Clive next bundys family has lived in the nevada. He has been grazing his cattle on federal land. When the federal government came to seize his cattle, his friends came to his aid heavily armed. It has fueled questions in other states and other contexts. Does the federal government have any justification for owning and managing the land in nevada or is the federal government guarantor of federal land. Well start with background. Nevada cattle Rancher Cliven Bundy said its his right to graze his cattle on any land he chooses. And his story has gained national attention. Officials at the u. S. Bureau of Land Management in nevada say bundy has been running hundreds of cat until a federally protected wildlife area and for years has refused to pay the fees required to do so. The blm is seeking more than 1 million in back fees and fines from bundy, and when he refused to pay the government began rounding up his cattle to confiscate them. A band of armed men rallied to bundys side and in the stand off that ensued bundys son was tased by officers. The blm fearing a violent confrontation backed down. Get off our land, period. Give us back our property 12,347 the blm is the agency managing federal lands mostly in the west, balancing the demands of ranchers, environmentalists and others. In nevada the federal government owns more than 80 of the states land. The blm oversees 245 million acres including 800 grazer areas. Rancher bundy owns 160 acres he said were homesteaded by his family in the late 1800s, a heritage that he cites as claims to water rights today. His family said that he bought the land, and the federal government has no authority in this matter. Nevada does. The courts have ruled on his arguments and have said that the land that he claims is his is public land. The courts have ruled that his cattle are in trespass. The courts have demanded that he remove his livestock, and the courts have authorized bureau of Land Management and National Park service 12347 clive n bund bundys sentiments have been echoed by his minutes. Were a different breed. We wont let that happen. No, we wont. This is the wild west. I feel sorry for federal agent who is want coul to come d push us around. I dont want violence, but if theyre going to bring violence to us. If thats the language they want to speak, well learn it. Its a local story that taps into the vein of government sentiment. Nevadas senators traded barbs on the issue on a local tv interview. If there were ever an example of domestic, terrorist wannabes, its these guys. We should call it this way. What senator reid call terrorists i call patriots 12,347 they have talked of a task force to defuse the situation, but its unclear what that would look like. Its been more than 20 years since the seens of ruby ridge in waco, texas, in the wild west. Not looking for a fight, the government has receded from the scene for now. Joining us now with a look at the nevada confrontation, and what it represents in the long history of the people of the west and the federal government, the professor of ge geography of clark university. And ken ivory, and rob morocca, Senior Scientist for global diversity. Professor, let me start with you. I think its a surprise to people in a lot of other places in the country that the federal government owns more than 80 of the land inside the borders of nevada. How did that happen in the first place . Thats an interesting question, ray, and whats happening on this ranch in nevada illuminates a lot of history in the United States in one microcosm. For the first 115 years or so thats history up to 1890 the United States policy towards land was to get as much as it could and then fill it up with settlers, not just settlers, but farmers. Startinstarting with thomas jef, the idea was very much that the United States would be a nation of family farms. That would be good economically, politically, culturally, in all sorts of ways. Around 1890 the federal government reversed course 180 degrees and said whereas up until now all this land that weve been acquiring we assume well turn over to private hands through homesteading acts, giving it to railroads, etc. You know what, what we still own as federal land were going to keep as federal land inperpetuity and manage it. Why did they do that . One is that turned out privatizing a bunch of land and Natural Resources did not always work out. It led to inefficient wasteful use, environmental destruction. It led to a lot of overgrazing, it led to wasteful timber practices, clearcutting, leaving timber behind that led to forest fires, and of course political corruption in seeing who would benefit from this public la largess. Their concerns that the United States would run out of critical Natural Resources, notably timber and others, and there were concerns those resourcessos were not being used efficiently. So federal government around the 1890s said were going to keep these lands in federal ownership but critically they did not mean by that that we will make them National Parks or lock them up for preservation. There is a small contingent arguing for that, but for the most part the resources would still be available for private use. Youll still be able to graze cattle, cut timber, looking for valuable minerals and so forth, but youll do it with the basic underlying landownership being federal. What evolved was this complica complicated patchwork of property rights. That it wasnt simply a case of the federal government owns this and a private landowner owns this. You have a complex interweaving of use rights, access rights, water rights, lease rights, etc. , etc. That system lastedbecame more complicated and lasted until the 1970s or so when the Environmental Movement essentially said, you know what, we dont think these lands are being managed very well. Theyre supposed to be managed for multiple uses, but theyre really just being managed for commodity production. We want to revisit that. We dont trust the agencies because theyve been taken over by the ranchers and timber companies, so forth. We have a passage of environmental laws that basically say that we want stronger policies for this land. Er with in this nevada land that has been set aside to protect a native tortoise. You heard that quick history lesson, and your state of utah and the next door state of nevada are thinly populated compared to other places in the country. Ideally, in your view, who should own that land that is currently under the jurisdiction of the federal government . There is more to that story. There were hearings titled grantings. Not if, only how. And when their proposal was only to transfer the surface to the states and keep all the federal and mineral ownership, the states killed that bill. A year later he was the tailo the taylor grazer act, it is oh to use the public use of the lands. At statehood every state had what is called an enabling act, the state contract. It is called the solemn contract that congress by policy does not have the authority to unilaterally change, the uniquely sovereignty of a state where particularly all the states public lands are at state. Nevada has the same language for disposal he i extinguishing act. Nevada was actually a state three years before nebraska. Nebraska goes from a little more than 30 public lands down to 1 . While nevada goes from 86 to 81 . Utah has the same operative language for extinguishing title hood of public lands as north dakota, south dakota, nebraska, louisiana, alabama. They simply have not honored that promise with the states in the west. Thats what is happening now. Because that have frustration, the complex patchwork that the professor called it is creating environmental and economic urgency throughout the west. You have forest that are sitting as tinderboxes and you have record fire conditions that are killing millions of animals, destroying water shed and habitat for decades. Youve got wild horses issues where under their own plans, their own regulations the federal government is showed to limit the Wild Horse Population in a particular southern utah area 300 wild horses yet there are 2,000 wild horse there is, and their population is doubling every four to five years. Destroying the ecosystem, and their solution because they dont have the money is to reduce cattle grazing by 50 . What is happening now the states are saying, look, the promises of statehood are the same. Youve kept that promise with states east of colorado. This is the only solution big enough for states that have more than 30 of their revenue comes from a federal government that says its unsustainbly broke. We have environmental conditions on the ground that we have an urgency that is tremendously apparent. With that regard in the west we have tremendous conditions that need to be solved on the ground. Thats what is happening now. This is so much bigger than one rancher in nevada. You just heard representative ivorys indictment of the situation. Is he right . The federal government is not a very good steward of a lot of land in your part of the country. First i want to work my organization. I work for the center of biological diversity. Its event that representative ivory stops his memory of 1932 talk about giving back of lands to the states. The lands in the west are vastly different than lands east of the Mississippi River or in the great plains. The lands in the west are the lands nobody wanted. The states made applications for the lands they did want to incorporate into state ownership or privatization because the lands are so air rid, the majority of the lands remained in federal ownership simply because the state didnt want them. Nevada is the dryest state in the nation, and the mow Mojave Desert where this is occurring america. The land policy Management Act of 1976 explicitly stated that the lands in federal Public Ownership would remain so inperpetuity unless it could be proven that it was in the National Interest to do others. The United States enjoys a unique heritage among nations of the world where we have set aside a vast acreage for the enjoyment of our citizens in a way that wont degrade the land, in a way that everyone can enjoy, and unfortunately a person like cliven bundy decides to make 600 acres of American Public land his own. Rob, were going to take a short break, when we come back well talk about the particular case welcome back to inside story. Im ray ray. As Rancher Cliven Bundy resists federal attempts to collect fees to graze his cattle on federal land, his colleagues call him a moocher to get for free what other ranchers pay for, his supporters call him a patriot. Representative ivory, are we in a situation where perhaps you might agree with this man in principle, but disagree with his methods . Should this ranker be running his cattle on public land . Its been adjudicated, and pay a fee that hes been assessed . Well, ray, thats a situation where youre building a house, and you build it on a Bad Foundation youre going to have a bad house. For people at this point to be pointing fingers at bundy or the federal government, you need to step back and look at the foundation. The promise of nevada and statehood states that the federal government shall extinguish title and 5 of the proceeds of the public lands which shall be sold shall be paid to the state. If the federal government honors the original promise, now you have a foundation where youre honoring property and liberty and self governance, and this never comes about. This situation is so much bigger than bundy. Thats why youve got state legislature, legislatio legislative leaders around the west to solve this systemic problem that we have now. People decree and declare that they for disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory. Thats also part of the governing law here. Its been adjudicated several times. Cliven bundy has lost all the times that it has been adjudicated. Should he pay his fees . That language is onethird of the sentence. The rest of the sentence said forever disclaim right and title until title shall have been extinguished. That language, people like to focus on the first half of the sentence, but thats the same language in the nebraska enabling act, and the north and south dakota and louisiana and alabama, in fact, alabama, louisiana, illinois, month m they were 90 federally controlled for decades, and they complained, look, we cant educate our kids, grow our economy and grow our state because youre not honoring the promise of straight hood and they banded together a compelling argument for statehood. Those people who focus on a third of the sentence, you need to read the whole document. Byu law review article that was dealing with the federal governments compact base duty to deal with the federal lands. Ill finish the sentence to make sure its on the record. And that the same shall be and remain at the soul and entire disposition of the United States. Has the United States been able to command respect for its disposition in this case . I believe the United States has tried to dispose off, but again these are the hands that nobody wanted. These are air rid lands, vastly different from lands in the east where you have fertile ground, lots of rainfall and the ability to grow crops, for instance. I would say that the United States is upholding its honor and duty by managing these lands according to federal laws and according to the principles of multiple use. Professor, this isnt an isolated case, is it . Depending on whats on the land or under the land, people have wanted to extract wealth from the west for well over a century, and pay as little as possible for the privilege, no . Absolutely. And you see these sorts of arguments and struggles recurring and so once you had a strong push to heighten the authority on the land. A lot of people were inside the federal government, inside the federal agencies, so you didnt have conflict. As soon as obama came into office you saw renewing. There is historical continuity here. I would have to say legallyyou can always argue a point legally and reinterpret, but the fact that the federal government does hold title and the fact that federal government trumps other levels of government, its not really a line question. The live questions are the economic ones, the political ones, and the cultural ones. So what is at stake at this . One thing i would note this question of should the western states have more of the land within their jurisdictions under their direct control has come up throughout history, really. It is true that that is mostly arid mountainous lands. There were reasons that it was not privatized and homestead in the first place. There are reasons when they had a chance to take over they had not wanted to. A couple of things are important to think about, do the states have the capacity to do it . Could they afford to do it . People complain about the federal government expanding in power and scope throughout our history, which is true, it has done that, however, if the states were to take over 80 of the land in nevada, they then would have to expand substantially in capacity and how much they are present in peoples every day lives, in their budgets, and so forth. Second, federal laws would still apply even if those lands were transferred to the state it would not take the endangered species acts off the books. Were going to take a sharp break. When we come back well talk about the way this has become a lightening rod for people with hostilities towards washington. Is there a clean break and a clean resolution for all of this . This is inside story. Results of analyses were skewed in favor of the prosecution the fbi cant force the states to look at those cases the truth will set you free yeah. Dont kid yourself the system has failed me we can make a real difference here. Welcome back to inside story. Im ray ray. On this edition of the program were talking about the nevada ranchers stand off, and more broadly about government management of American Land and Natural Resources in the west. Rob morroca, how should all this end . Weve got a situation where you heard earlier in the program of people saying, i feel sorry for federal agent who is try to come in here. Were not going to let that happen. The feds just stay off of our land. How does this end in a way that doesnt involve violence and bloodshed . You know, ray, we are a civil society, and were governed bylaws. Thats how we keep our civility. This should end by federal laws being upheld, people held responsible for violating those laws. First and foremost in my mind, and in view of the organization, the habitat of the desert tortoise needs to be preserved. The cattle need to be removed as soon as possible and expedient as possible. How do you see this ending . You see them step up, the comment that was made that the states dont want the land is simply ludicrous. The only time the land was offered was in the 1930s was when they offered the surface and not the minerals. Nevada did a study that under state management there would an net positive of 1. 6 million a year. The way they needs to end the federal government needs to honor very promise. Thats what the representatives of the people are working on. Should cliven bunding paying his animal unit month, calculate what it costs to have a cow graze on land . Yes, of course he should. He should be paying his grazing fees, and the people who are activated, need to activate their energy under rule of law under our constitutional system in choosing representatives who will stand up and compel congress to keep the same promise that it already kept. There was a 2009 Unanimous Supreme Court case that said congress does not have the authority to even laterally change the uniquely sovereign character of a states admission particularly where all of the states public lands are at stake. Professor, before we go, does this have the potential to be a cattl acatalizing moment . I think this is ultimately very much a national question, and so the question has to be what is the overarching or overriding public purpose here . And its important to think in our history even when lands were privatized and homesteaded, even when grazing and other uses were allowed, and when we heightened environmental uses the consistent theme there is its always held to be in the National Interest not simply in the interest of private individuals or users. Do you see big changes coming, or is this really a question of who has got the political power in the near term . If there is a republican ascend dency in the republican election will those like cliven bundy gets a reprieve. There may be a reprieve but its changing. What you see is a regional elite, a group of people who have a lot of political access and power, and who are seen as central to the United States in terms of identity, what could be more iconic than the cowboy . That is really not what were going to see in the west in the 21st century. Were going to have to stop there. Thanks a lot to our guests , gentlemen, good to caulk to youu all. That brings us to the end of this edition of inside study. The program may be over but discussion continues. We want to thin hear what you tk about this or any days shows. You can send us your thoughts on twitter or you can reach me directly ray ray news. See you for the next inside story. In washington, im ray ray. On america tonight fight for chicago. Warmer weather leads to a heatup in the gang wars, and a fierce debate over whether crime is up or down. You cant come to the park happening. Also tonight broke, and at the back of the line. As detroit tries to dig its way out of debt, an america tonight investigation finds some that have waited years for city payments could turn out to be the biggest losers. Ever since the city of detroit filed bankruptcy, the