a reply to: Phoenix
Wrabbit2000, yup you've pretty much described differences in thought and interpretation. Yours based on rule of law as it were dealing
specifically with grazing rights, mine a bit more idealistic and far ranging in scope.
That's one interpretation. Grazing or whatever the specific issue was is secondary to the central question. Did he break the law? Is he continuing to
break the law? If so, law enforcement officers have not only the right but the duty by their job title to do something about it. If he hasn't broken
the law, then BLM has an issue...that's what I wish I saw but just don't, in good faith here.
I do not believe the BLM has a law enforcement mandate as part of its duties. The BLM should have deferred to local law enforcement if actual
force was required to carry out its permitted duties via the court order.
I'd seen where some politician came out saying that. I'd like to see that compared to this:
BLM Rangers are uniformed officers who provide a regular and recurring presence over vast areas of public lands. They are responsible for
conducting high visibility patrols; conducting public contacts; enforcing federal laws and regulations; assisting local county or city police
departments, other federal and state land management agencies, and BLM Special Agents investigating illegal activity on public lands; and generally
providing for the safety of BLM employees and public land users.
BLM Rangers regularly patrol public lands by four-wheel drive vehicle, all-terrain vehicle, motorcycle, aircraft, snowmobile, jet ski, boat, horse,
and even the oldest patrol method—on foot. The job of a Ranger varies considerably depending on location. In the southwestern desert areas,
Rangers spend a great deal of time dealing with large numbers of recreational users and off-highway vehicle issues, as well as a variety of resource
theft and vandalism incidents; Rangers along the southern border may encounter illegal aliens and smuggling while their counterparts in Alaska travel
long distances by aircraft and snow machine to patrol remote areas of public lands; and, Rangers in urban areas may encounter crimes related to
alcohol, hazardous materials and other dumping, wildland fire and arson, and many other trespass concerns.l
They appear to have the position, title and duties of law enforcement. They certainly have the equipment and apparent federal authority of law
enforcement. If they aren't law enforcement, that alone crosses criminal lines and very clear ones with very serious penalties attached. It's not a
casual thing to suggest, and I'd love to see that proven, if true.
I don't think much doubt exists that the BLM well exceeded the gist of the court order which allowed cattle seizure only, not sale, not
killing, not tearing up water tanks, lines or infrastructure. It was to the courts to decide the next step after round-up not BLM.
Then the next step is to take them back to court. Meeting them head to head with weapons is exactly what the majority of the public will support the
Government to put down in conditions like that. It's not even a sympathetic positon. The BLM and National Park Service people were on foot, next to
their vehicles with men on horseback across the ridges as well as in front of them. That's a terminally losing position for them. Some may see that
as a good thing, but backing a dangerous animal into a corner is just a way to insure, like it or not, it's a fight to the end that may come. It
didn't this time. Thankfully. For all involved.
You say in a way Bundy had no rights due a court order, I say the BLM not only disregarded his and all Americans rights but from the get go
fully intended to do just that.
No.. I say the man is a criminal by literal act of breaking laws for 20 years. He's no armed robber or other serious criminal terrorizing
society....but we're a nation of law or we aren't. Simple as that.
He has rights...but they aren't with a rifle in a dry wash like some old west desperado. They're in the same court house (or more favorable one,
perhaps) that the BLM got the order they were enforcing.
That it is the Bundy situation bringing forth an underlying problem between the people of this country and its federal government is paramount
which negates whether or not Bundy is right or wrong on his view of grazing rights.
The Government has made a habit of exceeding it's authority. Why the outrage on this case? Not this 'cause', because there are cases better than
this one to champion in Texas, Wyoming and elsewhere. Currently, in fact. A little digging will lead folks to much better positions to punt from. Why
this specific man on this specific piece of property with this specific dispute? Harry Reid? Okay... I can get behind that. Except.....'Ol Scary
Harry has been playing fast and loose for years and no one seriously objects. He's been implicated in worse than this, and not THAT far back. Why
this one? Why this man?
The fixation and passion on ONE case ..and a rather bad one without legal support at that...among SO many which exist to make this fight with, is
baffling. That's my boggle, as it were.