Shiree Bundy Cox on the Bundy Family Allotment That Was “Bought”: BLM Background and Public Lands

The following statement is allegedly from Shiree Bundy Cox, a daughter of Cliven and Carol Bundy. She explains the land allotment that her Great Grandpa, Grandpa and Dad paid for many years ago. She said her father paid his range fee for many years, until the money began being used against the ranchers in the area. She indicates that other ranchers left because the BLM bought-them out, using money that could have been ranging fees. Below her letter is information on how government became involved in “managing” grazing, under the “National System of Public Lands,” and how in 2011 the BLM changed their privacy policy regarding those who graze on “allotments,” But look at this quote (the way it used to be in America):


Public Service: Let’s get firmly fixed in our minds at the outset that we are public servants, employed by the public and paid by the public from funds provided by taxation in some form. We are responsible to the entire public and are not bureaucratic bosses to work our will upon the public as we see fit. Taylor Grazing Act, 1934

Begin Ms. Cox’s remarks:

“I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell.

My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.

The rights to the land use are called preemptive rights. [which Cliven Bundy has cited.]

Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the Bureau of Land Management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.

Instead they began using these monies against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they’re own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM and tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.

So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the endangered species card. You’ve already heard about the desert tortoise.

Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they’re desperate. It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.

Everything their doing at this point is illegal and totally against the Constitution of the United States of America.

Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle belong to him, regardless of where they are they are my father’s property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.

Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it. They think they can take them over two borders, which is illegal, ask any trucker.

Then they plan to take them to the Richfield Auction and sell them. All this with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are? Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks” published Ms. Cox’s statement. I don’t know if it was submitted directly to him from her or perhaps was posted on her Facebook page, where she has been posting regularly.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was formed in 1946, formally known as US Grazing Service (1939), formerly the Taylor Grazing Act (1934).

The controversial grazing land is “public land,” not federal land. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ‘manages’ some 245 million acres of public lands. Of the 245 million, 155 million acres allow livestock grazing — under Federal Law, which is The current Federal Law is 43 Code of Federal Regulations Part 4100

The BLM administers nearly 18,000 permits and leases held by ranchers who graze their livestock, mostly cattle and sheep, at least part of the year on more than 21,000 allotments under BLM management…

In managing livestock grazing on public rangelands, the BLM’s overall objective is to ensure the long-term health and productivity of these lands and to create multiple environmental benefits that result from healthy watersheds.

The Bureau administers public land ranching in accordance with the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, [Signed by Franklin Roosevelt] and in so doing provides livestock-based economic opportunities in rural communities while contributing to the West’s, and America’s, social fabric and identity. Together, public lands and the adjacent private ranches maintain open spaces in the fast-growing West, provide habitat for wildlife, offer a myriad of recreational opportunities for public land users, and help preserve the character of the rural West.

At some point, the current public law differs from the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 in four critical ways, and changes “permits” to “leases;”  one shown below:

Section 15 of the Act

Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act concerns issuing grazing leases on public lands outside the original grazing district boundaries. It states that “The Secretary of the Interior is further authorized, in his discretion, where vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved lands of the public domain are so situated . . . . to lease any such lands for grazing purposes, upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe . .

Domestic Use Grazing Permits: Under Section 15, no provision for free domestic use or subsistence grazing on the section 15 lease lands is made.

From 1934 to 1968, grazing use on the 16 million acres of Section 15 public lands was authorized under 10-year leases. Grazing fees were assessed on an acreage basis. Lessees were required to pay the lease regard-less of whether or not they actually had livestock on the leased lands. No provisions were made for refund or nonpayment due to drought, fire, or other factors.


In August 1968, regulation changes were implemented to place the Section 15 public lands under “multiple use management” (43 CFR 4125.1-1). Key changes made to the regulations are as follows.

  1. Allowed for joint use of the leased area by two or more lessees.
  2. Prohibited locked gates or other actions by the lessee to prevent or interfere with lawful public use of the public land.
  3. Established a framework for cooperation between BLM and lessees to develop allotment management plans aimed at improving resource conditions.
  4. Established construction standards for fences and other projects constructed by the lessees to assure multiple use objectives were met.
  5. Changed grazing fee charges from an acreage basis to payment for forage consumed as measured by animal unit months (AUMs).


The Federal Land Policy and Management Policy Act of 1976 (FLPMA) was passed to establish policy for managing BLM-administered public lands. To ensure long-term stability and use of BLM-administered public lands by the live-stock industry, FLPMA authorized 10-year grazing permits and required a two-year notice of cancellation. The Act also directed grazing advisory boards (formed under the Taylor Grazing Act) to guide the BLM in developing allotment management plans and allocating range betterment funds

The final rule change:

Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management became effective August 21, 1995 in accordance with the Department of Interior’s final rule for grazing administration. The development and application of these standards and guidelines are to achieve the four fundamentals of rangeland health outlined in the grazing regulations (43 CFR 4180.1). Those four fundamentals are: (1) watersheds are functioning properly; (2) water, nutrients, and energy is cycling properly; (3) water quality meets state standards; and (4) habitat for special status species is protected.

The final, final rule change:

Other changes that became effective August 21, 1995 that occurred with the Department of the Interior’s final rule for grazing administration are:

  • Management of the public lands in section 3 and section 15 are now the same.
  • The distribution of grazing fees remains the same as it was under the Taylor Grazing Act.
  • Leases are issued for section 15 and permits are issued for section 3.
  • Livestock being leased from/or pastured for someone else are subject to a surcharge.

A synopsis of the Acts governing the BLM grazing rights on public land:

Laws that apply to the BLM’s management of public lands grazing include the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978.

Federal Grazing Fee

The Federal grazing fee, which applies to Federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, is adjusted annually and is calculated by using a formula originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Under this formula, as modified and extended by a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM); also, any fee increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous year’s level. (An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.) The grazing fee for 2014 is $1.35 per AUM, the same level as it was in 2013.


This website provides information about grazing administration on the National System of Public Lands, including names and addresses of all grazing permit and lease holders who graze livestock on these lands. This information is provided in consideration of a United States District Court, District of Idaho decision in Case No. CV 09-482-CWD. In that case, the Court found that there was substantial public interest in understanding the scope of the grazing and rangeland program, including knowing how many individuals or entities actually graze cattle on public lands, as well as the size and scope of their operations, and that this public interest outweighed the permit holders’ privacy interest in their names, addresses and authorization numbers. The change makes the routine use of grazing administration information by BLM and U.S. Forest Service more consistent.

Summary of Public Lands:

The majority of “Public Lands” are held in trust for the American people by the federal government and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), with local cities and counties. Public lands are also managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Each western state also received federal “public land” as trust lands designated for specific beneficiaries, which the States are to manage as a condition to acceptance into the union. Those trust lands cannot any longer be considered public lands as allowing any benefits to the “public” would be in breach of loyalty to the specific beneficiaries. The trust lands (two sections, or about 1,280 acres (5.2 km2) per township) are usually managed extractively (grazing or mining), to provide revenue for public schools. All states have some lands under state management, such as state parks, state wildlife management areas, and state forestsSource: Wikipedia

Related and Background:

Margaret Bundy Houston Tell Town Board of Being Tackled by BLM, From Behind: BLM Takes Cattle Watering System

Bundy and BLM K-9 Unit Video: “Who Threw Margaret on the Ground?” Recording Brutality 

Nevada Desert Tortoise Euthanized by Conservationists While Being Rescued From Cliven Bundy Family Cattle

The Cliff Notes of the Cliven Bundy Ranch Story: A Tale of Stolen Cattle, Safe Tortoises, Lost Liberty, Wasted Sovereignty


Linked at BadBluesmart new, uncensored 24/7. Bookmark it and read it all here.

Linked at Teressa Monroe-Hamilton’s Noisy Room along with Cliven Bundy’s address to the Moapa Valley Town Council.

Linked in the USA Patriots Megaphone – lots of news, read it here.

Linked at Trutherator – thanks!

Linked at Grumpy Opinions – is anything any better than Jeb Bush getting Chuck Schumer’s endorsement? 

If you would like to receive Maggie’s Notebook daily posts direct to your inbox, no ads, no spam, EVER, enter your email address in the box below.

  • raven6

    Maggie, Lt. Powell here. Here is a link to the powerpoint I sent you. Slides 6, 10,11,12,and 17 will completely clarify why this is happening and Nevada has a solution, and I will forward you the material. Is our regular comms. address ok? as well, is not noisy room involved, I am working with Trevor Loudin, and with my friends in Salem Oregon who support him. Lets get this material out again, we can return the never let a crisis go to waste.

    Lt. Powell, at your service.
    P.S. Your site has been on fire, congratulations.

    • Guest

      Raven ..Can we have these links to see and send around ?

      Love Trevor Loudin.

    • Thank you Lt. Powell, I try to do it as soon as I can. Thanks for the reminder.

  • GoneWithTheWind

    This is a lie. Interesting she told two conflicting stories. First her grandfather bought the land in 1987, then his claim on the land is a “preemptive right”. Which is it? Is she even aware they are two conflicting things? This land in question belongs to the federal government. Perhaps it shouldn’t. That is perhaps the government shouldn’t own tens of millions of acres of land in the West. Perhaps the state shouldn’t own the land either. I for one think our government should not own any property or very little. But as it stands today the federal government owns the land that Bundy wants to “preempt” (that means “steal”). The BLM has been changing it’s grazing rules for years. Some of it based on government biologists reports of excessive grazing, some because of legislative changes congress mandated and some because of EPA regulations. Like it or not the rancher doesn’t have the right to simply not pay the fees or to try to claim the land is his. I sympathize with the rancher who is negatively impacted by regulations but I think violence is not his best answer. What he should have done is payed the fees and when the court proceedings went against him removed his cattle from the public lands and reorganized his business to the new reality. Instead he choose to rabble rouse and this si not going to end well.

    • GoneWithTheWind, It’s the allotment, not their own property, that they “bought,” and that she is talking about. Then, of course, they also bought land that they hold title to. Today there are 21,000 allotments. The “preemptive” is assumed from the time the family has been on the land, long before the BLM. I doubt “preemptive” rights will hold up under law, BUT, THIS IS NOT FEDERAL LAND. It is public land, belonging to Nevada and managed by the fed (BLM). It is no National Park Land.

      No the government should not own the millions of acres that they own, while they are still taking more. Cliven Bundy has been fighting this. We HAVE NOT BEEN FIGHTING IT. Even if the law now allows a fee, why did we allow that, and each time it has been changed, why were we not outraged? There are thousands of laws like this that just weigh us down and steal our liberty.

      There is no over-grazing in this area. Y

      He has never claimed the land is his. He paid the fees until the BLM disregarded doing what the fees were accessed for. Then he began paying the state. He can’t get into a state court. Only the federal courts have addressed it, and of course, he lost. Why he has not had due process, I don’t know.

      The Bundy family have not been violet, nor rabble rousers. This is heavy-handed over-reach and someone, at some time, has to make a stand. He will lose. I have no doubt of that, but perhaps America will learn just how stupid and vapid we have been for so many years to let our government do this to us.

      You are right that he is bound by law to pay the fee, but that doesn’t make it right, just as ObamaCare is law, but it doesn’t make it right,

      • GoneWithTheWind

        With all due respect, because I don’t want to come across as being snarky on this, something is not right about what is being fed to us by the rancher. Now make no mistake he has my sympathy and I would be in favor of someone brokering a resolution that allowed him to continue his ranching as he always has. The farmer/rancher only “rents” the access to these public lands they don’t “buy” it. He owns his deeded land but does not “own” the public land he is using to graze the cattle. The BLM does indeed change the terms from time to time, usually lowering the number of cattle allowed to graze but sometimes ending grazing rights or reducing the acreage the rancher can use. This happens all the time and the ranchers understandably don’t like it. It is not unusual out here in the West for a rancher to try to throw you off the BLM land claiming the “own” if they find you out hunting or hiking. Again I understand this feeling of “ownership” but they do not own the land and the rules change all the time, in fact the terms are renogotiated yearly for a lot of the ranchers. This particular rancher is kind of mis-stating the facts to get support for his cause. As for his claim to have only been heard in federal court that makes sense since he is dealing with federal laws and a federal agency. I think in a few weeks or months we will know more and maybe then we can figure out the truth of this.

        • GoneWithTheWind, it could be that we will find this is not as he has said.

          He doesn’t deny that by law he is obligated to pay the fee, but he believes the law is wrong. He hasn’t said much about reducing his herd from many down to 150 head, which essentially puts a cattle rancher out of business. Indeed the BLM does change the rules whenever they want. Why did states allow a “management” bureaucracy to manage their lands? That’s what he’s asking. Are we nuts? Yes we are.

          He doesn’t feel he owns the allotment land, just that it is Nevada land, he was given an allotment, and Nevada hasn’t taken the land away from him.

          He believes the BLM should have nothing to do with Nevada land and he is making that stand. That’s what he’s standing on, that single principle – not his cows, although he would like to have his property back.

          He doesn’t see the land as the feds having any say over Nevada land, and thus, he wants his day in a Nevada court.

          I think he is fighting for his right to fight back. He’s been doing it a long time, while the rest of us accept what is dealt to us. We stand by and watch eminent domain grabs, think, wow, glad that’s not me, that’s not right, and go on with our business (no, the Bundy case isn’t eminent domain yet).

          I’m hearing that he has some cattle that has strayed out of his allotment area. That will be a factor.

          We’ll see what happens.

          • GoneWithTheWind

            He stated it was land owned by the state of Nevada but I have seen no proof of this. It is obvious that the land is managed under the BLM so I am not convinced he is right. What he should have done, and what a lot of ranchers have done when the BLM reduced their allotment or placed other limits on the grazing is to buy additional lands. A friend of mine has a large ranch and had a 9,000 acre BLM allotment. He purchased 300 acres of farmland with water rights and raises alfalfa and the hay from just 300 acres completely replaces the grazing on 9,000 acres of BLM rangeland. This simple change actually improved his bottom line. It appears to me that Bundy wants to win regardless of who is right. He is kind of an activist and wants to change the rules to fit his beliefs. He may succeed but it may cost him and others their lives now that so many nut cases have gathered around his property with their own agenda’s.

        • Guest

          Seems Harry Reid and his son have some high stakes in this land.

          • Guest, I’m reading those stories, but can’t confirm much other than the ties between Reid and the BLM and the contributor. We know Bundy didn’t donate to Reid, and even if he wanted to, he’s bled dry.

            I’m working on the documents about the solar power plant. I’ve found a couple of things that might relate to Bundy, but one of the claims, that Bundy’s ranch, not allotment, is wanted by Reid isn’t backup by anything that I have found yet. They did mention that Bundy’s cows were in Gold Butte illegally, but I haven’t found anything saying they want his ranch.

            I am pouring through BLM documents. Maybe more will show tomorrow. I think if Reid wants this land, Bundy would know it and would talk about it. But…

  • Pingback: Cliven Bundy speaking at the Moapa Valley Town Board meeting 04/09/14 |

  • Pingback: Shiree Bundy Cox on the Bundy Family Allotment That Was “Bought”: BLM Background and Public Lands | Grumpy Opinions()

  • Pingback: The Bundy story behind the story of feds stealing cattle | Trutherator's Weblog()

  • Pingback: Feds and Militias stand off over cattle seizures. - Page 17 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Pingback: Summit on Transfer of Public Lands Back to States – Been Done Before, Numerous Times | Maggie's Notebook()

  • Pingback: LaVoy Finicum: Cliven Bundys Neighbor on Points of Law of Grazing Rights – Speaks Directly to Glenn Beck | Maggie's Notebook()