Someone with more clout than I (unfortunately that might mean large numbers and range wars) needs to step in tell the Feds to back off before someone gets hurt. I am a citizen of my country, born and raised here and have a heritage of hard working farm folks. In Texas we say “Don’t tread on ME”.
A concerned Citizen.