Bundy paid for grazing rights to the state. He says that the land belongs to the state of NV and not the federal government. The fact is that he's wrong, and two judges have ruled against him. The real shit is the fact that the agents enforcing the laws/rulings have been total dicks too. It's a case two wrongs not making a right... or some such shit.

So you're okay with them tossing an old women to the ground as long as she's a right winger.

So you're okay with them tossing an old women to the ground as long as she's a right winger.

They don't own the land WB. Not sure about the other accusations you make but it seems to me it was the government that left instead of hurting a bunch of armed people that looked ready to fire on the BLM workers.

By Kevin McCullough, OneNewsNow.com
April 15, 2014



Let me obliterate a bit of confusion here: the Obama administration attempted to go to war with a rancher in Nevada. Let me amplify a little bit of truth: they tucked tail and have returned home. And let me add a bit of clarity: they had no choice!

As the nation began to become familiar with the plight of the family of Cliven Bundy, many of us harkened back to another standoff – way back in 1993 – in which the federal government attempted to bully its outcome: Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidian massacre.

It is telling that in the Nevada case the feds pulled out so quickly, given all they had indicated they were willing to do to resolve the matter to their satisfaction. They had set up a perimeter around the Bundy's family land, ranch, and home. They had brought in extra artillery, dogs, and snipers. They were beginning the process of stealing more than 300 head of cattle that did not belong to them.

They did so – or so we were told – for the reason of protecting the desert tortoise. But then it was revealed that the Bureau of Land Management had shot far more desert tortoises than the Bundy cattle had even possibly destroyed. We were told they did it because the Bundys had broken federal laws by not paying what amounted to retroactive grazing fees to the federal government. But the governor of the state of Nevada told us that Bundy had paid every ounce of state tax, met the state requirements, and their family had been improving the property more than 100 years previous.

Finally we were allowed to know the connection between a communist Chinese wind/solar power plant and its connection to that senator named Harry Reid. Evidently a plan had been hatched to use the Bundy property for a solar farm and instead of paying the Bundys, someone, somewhere in the administration believed it was easier to just take what they wanted.

That approach is at least consistent with the readily documented abuse of emminent domain where the government for any number of reasons – few of them valid – has taken to taking what doesn't belong to them. Americans then watch as it gets handed over to some multi-national corporation for the "cause" of the "greater good."

There were a few specific reasons why the feds chickened out in the Nevada desert though.

TECHNOLOGY – As the Bundy family members were abused, cameras captured it. Not television network cameras, but dozens of cell phone video devices that gave witness to a Bundy aunt being shoved to the ground, and a Bundy son being tazed. All of this while threatening protestors with dogs, brandished weapons and vehicles was captured, uploaded and made viral to the watching world.

STATES' RIGHTS – As the drama unfolded it became clear that the governor of Nevada, and the sheriff of Clark County knew that Cliven Bundy's family had not only not broken any state law regarding the land, but that they had gone to the nth degree to ensure compliance with Nevada laws on the property. The governor and the sheriff, to their credit, did not favor the feds as a more powerful party in the conflict. Though there must have been pressure from Senator Reid's office, the administration via the Bureau of Land Management, and local officials who were bought and sold like the Clark County commissioner who told those coming to support the Bundys to have "funeral plans in place."

GRASSROOTS RESPONSE – As other incidents have transpired in the past, the amount of time it took honest information to reach the grassroots and thus the response to the action came too slow. In the massacre in Waco, most of the nation had been sold a single narrative from the limited media outlets covering the events. Similarly the events surrounding the abduction of Elian Gonzales from his family in Florida and deportation to Cuba took place in such a response vacuum that by the time Americans knew the real story, the damage was done. With the Bundy ranch, Internet outlets by the dozen had competing information with the limited "official news" being released by the networks, and in most cases the alternative sources had it correct and usually a full day or so ahead of the news cycle. By the time afternoon drive hit, when the network news rooms in New York were preparing their first stories, talk radio audiences had already been dialing their elected officials in Washington demanding action.

The majority of Americans saw through the efforts to spin the story in Nevada. Couple that with the leadership failures that the American people view the administration responsible for, from Benghazi to the Affordable Care Act, all it took was the unedited video of federal agents tazing Bundy's son, followed by his pulling the wires from his chest and continuing to stand his ground for there to be comparisons made to the American revolution.

It's also important to note that merely pulling back from the Bundy property hasn't settled the matter for the American people either.

The feds have stolen 352 head of cattle, and will not confirm or deny if they euthanized some or all of them. Recompense must be made. And to be candid, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see if a few ambitious law firms don't try to convince the Bundy family of the validity of litigation.

Fortunately for the American people, the feds were not able to ultimately bully a simple rancher, not for a tortoise, a solar power plant, or a dirty senator and his administration.

We owe the Bundy family a great deal of thanks for standing tall.

For if the federal government is allowed to do it with one, then there will be nothing stopping them from doing it again.

Former sheriff: Women ‘need to be the first ones shot’ by feds in Bundy Ranch standoff
By David Edwards
Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:51 EDT


A former Arizona sheriff who has taken the side of cattle ranchers in Nevada said this week that he would have allowed his own wife and daughters to be shot as human shields because it would look bad for the federal government on television.

In a statement to Fox News on Monday that was first flagged by Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, former Sheriff Richard Mack talked about his strategy to put women on the front lines if a gunfight broke out between “rogue federal agents” and rancher Cliven Bundy, who reportedly owes the taxpayers more than $1 million for allowing his cattle to graze on government land.

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he recalled. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”
...

Burning Man organizer plans anything-goes ‘Bundyfest’ to mock scofflaw rancher
By Travis Gettys
Tuesday, April 22, 2014 8:29 EDT


Some of the organizers of the annual Burning Man festival are planning an event aimed at mocking the claims of a Nevada rancher who refuses to pay government-mandated fees for using federal lands.

“For years, we paid permitting fees to hold Burning Man on the beautiful Playa in Northern Nevada,” said the event’s organizers on a Facebook page. “But now, Cliven Bundy has shown us a NEW WAY! ABSOLUTE FREEDOM! Bundy has declared the entire area surrounding Bundy Ranch as a TOTALLY RULES-FREE ZONE! ANYTHING GOES! WOO-HOO!!!”

Progressive activist Sean Shealy said Bundyfest, which will be held across the road from Bundy’s ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada, for one month starting on Sept. 5.

That’s just after the conclusion of the Burning Man festival, and Shealy hopes attendees will travel south to see 240 bands perform 24 hours a day near the rancher’s home.

“Some people have asked me, where will we camp, where will we park?” Shealy said. “Anywhere, really. It’s f*cking anarchy.”

The Facebook page for the event promises no permits will be required, full nudity will be permitted, and the atmosphere will be gay-friendly.

However, Shealy warned, no bathroom facilities would be provided.

“You’re free to let it all hang out right there, just like Bundy’s cattle, right there in the Virgin River, if you want to,” Shealy said.

Organizers also plan a “penis erection contest,” where participants will be awarded prizes for the largest phallic structure built in the desert.

Shealy said organizers expect about 50,000 people to show up in the desert near Bundy’s home.

Yes, M E M, because 200 snipers are proportionate to reign in a guy whose 350 cows ate some grass that no one will miss.

....

Flat on his belly in a sniper position, wearing a baseball cap and a flak jacket, a protester aimed his semi-automatic rifle from the edge of an overpass and waited as a crowd below stood its ground against U.S. federal agents in the Nevada desert. [Reuters, 4/17/14]

So I wonder if Fox/Koch brothers will be calling all the dirty
hippies patriots for using federal land without permits? Than again
I haven't seen any talk about using women and children as human
shields so that might disqualify them.

...
That's a lying dick-in-the-mouth answer...

April 8, 2014 7:34 pm

A two-decades-old battle between a Nevada rancher and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has resulted in officials armed with machine guns surrounding the ranch and forcibly removing the owner’s cattle, according to the rancher’s family.

Cliven Bundy, the last rancher in Clark County, Nev., has been fighting a “one-man range war” since 1993, when he decided to take a stand against the agency, refusing to pay fees for the right to graze on a ranch run by his family for centuries.

After years of court battles, the BLM secured a federal court order to have Bundy’s “trespass cattle” forcibly removed with heavy artillery, the family said.

“The battle’s been going on for 20 years,” Bundy told the Washington Free Beacon. “What’s happened the last two weeks, the United States government, the bureaus are getting this army together and they’re going to get their job done and they’re going to prove two things. They’re going to prove they can do it, and they’re gonna prove that they have unlimited power, and that they control the policing power over this public land. That’s what they’re trying to prove.”

Bundy said the government has brought everything but tanks and rocket launchers.




“They’re carrying the same things a soldier would,” he said. “Automatic weapons, sniper rifles, top communication, top surveillance equipment, lots of vehicles. It’s heavy soldier type equipment.”

His wife, Carol Bundy, said that roughly 200 armed agents from the BLM and FBI are stationed around their land, located about 75 miles outside of Las Vegas. Helicopters circle the premises, and the airspace and nearby roads remain blocked....

Flat on his belly in a sniper position, wearing a baseball cap and a flak jacket, a protester aimed his semi-automatic rifle from the edge of an overpass and waited as a crowd below stood its ground against U.S. federal agents in the Nevada desert. [Reuters, 4/17/14]

MEM, he's just using the sniper rifle's scope to get a closer look at things. He left his binoculars at home. Also add a stupid question to change the subject and hijack the thread.

MEM, he's just using the sniper rifle's scope to get a closer look at things. He left his binoculars at home.

I recently received an email from Sheriff Richard Mack updating me on the recent happenings with regard to the Bundy case and Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) have traveled to Nevada to stand with the Bundy family. Additionally, the Oathkeepers have done the same. An estimated 5,000 militia types from Western states have also made their way to the Bundy property as well.

Sheriff Mack and CSPOA are responding to the storm brewing between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM. They have responded by stating that the all-too-frequent bullying of individual citizens by various militarized Federal agencies have usurped the Constitution and they have vowed that the forces of tyranny can be stopped. In fact, as CSPOA claims, it’s an epidemic that “must be stopped”.

I have learned that Sheriff Mack is leaving early Saturday morning for an emergency trip to Bunkerville, Nevada, along with other members of the CSPOA posse to stand with the Bundy’s and find a peaceful resolution to this conflict (i.e., the feds going home). The name is “Bunkerville”, is both ironic and appropriately named, don’t you think?


STUNNING DEVELOPMENT

bundy ranchThe case involving Cliven Bundy is yet another case of David vs. Goliath in what has become an all-to-familiar scene in which some agency of the Federal government swoops in, flashes their badges and guns and seize control of the private property of an American taxpayer without so much as offering the pretense of the due process of law.

As this case was unfolding, I mentioned that this was a classic Agenda 21 case (e.g. land confiscation, fracking, etc.). However, this case has now taken on a life of its own and has become more important than a beleaguered rancher facing off against the forces of tyranny.

This is now a case of America vs. the tyranny of the federal government and who is going to blink first?

I do not think any of us could have predicted that this case would generate the attention among awakened Americans that it has. Yet, interestingly, the MSM is strangely quiet on this issue involving the Bundy family vs. the BLM.



THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE STANDS WITH BUNDY

In a case of “I would never have believed this in a million years”, the Arizona State Senate President Andy Biggs and the Arizona House of Representatives Speaker Dave Livingston are both in agreement that Arizona should be involved in supporting CSPOA and Oath Keepers in going to Bunkerville, Nevada. These two leaders of the Arizona Legislature have vowed to support the Cliven Bundy family. This stunning development cannot be overstated, and yet, there is more. Additionally, State Senators Al Melvin, Chester Crandall, and Kelly Ward along with State Representatives Brenda Barton, Bob Thorpe, Kelly Townsend and Warren Peterson are all planning to be at the Bundy ranch by Sunday morning. All of these local government officials are planning to attend the Press Conference Monday afternoon with the CSPOA and Oath Keepers along with the Bundy’s and other sheriffs and public officials from across the country.




THE OATHKEEPERS DECLARE THEIR POSITION

It is my distinct privilege to announce that the Oathkeepers have pledged their full support for Cliven Bundy and are helping to lead the charge in challenging the tyrannical actions of the federal government. The following press release is from the Oathkeepers.

• “A Delegation of state legislators, led by Washington State Representative Matt Shea, along with a delegation of current serving Sheriffs, led by Sheriff Richard Mack of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, and military and police members of Oath Keepers, are converging on the site of a stand-off between federal law enforcement and Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy, to prevent bloodshed and to stand in defense of hardworking rural Americans who are under assault by a runaway federal government.”
  --LAS VEGAS, NV, April 10, 2014

The expressed support state legislators is monumental and could prove historically significant because what happens over the next 72 hours at this ranch could potentially change the course of American History.




POSSIBLE OUTCOMES

There are several possible outcomes regarding the brewing confrontation which could come to a head this weekend. Here are just a few possible scenarios which could play out in the next few days.



THE BLM BACKS DOWN AND WITHDRAWS ITS OCCUPATION FORCES


This would be the prudent move. The BLM, in order to prevent too many in the public from finding out about their escalating level of tyranny, shy away from the confrontation and quietly withdraw the scene while vowing to return. I do not see this happening.



IT IS RANDY WEAVER AND RUBY RIDGE ALL OVER AGAIN?

The readers may recall that Mrs. Weaver, at Ruby Ridge, was brutally murdered by the FBI for pointing a loaded baby at the FBI for which she was promptly shot in the head while standing in her kitchen. Nobody from the FBI was ever brought to justice for this heinous act. The point being here, is that if some trigger-happy BLM agent opens fire on a Bundy family member. If this happens, what will the local militia do? If they fire back, then all hell could break lose.

In this scenario, there is no doubt that DHS would get to roll out some of their newly acquired 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition to go with their 2700 armored personnel carriers. If further bloodshed were to occur, the fallen civilian victims would become martyrs. We would very likely see riots breaking out all over the country in which buildings would be burned and authorities would be defied. Personally, I do not believe that this incident can go so far as to prompt a revolution on its own. However, this issue carries the distinct possibility of defining the sides for a possible civil war in this country in the future. Again, the fact that prominent state legislators are so clearly opposed to the federal government on this issue will ultimately serve as a dividing point between the two sides if blood is spilled.



WHAT DIRECTION WILL THIS TAKE?

The Bundy fate is spelled out in this map.


In this case, the Obama administration holds all the cards. Many of us in the media feel that Obama would like nothing better than to draw a group of dissidents out in the open and crush them as a sign of absolute subjugation of the American people. Some feel that the globalist forces will avoid confrontation and continue on their steady path of conquering America one Agenda 21 policy at a time.

If I were Obama, I would choose the latter path, because it is the path of least resistance. However, we have learned that Obama is impulsive and therefore, all bets are off.

There is one thing that we can all be sure of, we are indeed watching history in the making as this has become a case of Constitutional supporting Americans vs. the Brown Shirts of the Obama administration.

Cliven Bundy's 'better off as slaves' remark about blacks draws fire


Cliven Bundy

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who has won support in his standoff with the federal government over grazing rights, is drawing fire for comments about African Americans and slavery. (John Locher / Associated Press / February 5, 2013)

Battle lines hardening in Nevada cattle rancher standoff with feds Battle lines hardening in Nevada cattle rancher standoff with feds
Authorities on defensive over Nevada cattle roundup on federal land Authorities on defensive over Nevada cattle roundup on federal land
BLM halts seizure of Nevada rancher's cattle, citing safety concerns BLM halts seizure of Nevada rancher's cattle, citing safety concerns
The U.S. can't let Cliven Bundy win his range war Opinion: The U.S. can't let Cliven Bundy win his range war

By John M. Glionna

April 24, 2014, 10:29 a.m.

LAS VEGAS -- Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s battle against the federal government over land rights took an unexpected detour after a newspaper quoted the 67-year-old grandfather suggesting African Americans were "better off as slaves" because slavery taught work skills and enhanced family life.

Bundy, who has waged a standoff with the Bureau of Land Management, insisting he has a right to graze hundreds of head of cattle on public lands without paying fees, has been surrounded by citizen militias that have converged on his ranch in rural Bunkerville after armed federal officials moved in to remove Bundy’s cattle.

The BLM called off the roundup and released the cattle, but says the matter is not over. Bundy and his supporters are awaiting the government's next move.

Over the weekend, Bundy spoke to supporters about general issues involved in the standoff. Suddenly, he took a turn and began discoursing on African Americans and public welfare.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said in comments quoted by the New York Times. He recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.”

He added: “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Conservative lawmakers in Washington, who have so far supported Bundy, have blasted his remarks, including Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), who had previously referred to the gray-haired rancher as a patriot.

Heller “completely disagrees with Bundy’s appalling and racist statements and condemns them in the most strenuous way,” his office said.

But some Bundy supporters remained undeterred.

“His statements were not a criticism of blacks. They criticized the federal government,” said Brandon Rapolla, a concrete mixer from Oregon who spent eight days at the ranch. “I’ve met the Bundys, and that’s not who they are.”

Rapolla said he has posted Bundy’s remarks on social media. If people read them, he said, they will understand his point.

“It’s not racism,” he said. “People are trying to divide us on this issue. This is about the federal government, not anything else.”

Nevada's other senator, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has called Bundy's supporters "domestic terrorists," denounced Bundy's remarks.

"I used to live in North Las Vegas and it is home to some of the hardest-working people I have ever met -- men and women who embody the American dream by working hard every day to build a better life for themselves and their families," Reid, a Democrat, said in a statement.

"By contrast, Cliven Bundy has spent decades profiting off government land while refusing to pay the same fair use fees as his fellow ranchers. Today, Bundy revealed himself to be a hateful racist. But by denigrating people who work hard and play by the rules while he mooches off public land he also revealed himself to be a hypocrite."

Honestly looking at what the feds were facing, do you honestly think they would have been allowed to collect the cattle with anything less? Again this had been going on for 20 years and even with what they had they had to retreat.

As of Monday, officials have seized 234 of Bundy’s 908 cattle. Impounding the cattle alone could cost the government as much as $3 million.

“They just brought a load down today,” she said. “They kind of harass us as well. When we leave they follow us.”

This afternoon eight helicopters surrounded the family after they began taking pictures, according to Bundy’s daughter, Bailey. Their son, Dave Bundy, was arrested for taking pictures on state road 170, which has been closed, and is being held by BLM.

Actually, that's precisely the point. That no one should have to pay it.

That Eminent Domain and Agenda 21 are intrusive on individual Constitutional freedoms, and should be abolished.

The adjacent "government" land is not used for anything, and therefore it deprives no one for Bundy to graze his cattle there.

Uh huh. Now what makes up the government?

The people. However unlike Bundy, most of us buy, pay taxes on, and/or rent the land we need for our personal use.

That depends: do you honestly believe an armed militia would start digging trenches for long-hairs?

US military bases are owned by the federal government. The federal government is comprised of "the people."

If you are going to justify individual citizens entering upon federal property without permission simply because they are "the people," then how do you not allow such people-including hippies or anyone else-to enter upon any federal property, including military bases?

Sheriff urged to clamp down on armed militiamen around Bundy ranch
Image

STEVE MARCUS

Reid Hendricks of Camden, Tenn., and Jim (no last name provided) of Las Vegas take up a position on a hill by Cliven Bundy’s ranch near Bunkerville on Tuesday, April 15, 2014. Hendricks is a former Marine (honorably discharged) and has worked as a police officer and a high school history teacher, he said.

By Kyle Roerink (contact)

Monday, April 28, 2014 | 4:16 p.m.
BLM-Bundy Standoff: April 12, 2014


A growing number of Bunkerville residents want to see the armed militiamen guarding rancher Cliven Bundy leave Nevada, according to a letter from Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., to Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie.

Horsford, whose congressional district includes Bunkerville, wrote that his constituents are concerned about Bundy supporters carrying weapons near local churches, schools and elsewhere.

Militia members flocked to Nevada to support Bundy in his fight with the government over his refusal to pay fees for his cattle to graze on federal land.

“I urge you to investigate these reports and to work with local leaders to ensure that their concerns are addressed in a manner that allows the community to move forward without incident,” Horsford wrote to Gillespie.

The letter also says militiamen have a presence on state and local roads as well as federal highways. In some areas, according to the letter, militiamen have set up checkpoints where drivers are stopped and asked to provide a proof of residency.

They’ve been seen carrying high-caliber weapons and keep a round-the-clock security detail on Bundy.

Many of the militiamen, attracted by Bundy’s views on state’s rights and public lands, traveled from across the country to support him in his stand against the Bureau of Land Management.

Bundy owes the BLM $1 million in grazing fees. Earlier this month, the agency called off a roundup of Bundy’s cattle after escalating tensions between federal agents and militia members.

It's the most powerful agency you've never heard of -- at least, until recently.

The Bureau of Land Management, the nation's biggest landlord, found itself in the spotlight after a high-profile brawl with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and another dispute with state officials over the Texas-Oklahoma borderlands.


But the seemingly obscure agency, which is in charge of millions of acres of public land, is no stranger to controversy. History shows the power struggle over property rights and land use is one that's been fought -- fiercely -- ever since the bureau was created.

In the nearly seven decades of its existence, the BLM has struggled to find its footing and exert its power, pitted against a vocal states' rights movement.

"The federal government already owns too much land," Texas Gov. Rick Perry, one of the champions of that modern-day movement, recently told Fox News. He called for the federal government, and by extension the BLM, to "divest itself of a huge amount of this landholdings that it has across the country."


The Bureau of Land Management was formed in 1946, consolidating two now-extinct agencies into one for the purpose of overseeing public land. In the beginning, the BLM mostly focused on livestock and mines. Its mission shifted, though, in the 1970s when it took on the role of mediator between commerce and conservation, and faced a second identity crisis in the 1980s. That's when the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion gained new momentum in its push to return control of federal lands to individual states.

That "rebellion" may be underway once again, as states renew concerns about the amount of land controlled by the BLM. Congress also recently weighed in, with House lawmakers passing a bill in February that would prevent the BLM from buying new land.

Currently, the agency, which falls under the purview of the U.S. Department of Interior, oversees 247.3 million acres -- or about one-eighth of the land in the country.

It also owns 700 million acres of on-shore federal mineral estates.

The BLM is responsible for managing a large spectrum of natural resources. The federal agency regulates logging, mining and fracking practices across the country. It also administers close to 18,000 permits and leases a year held by ranchers who graze their livestock on land managed by the federal government. The permits and leases they issue usually last a decade and can be renewed.

In 2009, regulation of public lands in Western states generated $6.2 billion.

By acreage, the agency's largest stake is in Alaska where it owns 72.4 million acres. Nevada ranks second, with 48 million acres under the BLM, and then Utah, with 22.9 million acres.

In Nevada, rancher Cliven Bundy's recent refusal to hand over his family's cattle to the feds re-ignited the national debate over the BLM's power.



On the heels of that controversy, more than 50 lawmakers from nine Western states came together to protest federal land expansion. The state leaders discussed ways to combine their joint goals of taking control of oil-, timber- and mineral-rich lands away from the federal government.

"It's so much bigger than Bundy. There are issues ... all across the West where the federal government is exerting control over things it was never supposed to control," Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory told Fox News. "The federal government was supposed to be a trustee. They do own the land. They do hold title to the land in trust ... but they have a duty to dispose of the land with all states east of Colorado."

Ivory says he wants the federal government to keep a promise it made in the 1894 Enabling Act that made Utah a state. He argues that public lands, except for congressionally designated national parks and wilderness areas, should be transferred back to the states.

So far, state lawmakers in Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington are looking for ways to transfer land management back to the states.

Utah, though, has been the most successful. Lawmakers there passed a measure demanding the federal government extinguish title to federal lands, aside from national parks. Ivory was also the primary backer of the 2012 Transfer of Public Lands Act which established a model for the transfer of certain federal lands to the state in the coming years.

The Bundy case has been largely viewed as the first leadership test for new BLM Director Neil Kornze, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn into office in April. The local land-use dust-up fed into a growing apprehension over just how much authority the BLM has and how far it is willing to go to maintain control.

In Texas, Attorney General Greg Abbott sent a letter to Kornze looking into allegations the BLM was eyeing a massive land grab in northern Texas. "Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box," wrote Abbott, a GOP gubernatorial candidate.


The agency indicated that the land in question was determined to be public property. "The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River," a BLM spokeswoman said in a written statement.

Attention on the Bundy-BLM battle has lately turned to racially insensitive remarks that Bundy made in several media interviews and appearances.

Conservative and libertarian lawmakers like Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, initially came to Bundy's defense, calling his situation the latest example of big government overreach. Both, though, have since scaled back their comments in light of Bundy's remarks.

"Senator Paul spoke out against federal over-regulation and BLM handling of a situation," Paul spokesman Doug Stafford said in a written statement. "He has never spoken to or met Mr. Bundy and is not responsible for the vile comments that come out of his mouth."

Others say Bundy was at fault, failing to pay $1.1 million in fees for letting his cattle graze on government grass for more than two decades.

"I wish Mr. Bundy would mind his law requirements and not try to play to the television cameras about confronting the evil federal government," former BLM director Patrick Shea told KSL TV. Shea has been on both sides of the land-use debate. He represented activist Tim DeChristopher who took on the BLM over the 2008 sale of controversial oil and gas leases in Utah.

The BLM has run into trouble elsewhere.

In March, BLM officials rounded up a horse herd in Wyoming after area ranchers and farmers complained that the herd grazed down pastures and damaged cattle rangeland. The horses were turned over to Wyoming officials. The state then quickly sold all 41 horses to a Canadian slaughterhouse. Animal rights groups protested the sale and slaughter.


A year earlier, BLM agents in Nevada announced they would be removing 50 wild horses from a herd that had grown too large to be sustained.

But the complaints go beyond horses. In 2011, several Utah counties filed a lawsuit against the agency over exceeding its authority by establishing wilderness protections without the consent of Congress.

Back in the nation's capital, House lawmakers passed a package in February that includes a collection of public land access and restoration provisions. They also adopted two amendments that extend the length of grazing permits on federal lands to 20 years from 10 years and also allow expired or transferred permits to remain effective until new ones can be issued.

Calls to the BLM for comment were not returned.