Ammon Bundy, pictured here on January 5, was arrested in Oregon Tuesday. ROB KERR/AFP/Getty
The four remaining armed protestors that have occupied a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon for the past 41 days turned themselves in peacefully Thursday. The development comes after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, the father of the group’s leader, Ammon Bundy, on charges dating back to the 2014 standoff between federal agents and militia members on his ranch.
But the end of the standoff did not come without drama, which further gave the media ammunition to undermine the group’s central message. After the first three protesters surrendered to authorities at around 9:40 a.m. local time, the last occupier, David Fry, resisted.
Fry had said on a live audio webcast that he was “feeling suicidal” and would “die a free man.” At one point he said he was pointing a gun at his head, began ranting about abortion, UFOs, the government “chemically mutating people” and Syria.
“I’m taking my stand, this isn’t something I’m going to back away from,” Fry said.
Finally, after requesting listeners yell “Hallelujah,” Fry turned himself in to the FBI shortly after 11 a.m. local time.
But did the media ignore the real story?
Nationwide, federal government agencies–including the Forest Service, the National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Defense Department (DoD)–control roughly 14.3% of all land across U.S. states. However, in certain Western states, the share of federally occupied land is far higher, the worst of which being the one that’s home to Mr. Bundy.
In Nevada, home also to former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the federal government owns and occupies 84.9% of all the land within the state’s borders. BLM controls 47,782,464 acres; FS controls 5,759,160 acres; FWS 2,345,956 acres; NPS 774,751 acres; and DoD 3,019,170 acres. While that represents a decline of 0.6% since 1990, it’s still a large representation.
We could also argue whether Cliven Bundy incorrectly argued that it was his land–thus, did no have to pay grazing fees to the federal government–but it is undeniably true that Ranchers like Mr. Bundy wouldn’t have such a problem if the feds didn’t occupy nearly 9 in 10 acres in his state.
The most damning journalistic sin committed by the media during the era of Russia collusion…
The first ecological study finds mask mandates were not effective at slowing the spread of…
On "What Are the Odds?" Monday, Robert Barnes and Rich Baris note how big tech…
On "What Are the Odds?" Monday, Robert Barnes and Rich Baris discuss why America First…
Personal income fell $1,516.6 billion (7.1%) in February, roughly the consensus forecast, while consumer spending…
Research finds those previously infected by or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 are not at risk of…
This website uses cookies.
View Comments
@PPDNews Why 'alarming'? Is it alarming that it owns Yellowstone?
Maybe because they don't have any such authority to do so under the Constitution?
https://www.facebook.com/tiffany.house.96/videos/vb.100000305365400/1070795146273987/?type=2&theater
Yeah pretty much. 90% of the state of Nevada is not Yellowstone, which of course, is in the state of Wyoming. Not Nevada. But nice try.
Or rather,
(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
Why alarming? A lot of it, particularly the BLM land, is territory nobody wanted because they'd have to pay taxes on it.
The reason the United States owns so much land in the West is we came by it honeslty. Ever heard of the Louisiana, Gadsden, Alaska Purchases, the Treaty with Mexico or the Oregon Compromise? These are the specific ways the United States accumulated the lands in the west. The United States even purchased land from Texas.
Most of these lands were divided into Territories which then became States. When they became States they gave up all rights and claims to public lands held by the United States.
http://www.americanpubliclands.com/legal-facts/
All of this is covered by the Property Clause in the Constitution.
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
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.
For all the attention those claiming the Federal government has no authority to own public lands outside that allowed by the Enclave Clause (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17), it has nothing to do with the United States owning other lands outside those allowed by that clause. All you need to understand are the words "nothing in this Constitution..".
The Property clause suerpecedes the Enclave clause. As always, Congress establishes the laws which in this case establishes the ocnditions by which the Territories become States including the owing of land.
If you want to change United States public land policy, it's futile to say the United States does not have authority over these lands. They do. It's in the Consitution and how it's done has been established by Congressional Law and confirmed by the US Supreme Court.
As for how grazing on Public Lands is regulated and why, look up the Taylor Grazing Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Grazing_Act_of_1934
In the past, turning grazing access over to the ranchers has been a disaster.
If you disagree with what I've said then let's address through Democracy the foundation on which our country is built. Our elected officals make the policy regarding how United States owned lands are managed.Feel free to vote and advocate for those who will represent you.
If you want ownership of public lands by the United States to be unconstitutional then you should be proposing amendments to the Constitution because the existing Constitution does not support what you want.
If you want to insist the Constitution does support this position especially by resisting United States enforcing its rights to these lands and the laws regarding them or you want to protest by occupying United States property especially in an armed and threatening manner, you should do so accepting that this actiivity is illegal and you should be willing to accept the consequences of your actions.
Not alarming to me, it's been this way for over a hundred years, before that it belonged to the native peoples. #Oregonstandoff
Ever wonder what condition that land would be in today if not protected by Gov for all to have long-term?
The issue of balancing private/public interests deserves more ink than a few paragraphs.
Alarming to whom and why?
@PPDNews
@PPDNews I live in Nevada and glad the BLM owns and takes care of all this beautiful land. Anyone can drive the back roads.
No sympathy for the Bundy's who don't even pay the 93% discounted grazing fees on federal land. https://t.co/KtShtSQfBB
Who knew? Oh wait, anyone who grew up in the West or anyone with a map.
Alarming? WTF? This is land we can all access. Hunt, fish, explore. Your militias can 'camp," shoot on BLM land w/o hassle.