The Bundy Ranch issue has nothing to do with Bundy’s peculiar views

Harry Reid is now using Cliven Bundy’s off-beat views as justification for the federal government slaughtering his cows.

Bundy told the New York Times that he thinks black Americans might have been better off under slavery than they are on welfare.  He says he was just “thinking out loud” — “wondering” — “asking questions.”

Yup, pretty stupid. Maybe he’s a racist. Maybe he believes the tooth fairy is real. Maybe he’s just loony tunes.

So now most mainstream Republicans and conservatives are running for the tall grass, wishing they had never heard of Cliven Bundy.

But Cliven Bundy’s oddball theories have nothing to do with the issue. Maybe he thinks the earth is flat.

The issue is this.

In the 19th Century, the federal government promised the Bundy family their cattle could graze in Nevada for free. The U.S. acquired the Nevada territory in 1848 as part of a treaty with Mexico.

The U.S. government needed people to come to Nevada, needed population for Nevada — which is mostly uninhabitable desert. So the U.S. government promised ranchers their cattle could graze for free. That was the deal.

In 1993, the U.S. government decided to start charging these ranchers grazing fees. Not entirely unreasonable.

One question, of course, is the amount. The Feds say Bundy owes them in excess of $1,000,000 because he has refused the pay the feds grazing fees since they were instituted by regulation in 1993.

Apparently, he has paid grazing fees to Clark County, Nevada.

Another public policy question is: Should the federal government own 81 percent of the land of Nevada, as is the case now? That might make some sense when Nevada was a U.S. territory. But how can Nevada be a real state if 81 percent of its land is owned by the U.S. government?

This is the situation with many Western states.

The U.S. government owns about 50 percent of 11 coterminous Western states and 60 percent of Alaska.

Is that a good thing?

I don’t think so.

Isn’t this pretty much the complaint of the Native Americans of old?

Like Cliven Bundy, the Native Americans also had customs and beliefs that might cause modern folk to say “Huh? What?”

But they were used to roaming the ranges, hunting the buffalo, fishing, and pretty much just living their lives.

Then the federal government came along and herded them into reservations. The Native Americans were also promised all kinds of things by the federal government that did not happen.

Mostly, the federal government just slaughtered the Indians. The stories of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse,  and Geronimo, did not end well.

It should be noted that America’s founders had few problems with the Indians.  Thomas Jefferson wrote about the Indians regularly crossing his property.  They would hunt and fish there. He would share his tobacco with them. No problems.

The pilgrims of Plymouth Rock and the colonists got along fine with the Indians.  Lewis and Clark had no trouble with the Indians.

The problem for the Indians was not the white man.  The white man got along fine with the Indians for more than two centuries. Major problems for the Indians began when the U.S. government started pushing them off their lands in the mid to late 19th Century.  Big government was their problem, especially in the post-Civil War period — when there was still a huge standing Union Army without much to do except push the Indians around.

They did not want to own the land  – a concept foreign to the Indians.  They just wanted to hunt and fish. They just wanted to use the land to survive, as they had used it for hundreds of years.

Can you see a parallel here with Cliven Bundy’s situation?

Cliven Bundy has bizarre views.

His family has also been on that land for more than 100 years on a promise from the federal government that Bundy family cattle could graze for free.

That promise was not contingent on the views of a future child. Besides, the First Amendment to the Constitution is supposed to guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of thought. I’m free to believe the earth is flat.

Bundy’s views, no matter how bizarre and off-putting have nothing to do with our rights as Americans.

Bundy lost his case in federal court. He chose to go into federal court without a lawyer. Of course he was going to lose his case. The chances of anyone winning a case in federal court without a lawyer against an army of taxpayer-funded U.S. government lawyers are just about nil. So he lost.

The Native Americans also lost all their arguments in federal court and were herded into reservations.

Innocent patriotic Japanese Americans (U.S. citizens) lost their arguments in federal court and were locked up in camps during World War II.

The Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the Jim Crow racial segregation laws until 1965.

So just because cases are lost in federal court hardly means the issue is settled or that the losing party is wrong.

I’m not saying Bundy is entirely right either.

The real questions in the Bundy case are:

1) Should the federal government honor the promise it made to the Bundy family (and other ranchers) in the 19th century — that their cattle could graze for free if they move to Nevada?

2) Does this promise extend forever? If not, what is a reasonable time limit before grazing fees can be charged?

3) Should these grazing fees be paid to Clark County or the U.S. government?

4) Should the U.S. government own 81 percent of Nevada land?

5) If Bundy owes fees to the U.S. government, who should set the fees? — the Bureau of Land Management via fiat regulation by unaccountable faceless bureaucrats? Or America’s lawmaking body, which is Congress?

6) What fees are reasonable given this history?

7) Given this history, should the Bundy Family be afforded the opportunity to purchase this land at fair market value?

This might be the best solution, not just in the Bundy case, but for most federal lands.  A massive federal land sale  would go a long way to solving the national debt crisis.

I’m not suggesting selling the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone Park, or places of unique stunning beauty.  Much federal land is uninhabitable wasteland  and wilderness that almost no one lives in or even sees.

These are questions that cannot be settled in a court.

Congress needs to step in and establish what lands should be owned by the U.S. government. Certainly not 81 percent of Nevada, not 50 percent of 11 Western states, and not 60 percent of Alaska.

Hardly anyone lives in Nevada. You can drive hundreds of miles in Nevada and hardly run into a gas station.

There’s a reason the feds wanted to lure the Bundy family to Nevada in the 19th Century with free grazing for their cattle.

Outside of Las Vegas and possibly Reno, almost no one would live in Nevada unless paid to live there. But Las Vegas did not exist before organized crime decided to build it in the 1940s. Before Las Vegas, there was only the Bundys . . . and a few other ranchers.

And their cattle are not grazing in Las Vegas. Their cattle are not grazing where people want to live.

So why not let their cattle continue to graze there?

Who cares what Cliven Bundy believes?

He’s not a government official, isn’t running for public office. He just wants to live with his cattle in the desert, where he’s bothering no one. And many Americans will happily enjoy the steaks he provides.