Friday, January 15, 2016

Tension between ranchers and federal officials is dangerously high in Nevada

Tension between ranchers and federal officials is dangerously high in Nevada

Protesting ranchers have pitched their “Cowboy Grass Camp” on a muddy roadside across from the BLM’s district office in Battle Mountain, Nev. (Molly Hennessy-Fiske / Los Angeles Times)


Contact Reporter
Los Angeles Times
Jan 14 2016
 
 
Gerald "Jerry" Smith grew up in Nevada and went to work for the Bureau of Land Management right after college. As a local, he figured he was uniquely suited to work with the ranchers who have long resented the 'federal government's' role in 'land management' here. It didn't quite work out that way.

Now retired from a job as district manager for the BLM, Smith knows all about the tensions that have long defined relations between ranchers in the rural West and the 'federal government', which manages much of the region's land. Those tensions have boiled over in recent days at a wildlife refuge in Oregon and are at a perpetual simmer here.

Now it is Smith's successor as district manager, Doug Furtado, who has become the enemy for many people in the region.

Although there has been no violence or threats here, the risk is real. 'Federal employees' in Nevada have been attacked in the past over land-use disputes — shot at, their offices and cars bombed.
 
"We got to live in this community," said Smith, who supervised, trained and still hunts with Furtado in this community where many carry concealed handguns. "All these issues, none of them are worth dying over. I worry about that — so does Doug."

Just off the interstate leading into this northern Nevada town of about 3,600 ringed by the snow-capped peaks of the Shoshone and Sheep Creek ranges, protesting ranchers pitched their "Cowboy Grass Camp" on a muddy roadside across from the gray stucco ranch house that serves as the BLM's district office.

Two white tepees flapped in the wind last week beside a canvas tent sometimes occupied by the ranchers who tend their cattle on nearby spreads passed down through generations. They tacked hand-lettered red, white and blue signs to a nearby metal ranch gate urging drivers to "Support ranchers," "Protect grazing, water rights" and "Honk to impeach Furtado!"
 
"I lay on it when I go by," said rancher Eddyann Filippini, 59. "You do what you got to do when the devil's got the sword to your throat."

Furtado, district manager for the last five years, listens to the honking from inside his office. He is no longer allowed to speak publicly and was recently forced to back off on drought-driven grazing restrictions he imposed in 2013 and cede control of negotiations with ranchers to the state director.

Filippini and other ranchers have sued, staged a "pony express" protest ride on horseback to Washington, D.C., and petitioned for Furtado's ouster. Last spring they flouted Furtado's order, set their cattle loose on the public range, and if the agency can't broker an agreement soon, they're poised to do it again.

"There's no more partnership," Filippini said. "Now it's them or us."

That's what concerns Furtado and his defenders.

The hills of northern Nevada have long seethed with discontent against the 'federal government'. In the 1970s, local ranchers helped launch the Sagebrush Rebellion, a rural revolt that lasted, in various iterations, for decades as ranchers and lawmakers bucked new 'federal laws' concerning the use of public lands, demanding more local control.

By the 1990s, they had won increasing support and notoriety. Sisters Mary and Carrie Dann gained national attention for defying federal grazing limits on pastures to the south of Battle Mountain, contending the land belonged to their Western Shoshone tribe. 

On July 4, 1994, a crowd cheered as Richard Carver, a county commissioner from southern Nevada, took a bulldozer to a Forest Service road, later threatening to arrest a federal ranger who tried to stop him.

Smith recalls how Carver used to carry miniature copies of the Constitution in his pocket, just like some of the ranchers holed up in Oregon do, expounding on state's rights.

Smith, 65, graduated from the University of Nevada in Reno and joined the BLM in a succession of rural outposts — Winnemucca, Ely and finally Battle Mountain, where he was district manager for 15 years.

As a local, he thought he could make inroads with hard-core rebels like the Dann sisters, who faced the loss of their grazing permits and hefty fines for defying federal orders.

"I spent the first year I was in Battle Mountain going to meetings with them. We were trying to get them in a peaceful resolution to pay their fees and get their permits and continue ranching," Smith said.

But some, including the Danns, still resisted. "There's a small percentage of ranchers that can't stand being told what to do," he said.

As the Western drought worsened in recent years, so did the ranchers' unrest. In 2014, rancher Cliven Bundy and supporters staged an armed standoff in southeastern Nevada. Instead of impounding Bundy's cattle, the bureau backed down. Now two of Bundy's sons have become leaders of the 'armed occupiers' in Oregon, and the effect has spread to Battle Mountain.

"Everybody felt a little more empowered when the BLM didn't impound Cliven Bundy," Smith said.

John Ruhs, the Bureau of Land Management's state director, took over negotiations with the Battle Mountain ranchers last summer. Ruhs — a former Marine who dresses like a rancher in cowboy boots, wool vest, jeans and a forked beard — brokered a temporary agreement that allowed the families to continue grazing.

"I don't feel BLM backed down," Ruhs said as he sat in his Reno office within view of a Black Angus herd. "We are trying to make decisions where it is more of a collaborative process.... In our job now, we have to be careful we put some warmth back into that, some humanity. Because we got smacked in the face on some of this."

Filippini, the local rancher, said she has worked well with Ruhs.  "I respect John very much. But I can't say that's true of the local office," she said, laughing bitterly. "There's zero trust; there's zero integrity. It's like they're the bullies on the block."

She and other ranchers are scheduled to meet with an agency team next month at the Battle Mountain Civic Center, where a sign reads, "Are you tough enough?"
If they can't reach an agreement, Filippini intends to turn her cattle out as scheduled March 1st.

"Until we go back to being partners, that's the way it's going to be," she said. "We will stand and fight for our property."

Last week, Smith was out hunting speckled chukar partridges in Whirlwind Valley outside Battle Mountain. He noted with dismay invasive plants left behind by overgrazing: tumbleweed, Russian thistle, cheatgrass.

"The range has just deteriorated," he said. "It's burned. For miles around it's grazed down to nothing. You'd stand out there and just see white snow because there's nothing's going to stick up."
He wishes ranchers would see the benefit of limited grazing, which will help the grasses recover and sustain their herd in the long run.

"I just don't see it ending that way here," he said. "The people who abuse the public lands the worst are the ones who will fight the hardest."

molly.hennessy-fiske@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nevada-ranchers-blm-20160114-story.html
 

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ignorance of the law is no excuse!!

Let me repeat: There have been many deaths, shootouts and wars over this issue to the point it has boiled over already.

The land does not belong to the Bureau of Land Management, period.
The land in full title belongs to the people who live on the property of those various states and has always belonged to them. By their own free choice, they as the ranchers and farmers work with local state bureaus to take careful consideration of what happens on that land.

But that land absolutely belongs to the people and in truth of fact it has never in its history belonged to the Department of Agriculture or the BLM. Those corporations have literally no right to be on their property at all, so even in the states where those exist it is only from the people's discretion.

The proof of this can be seen throughout oregon now with the many resignations and sting operations of the BLM billing state militia. What led to the Sagebrush Rebellion was outside agencies and their criminal actions, all of which are federal conglomerates, doing everything they could get away with to force people off their land and trick them out of having it.

And this is just a small preview, since by 2030 they plan to throw everyone off the land who is inside their jurisdiction. Nevada is ground zero for the feds, yet if they secede then the issue ends there.

Anonymous said...

Its always about the money. BLM is NOT a govn't agency, but a consortium of private owners - mostly foreign - just like the Fed Reserve is.
Oregon: Harney County the secret they don't want you to know
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp3kf_USFZA

Anonymous said...

BLM is a bunch of liars. This has zero to do with any land grazing.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

Its obvious they came to seize the lands for the FEDS insatiable hunger for minerals. Also stop saying they are mormon or protestant etc. That has nothing to do with it. This guy bundy was one of the robbers.

He is someone who was on the wrong side, actually left the mormons entirely for a while. He and his ilk sought out land for Uranium mines ago. But he turned over a new leaf and wants to return the land! People have got to recognize that regular old mormons don't care about anyone's mines, only these grave robbers do.

Anonymous said...

Bundy and the other patriots have every right to be there. None of this was their fault. It is true that a hundred years ago some of his family was responsible for incorporating the lands of oregon and columbia.

BUT he is no longer a gadianton robber and he's trying to return the land. Most people trust him, but there are a lot of traditional mormons and christians who don't take sides for good reason. I think he does right by them.

Anonymous said...

If the traitor sheriff did his job, this event would have never happened.
This land and its tradition has been here way before the rogue criminal BLM ever existed, but it was the same if not worse when first owned by the native real American.

Anonymous said...

The purchase of land should only be legit. by blood sweat and tears. Maintenance of the land being necessary to hold title. No govt.agency can hold title by the constitution. Jury of piers to decide any disputes.

Anonymous said...

Allodial title or you have no rights to submit complaints. Decided by a jury.

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1210449785