(Elko, NV) April 16, 2014 – The Nevada Cattlemen’s Association believes that private
property rights are at the foundation of our country and our liberty, and we know that the rule of
law protects those property rights. Our policy supports private property interests that exist on
public lands, including water rights and grazing rights. We also support the continued multiple use
of public lands, as authorized by law and confirmed by the courts. It is under this framework of
the rule of law that our property rights and multiple uses are protected.
The multiple-use statutes allow timber, grazing, wildlife, recreation and other uses to carry
on side-by-side in a way that, as the statute reads “will best meet the needs of the American
people.” Increasingly, we see the federal government placing higher priority on uses other than
grazing. This not only violates the multiple-use statutes, it violates the grazing and water rights
that are also protected by laws such as the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA). Under the TGA, ranchers
have a right to graze livestock on federal lands based on historical utilization. While this property
interest is complex by nature – given that it exists on surfaces owned by the federal government –
it is nonetheless a real property interest that is taxed and saleable. It must be protected. On the
same token, ranchers who exercise their grazing rights are obligated to pay a grazing fee as
established by law.
Ranchers such as Mr. Bundy have found themselves with their backs against the wall as,
increasingly, federal regulations have infringed on their public land grazing rights and the
multiple use management principle. This is not only devastating to individual ranching families; it
is also causing rural communities in the west to whither on the vine. In the west, one in every two
acres is owned by the federal government. Therefore, the integrity of the laws protecting
productive multiple use is paramount to the communities that exist there.
The situation in Nevada stands as an example the federal agencies’ steady trend toward
elevating environmental and wildlife issues over livestock grazing – in violation of the
above mentioned laws and principles. Well-intentioned laws such as the Endangered Species
Act—which are factors in Mr. Bundy’s case-‐-‐are being implemented in a way that are damaging
to our rights and to our western families and communities. In Bundy’s case the designation of his
grazing area as a critical habitat for the endangered desert tortoise gave the BLM the rationale
they needed to order a 500% decrease in his cattle numbers. There never was any scientific proof
that cattle had historically harmed the desert tortoise.
However, in accordance with the rule of law, we must use the system set forth in our
Constitution to change those laws and regulations. Nevada Cattlemen’s Association does not
condone actions that are outside the law in which citizens take the law into their own hands.
Nevada Cattlemen’s Association (NCA) works hard to change regulations detrimental to
the sound management of public lands in a lawful manner and supports the concept of multiple
uses on federally managed lands and encourages members of the livestock industry to abide by
regulations governing federal lands.
Furthermore, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association supports effective range management
through collaboration with resource management agencies and interested parties to achieve
rangeland management goals for economically viable ranch operations and the conservation of
wildlife species.
With the above stated this case was reviewed by a federal judge and a decision was
rendered to remove the cattle. Nevada Cattlemen’s Association does not feel it is our place to
interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter. Additionally, NCA believes the matter is
between Mr. Bundy and the Federal Courts.
We regret that this entire situation was not avoided through more local government
involvement and better implementation of federal regulations, laws, and court decisions. While we
cannot advocate operating outside the law to solve problems, we also sympathize with Mr.
Bundy’s dilemma. With good faith negotiations from both sides, we believe a result can be
achieved which recognizes the balance that must be struck between private property rights and
resource sustainability.