Rancher in prison for 'trespassing cows'

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Secret Master

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
31
Location
Midian Ranch, Nevada
From the pages of Range Magazine (or from http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34095):

Luther Wallace "Wally" Klump recently marked his 70th birthday, but he could not celebrate his threescore and ten on the family ranch in Arizona with his wife, children and grandchildren. The old rancher turned 70 in a penitentiary cell with only convicts to commemorate the juncture.

Klump was not in prison for murder, rape, drugs or any of the common offenses against society. His offense was one that astounded the most hardened and cynical of the criminals in the penal complex where he is housed. Klump's "crime" boiled down to "trespassing" cows on Bureau of Land Management property in Arizona's Dos Cabezas Mountains. His fellow inmates understood why Wally was serving time. For his birthday, they made a card with a picture of a grazing cow and a bold caption: "BLM Sucks!"

The rawhide tough, tall rancher has become a father figure and prison parson to many of the young detainees. As an inmate said in a phone interview, "I thank God for saving me and having Wally here to guide me to a better life. ..."

Wally rates respect with the prisoners because of his steadfast refusal to bow to what he believes is "an unreasonable authority." In this case, federal Judge John M. Roll of the U.S. District Court in Tucson, who jailed Klump April 21, 2003, for contempt of court for "failing to follow the Court's order prohibiting the unauthorized grazing of cattle on government allotments." It is common knowledge with his fellow inmates that he can get out of jail at any time simply by having his family remove the "criminal cows" from BLM lands in the Dos Cabezas area.

Ok, there is NO reason for this fine old man to be in jail! :fire: As many of you who live in western states know the BLM is getting way out of hand, it's ranks shot through with various beaurocrat/socialist/envorionmentalist morons who seem to delight in making our nation's small ranchers miserable. Let them feel your anger folks (and read this article in its entirety). If you read the entire article you will also see the link to RKBA.
 
Here is another episode of the same thing here where I live.




Cattle Seizing Spurs Protests

SCOTT SONNER, Associated Press Writer August 2, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FALLON, Nev. (AP) - A battle over cattle grazing in Nevada's high desert is pitting lawman against lawman.

When federal officers seized the herds of two local ranchers from government land last week, only a stern warning from the U.S. attorney stopped a pair of county sheriffs from blocking the roundup.

Now, dozens of ranchers and states-rights activists are holding protests at the livestock yard where the captured cattle are being kept, a sheriff is pressing a legal offensive against future seizures and local authorities are complaining that heavy-handed federal rules are threatening a traditional way of life in the West.

``They intimidate and hope they can get away with it,'' said Lt. Tony Philips of the Nye County sheriff's office.

The dispute is the latest feud between local and federal law enforcement as New West range wars create alliances and enemies John Wayne never would have dreamed of. Recent examples:

- San Bernardino County, Calif., Sheriff Gary Penrod canceled an agreement that gave U.S. Bureau of Land Management (news - web sites) officers the ability to enforce state laws on federal land. County ranchers are chafing at grazing restrictions imposed to protect the threatened desert tortoise. Penrod said he didn't want to be associated with ``law enforcement personnel who may be precipitating violent range disputes.''

-The sheriff in Sevier County, Utah, has allowed ranchers to take back cattle that were seized by the BLM after ranchers refused to take them off drought-denuded range in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Sheriff Phil Barney said he wanted to avoid a ``Waco situation'' last November.

-In Klamath Falls, Ore., Sheriff Tim Evinger has mediated a tense dispute between farmers and the Bureau of Reclamation, which cut off irrigation water because of shortages brought on by drought and complicated by environmental rules.

-Last year, residents in northeast Nevada defied a different federal agency, the Forest Service, by taking shovels to rebuild a washed-out stretch of road in Elko County. The Forest Service had ruled that construction would threaten the bull trout. After months of confrontation, uneasy negotiations on a compromise are under way.

In Fallon, BLM officials are holding nearly 200 cattle owned by Ben Colvin and John Vogt, saying they owe a combined $370,000 in fees and fines for grazing without permits since 1995. The agency said the ranchers are overgrazing tens of thousands of acres in Nye and Esmeralda counties, 150 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Nevada, with its vast expanses of desert and wind-swept range, is 87 percent owned by the federal government.

It was the birthplace of the Sagebrush Rebellion against federal land policy in the 1980s, and the Elko road dispute has energized a new round of anti-Washington activism. Ranchers and their increasingly vocal supporters see themselves as victims of rules that put environmental concerns above people.

``I don't think they have the right to take my cattle,'' said Colvin, 63, whose family has been in the ranching business since 1860. ``They may have the power but they don't have the right.''

Bob Abbey, the BLM's state director, said the impoundment of cattle was a last resort after more than five years of failed negotiations with the ranchers.

``They are the ones creating the battles,'' Abbey said. ``They have drawn a line in the sand. They have made a point of refusing to comply with the rules and regulations governing public land use.''

Esmeralda County Sheriff Kenneth Elgan planned to issue citations to the federal officials, according to District Attorney Patricia Cafferata, who said she opposed the plan.

Nye County Sheriff Wade Lieseke planned to go farther, said Philips, the lieutenant. ``He had actually ordered me to get my people and go out and stop it,'' Philips said.

Federal prosecutors, however, got wind of the sheriffs' plans.

In a letter obtained by The Associated Press, Acting U.S. Attorney Howard Zlotnick in Las Vegas wrote to the Esmeralda County sheriff that ``potential violations of federal law would arise if anyone interfered with BLM employees lawfully engaged in their assigned duties.''

Letters went to other jurisdictions as well. Deputy Nevada Attorney General Wayne Howell also said he contacted prosecutors in Esmeralda and Nye counties to assure them the BLM had the legal authority to seize the cattle without first obtaining a court order.

The locals backed off, partly for fear of prosecution.

``I didn't want to end up at Club Fed,'' Philips said.

The sheriffs have plenty of support from protesters who turned out to back the ranchers. One sign at an auction-lot protest read, ``The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in the USA.''

``They don't have a right to tell our local sheriff what he can and can't do,'' said Janine Hansen of Sparks, a member of the anti-federal Nevada Committee for Full Statehood.

Philips said the Nye County sheriff's department is now seeking guidance from a federal court on the whether the BLM seizures are proper.

``If it turns out they are not meeting due process,'' he said, ``they'll never round up any cattle around here again without a court order.'' -
 
Secret, no, don't leave. You just got here! Welcome to THR.:)

Anywho, I despise the parasites that want something for nothing. A very good example here of hairy-chested, rugged individualist sticking his hand in my pocket and free riding.

Whether he deserves prison, I don't know. But BoP for trespass? Must not be a Cat 0-1 offender to get prison, or maybe he violated probation by free riding while on probation???

I usually see stories about these parasites around quarterlies. Extension was up yesterday. Gets me all worked up.:D
 
>Anywho, I despise the parasites that want something for nothing.

Ok... but state and Federal government in the US own 42% of the land, all of the continental shelf, all the waterways, etc. I think this is where the major "parasite problem" lies. If he were grazing his cows on land owned by another rancher, the Audubon society, or a hunting preserve, then he wouldn't be getting any sympathy. The BLM has no more reason to exist than GOSPLAN.
 
Simple solution. Instead of arresting ranchers who graze public lands without paying, simply declare any such animals as "feral" and allow hunters to help themselves. It would take only a few hundred dollars for maps of grazing permit areas to be distributed and any cattle outside those zones could be considered free meat.

Why waste more tax money to imprison people like this? Clearly, these cattle are not native species so let's shoot them and make more room for wildlife - or use them to feed the homeless once your own freezer is full.

Keith
 
Kill a family's living? I don't think so!
Click to expand...

Then you won't mind if I start a commercial fishing operation in your favorite lake, or build a lumber business using trees in your local national forest, or build a nice little family mining business stripping coal down at the national park?

We're talking about public property here - my property, and your property - and if somebody wants to graze cattle on it they need to pay me for it. If the land won't support grazing - usually due to massive destruction from earlier grazing - then I don't want him to use it.

If he decides to run cattle on my property anyway, I consider them MY cattle.

Keith
 
I fail to see why an unwed mother in Detroit is a "welfare cheat", but a guy with a big hat sucking 100 times as much from the public teat is a "rancher".

Keith
 
Keith, if you can get it done, then go for it. Cattlemen are fighting bureaucracy, getting it done.
 
This is stupit.......................

I like the idea of cattle on government land. If you live in the desert you have watch out for fires.

The cattle are feeding on grass and brush that could "feed" a fire. If a few cows would have grazing this area, we would have this tread

Lighting Hell's Fires
 
444
Nevada, with its vast expanses of desert and wind-swept range, is 87 percent owned by the federal government.
Click to expand...
This is the part that bothers me! Can't have anyone grazing their cattle on the King's Land now can we?

telomerase
Ok... but state and Federal government in the US own 42% of the land, all of the continental shelf, all the waterways, etc. I think this is where the major "parasite problem" lies. If he were grazing his cows on land owned by another rancher, the Audubon society, or a hunting preserve, then he wouldn't be getting any sympathy. The BLM has no more reason to exist than GOSPLAN.
Click to expand...
BINGO!! Seems to me this is a States Rights issue anyway.
 
I agree, in principle, that the federal gubmint should turn that land over to the states.

Yet, the issue would remain. Public lands (whether state or federal) are supposed to be held in trust for the people - ALL of the people rather than just ranchers. They are supposed to be "multiple use" lands where one use does not destroy its value for other users.
For example, allowing some logging in a state forest does not necessarily rule out recreational uses like hunting, fishing, camping etc. Judicious logging can be done in such a way that it doesn't destroy streams and it may actually increase game herds.
You have to find a balance.
Clearly, much of the arid country in the west is being destroyed for other uses by grazing. Arid lands that are grazed tend to come back in mesquite and sage. Stream banks get broken down and effect water tables and distribution for miles around. Game animal populations are reduced or disappear entirely.

There are consequences to how we use our public lands. In some cases, the BLM may be full of baloney. In other cases, the ranchers (or loggers, or hunters) may be full of baloney.
Yet, somebody has to look at the whole picture and make a decision on how these lands are utilized. If you disagree with the decision, then there are multiple public and political forums where you can air your displeasure.

If you choose just to break the law and run your cattle on public turf, I'm not out of line when I lobby to have them ruled as feral animals to be made use of by the public. Since I'm paying for the animals being raised, I should be able to eat them.

Keith
 
Does the fact that the land is owned by the Fed. Govt. mean that AZ state laws don't apply? If the BLM does have to follow state law, unless this is in a "No-Fence District" (no idea whether or not the land the cattle are on is) I believe that free range law applies and that the landowner is responsible for fencing cattle out of his land rather than the cattle's owner being responsible for fencing them in.
 
I checked with my wife, the gentleman in the article hereby has my permission to graze our portion of those lands.
 
" Since I'm paying for the animals being raised, I should be able to eat them."

How exactly are you paying for the animals being raised ?

You are eating them, that is when you pay for them.

I think you are missing a few key points here. One of those ranchers family in question here has been running cattle on that land since 1860. This was four years before Nevada even became a state. If the land is being destroyed by grazing, it is certainly taking awhile; in this case 143 years and the land is still suitable for what is probably it's only use by white men in history. Do you have any idea where this land is ? It is very near the area that has been used for nuclear testing. What do you propose we do with this public land other than what we are doing with it now. Maybe we can build a shopping mall there, but wait, Esmeralda County Nevada is one of, if not the most sparsely populated counties in the lower 48. According to a quick search there are 928 people living in the county. The county occupies 3588 square miles. There are 15 non-farm businesses in the county. Out of that 928 people living there, 102 are employed by the government.
What you are suggesting is at best, ruining many honest hard working families means of making a living, which they have been doing for over 100 years. And at worst, making it much harder and more expensive for Americans to provide their own food supply. Of course we could always get beef from Europe, but there is that pesky mad cow disease to worry about.
Of course another issue is that the Federal Government controls our land and dictates what can be done with it, without our input; even if it means that nothing is done with it at all.
 
eoR
I believe that free range law applies and that the landowner is responsible for fencing cattle out of his land rather than the cattle's owner being responsible for fencing them in.
Click to expand...

You are right at least in my area.(Arivaca AZ - Pima county) If you don't want cattle on your land you need to fence it and with good strong barb wire .
We had 3 cows break down one of are fences and thay eat the garden.:cuss:
 
Is it his land? Does he own it? If not, why are his cows on it?

This is the flip side of my environmental argument: If the Enviros (by proxy, through the government) want to decide what happens on a plot of land, they should buy that land. Well, this is land that the government owns. If they don't want cows on it, keep your cows off of it.

JMO,
Mike
 
AZTOY,

Since you did have a fence, wasn't the owner of the cows responsible for the damages?

Sorry about the garden. I imagine when you found them there you were about ready to harvest 3 beeves to replace the vegetables you wouldn't be harvesting.
 
"Well, this is land that the government owns. If they don't want cows on it, keep your cows off of it."

Well, the government owns the land because they say they own it. They didn't buy it. They just said, this is ours and we will do with it what we want (note the distinction; the government isn't the people, the government is a body seperate from the people. The people don't decide what should be done with the land, the GOVERNMENT decides). For the last 143 years, no one cared that he ran cattle on it. But now, since he won't pay them off, he is in trouble.
Again, this isn't Yellowstone, this isn't the Grand Canyon. This is a piece of land way out in the middle of nowhere that has been used for this purpose for generations. BLM isn't maintaining it. They arn't improving it. The only expense involved is the "land police" patroling it. Talk about an answer in search of a problem. Talk about creating a job. We have some land that 99% of the American population will never see. A piece of land that is so far off the beaten track that probably only a few people in the world ever go there. Now, let's form a government agency and hire a bunch of people who's only purpose is to try to collect money from anyone using that "public" land.
 
How did this land end up as BLM land in the first place? I'll admit that I don't know, but I strongly suspect that it has something to do with the term "manifest destiny" and the fact that it was not bought from the government by a private individual when our borders rolled westward. So, it remained government land.

As such, I'll repeat my earlier point. Is it his land? Does he own it? If not, why are his cows on it?

I'll assume the answers to be no and no for the first two. For the latter, I won't hazard a guess.

Query: if I allow you to let your dog run free in my back yard for a week, do I, at the end of that week, have a right to request that you remove it?

Mike
 
"Does he own it ?"
We have been though this before, but he is supposed to own it. As an American it is supposed to be his. This is supposed to be a government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people.

Why are his cows on it ?
Well, when his family started running cows on it, there was no one to tell them they couldn't. The concept that someone could tell him he couldn't didn't exist then. They have done it ever since and no one cared until we formed one too many police organizations that exist for no good purpose other than to enforce laws that exist only to give them something to do. Note that the real law enforcement professionals in that area were going to run thise BLM guys off.

The backyard example tells me you are not quite processing this information. Again, if I let my dog run in an area 100 miles from the nearest town, an area that no one in known history has used for any other purpose, an area that no one else in the world has any other use for, an area where what goes on there will never be known by more than a couple people in the world and you look at that and say, hey, lets try to make some money on this; lets form a law enforcement organization consisting of a few thousand people that have no other purpose, and we will try to shake 444 down for some cash. They may have the right to do it, but is it the right thing to do ? Is this the way we want our tax money being spent ? Is this the way we want "our" government to treat it's subjects ? These are the issues, not just some childish question of whether they CAN do it and get away with it.

How we want out tax money spent is a good one. Let's spend millions, if not billions on a governement agency. Let's further erode the American people's freedom, and justify it by fining a guy a couple thousand.

This is one of those issues that you can answer for yourself; Would you proudly tell your mother, or would you proudly stand in front of your church, or would you stand at the perally gates and say: I just ruined some guy's livelyhood that he has pursued for over 140 years for no reason other than to exercise the power of the government.

One other hint, if everyone that lives in that area including the law enforcement officers hate you, odds are, you are not doing the right thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
Judicial Tyranny: Has The Bureaucracy Gone Mad?
Replies
12
Views
680
Graystar
G
Z
  • Locked
Nevada Rancher Sues Federal Government for 30 Million in Takings Suit
Replies
8
Views
684
six 4 sure
S
A
  • Locked
Cow killing sparks legal battle
Replies
2
Views
625
Pilgrim
P
J
  • Locked
Jewish militant killed in Los Angeles prison.
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Preacherman
P
2
  • Locked
EVERY day, the nation's prisons release a walking crime wave
Replies
6
Views
820
telewinz
T
Back
Top