Support for Clive Bundy

This is an article that my brother wrote.  I liked it so much I thought I would share it on here.
His name is Albert Wilde.  He, my brother Logan and Father own and manage the ranch that has been in our family for over 100 years. 
Despite the many issues of disagreement touching the incident that has transpired in Southern Nevada between a cattle rancher (Cliven Bundy) and the Federal Government, I believe this article will give you at least a fair version of one side of the argument.

Why I support Cliven Bundy:
My family and I are six generation ranchers, we have about 17,000 acres of deeded ground, and about 60,000 acres of BLM and state ground that we own permits to run on from Nov. 1st till April 30th of each year.  There are 3 things that I would like to bring up that should be considered by all in reviewing this important issue.

1. We pay our grazing fees every year and have done so faithfully since about 1934.  However since the 1990's the BLM has made efforts to close the roads we use to access this property.  Essentially attempting to force us from the land that we have had a right to for nearly 80 years and need to continue to operate.  At the peak of the debate over road closures there was enough public outcry at the time, that they were persuaded not to close the roads.  However the agency in charge quit maintaining the roads and necessary livestock water sources.  We have also been told that it is illegal for us to do any upkeep on the roads or water sources, even if it is funded privately out of our own pockets.  There are no Desert Tortoises in our area.

2. Adjacent to some of the deeded portion of our Ranch lies public land.  On this public land there are zero easements. Yet we have five public utility easements(three oil pipelines, one fiber optic cable, and one power line), -none of which are for local use- that have been forced on us.  I say forced because when at all possible these public and private utility/energy companies locate on privately owned property rather than on public land. Why, you may ask is this the case?  Well it is because the farmer or rancher can't afford to fight the government and their big business partners in a legal battle.  Environmental groups protect public lands and can have the government pick up their legal fees.  So when deciding who to tangle with in a legal battle the utility companies are always going to pick the one that they know that they can win against.
People have said to me, "Well these companies have to pay fair market value for any land taken under Eminent Domain." Yet the problem is what is fair market value?  It ends up being what ever they are willing to give you, unless you decide to fight.  If you fight, they get to proceed with their easement and you have to get an attorney.  Under which premise you are not guaranteed and in most cases end up getting no more than you would have, had you settled.  Sometimes even less due to penalizing factors of fighting public utility companies.  There are exceptions to this rule as you always expect there to be, but experience has taught us that you just can't win against multi-billion dollar entities that have politicians and the judicial system on their side or at least in their pocket.  So whether you fight or not you eventually arrive at the point where you have to talk money.  That is when we have to have it appraised for the highest amount we can.  Meanwhile they appraise it for the lowest amount they can.  Then comes round two in court of back and forth and then finally a judge decides.   Despite my use of the term finally this part of the process may take 2-10 years.   Additional to all of this is that when you need to replace that ground -because a farm can't continue to operate on a diminished number of acreage without decreasing production- then you run into a new set of problems.  #1 being that there isn't any available acreage around your farm for sale so you have to travel (up to 40 miles or so) to find replacement ground.  Which then increases not only fuel costs but burden of time in traveling to and from the new location, in addition to a diminished ability to use the new ground as you did the old one because it's not directly connected to the rest of your operation.  That inconvenience is not factored into the fair market value.  Another problem that often arises is the tax burden with the sold property which decreases your spending ability or you have to spend it quickly so as to present yourself with a tax shelter.  And then there is the problem of actually being able to find a apple-for-apple comparative piece of property.  No two pieces of property are ever the same and so you often end up getting less property than you had because you don't have the additional income lying around to be able to spend on buying more property than you had. 
 
3. Finally I find it amusing when I hear talk about America being energy dependent on other countries.  Yet I hear no one complaining about America being food dependent on other countries.  In the 1990's America quit producing enough food to be able to feed its own populace.  Don't get me wrong this was not a problem that just started in the 1990's, but a problem that had been growing for at least 80 years before that time.  In the last two years we have seen food riots in many South American countries.  Why?   Because the food their country is producing is being shipped to the US and Europe at a higher price than what the people of that country can pay.  The people are starving and riots/looting are not uncommon at the warehouses where the food is stored before shipping.  The companies that own the production of the food produced in those countries are either nationalized or they are foreign.  So the people are employed at a sub-poverty level by foreign corporations or their own government so that (once again) the multi-billion dollar corporations can turn a profit, and yet the people aren't being paid enough for their work to be able to afford even just the basic staples of life.  
This situation should make us all pause and wonder, about what is going to happen when those workers, who aren't able to afford the basic staples of life right now without turning to crime of one sort or another (e.g., narco-production, prostitution, arms dealing, etc.) refuse to work for those food producing companies?  Do we not see that there is an impending monkey-wrench that is going to be thrown into our own food production?

The way of life of the American farmer/rancher must be preserved. 

There are solutions to preserving this but we need cooperation, not mandates.  (One great example is the CWMU program here in the state of Utah.  It is the one reason our ranch is still in business.  I would like to see something like the CWMU program for water in the state and around the west.)

Cliven Bundy is crying for help from the government and the people to have a spirit of cooperation like what we as farmer and ranchers use to have even in the Taylor grazing act.   It is sad that it has had to come to this showdown to get someone to hear.  What will be worse is if we fail to act now and live to see times in which the American people are starving, and rioting is a common event seen in our land.