Greg Henderson
FBI Suggested Waiving Bundy’s Grazing Fees
Three years before the armed confrontation at Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch gate, the FBI suggested waiving his fines and fees. According to information gathered and reported by the Washington Post, the FBI had determined that Bundy was personally unlikely to be violent in the event of a conflict and suggested to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) the best way to resolve the situation was to drop demands for his 20 years of unpaid grazing fees and fines. [And besides, when it came right down to it, the actual amount of the grazing fees claimed to be owed was much, much less than the BLM had always represented it to be].
The FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit, based in Quantico, Virginia, determined in 2011 that Bundy was unlikely to comply with federal court orders to move his 900 animals off federal land, where they had been illegally grazing, because “he only has enough land to handle less than 100 head of cattle.” Though the Bureau of Land Management was concerned that allowing Bundy to avoid paying federal grazing fees and fines could lead to violence, the FBI thought otherwise.
“BLM may wish to consider waiving the existing fines, as a gesture of willingness to participate in discussions geared toward negotiations,” the FBI wrote in the classified analysis, obtained by The Washington Post. The unit concluded that any alternatives the government could offer Bundy might reduce the rancher’s stress and “in turn, reduce the risk of a violent act.”
The BLM, of course, did not take the FBI’s advice, and in 2014 when BLM officers attempted to gather Bundy’s cattle they were met by hundreds of protesters and militia members who had come to support Bundy. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that tensions reached a “critical level” during the standoff, “with rifles pointing toward each side.”
Click here to read the full article
You may also like
-
Omnibus bill provision would “unleash” electronic tracking on nation’s cattle
-
Arizona rancher sues to stop million-acre national monument
-
VDH: How to Destroy the American Legal System
-
Bob West: Facing the reality of wolves, Colorado ranchers need to be prepared
-
Protect The Harvest: The whole truth about Western ranching
The BLM was met with hundres of supporters because the BLM violated the Constitutional rights of the Bundys, BLM became violent, militarized, destroyed water structures, killed cattle, all for the world to see. Then to add insult to injury the BLM had snipers on hills aiming guns at the American people. The American people did not want another Waco or Ruby Ridge, so they came by the hundreds to protest.
The BLM was met with 100 of supporters because the BLM violated the Constitutional rights of the Bundy’s, BLM became violent, destroyed water structures, killed cattle, all for tge workd to see. Then to add insult to injury the BLM had snipers on hills aiming guns at the American people. The American people did not want another Waco or Ruby Ridge, so they came by the hundreds to protest.
Seems BLM lacks leadership. Why does it appear all their decisions are determined by field official in middle of conflict?
The BLM acts like a king, un-elected bureaucrats making rules and regulation instead of Congress. Then using para-military tactics to intimidate the people.