Subscribe for 33¢ / day

Bundy case sets bad precedent for public land use

I am more than a little disappointed in the outcome of the Bundy case in Nevada. Although, with the current administration’s misunderstanding and misapplication of the rule of law, it is hard not to plumb differing levels of disheartedness on a near daily basis.

What U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro meant by “the court finds that the universal sense of justice has been violated” is anyone’s guess. It does concern me that it bends the arc of law toward public acclaim from the rule of law as it has been handed down historically. This of course benefits or encourages demagogues toward autocracy.

My main concern is that the greater number of ranchers who follow the rules will find life increasingly difficult, should their neighbors choose to disregard BLM regulations. Regulations are what allows different stakeholders to use and enjoy their shared public lands with some degree of equal opportunity.

Cliven Bundy, upon release from federal prosecution, threatened that further attempts to regulate or curtail his unlawful use of public lands would be met with the same kind of resistance as before. Bundy’s actions are further encouragement of the notion that government is our enemy, not our collective servant (as in “by and for the people”).

The last thing this country needs is more “sagebrush” delusions. Whatever his political fantasies may be, he is essentially claiming dominion over our publicly owned land. This cannot become a precedent lest diverse public uses be diminished. Somehow I cannot imagine Secretary Zinke or AG Jeff Sessions allowing the law to be enforced “against” Bundy.

We, the rightful owners and users, must let our voices be heard as loud and often as possible! Your Senators and Representative need to hear the sound of outrage over this defacto privatization of public land.

— Tim Crawford, Belgrade


Load comments