“On April 12, 2014, protestors and some armed militiamen rallied in support of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. In what was intended to be the culmination of a longstanding battle between BLM and Bundy, the agency had rounded up all of the rancher’s livestock he had been illegally allowing to graze on federal land without paying the appropriate fees. The gathering of protestors led to a prolonged standoff, and eventually BLM released the cattle so the crowds would dissipate.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said BLM has refused to disclose any documents relating to its decision-making process in regard to the incident, or how it plans to respond to similar situations in the future. BLM employees do not know what precautions were taken or how their safety will be ensured moving forward.
Additionally, PEER said, the situation with Bundy is unresolved. This could set a dangerous precedent as ranchers and other detractors feel “emboldened” to challenge the authority of federal agencies and regulations. If Bundy and a rag-tag crew of vigilantes with guns could get a federal agency to back down, what would stop others from doing the same?
The concern appears to have some merit. In July, the Homeland Security Department’s Intelligence and Analysis Office issued a report titled “Domestic Violent Extremists Pose Increased Threat to Government Officials and Law Enforcement.” The investigators said the “perceived victory by militia extremists” in the Bundy case would “likely inspire additional anti-government violence over the next year.”
In the months since the Bundy standoff, many Nevada ranchers have ignored BLM warnings to curb grazing activities while record droughts afflict the state and region. Now BLM employees are unsure where they stand, should new fights evolve.”
You don’t say. What ever would cause them to worry a year later?
We are like kittens.
I am especially warm and fuzzy.