AD: Mesquite Gaming

* Barbara Ellestad, Publisher * ALL Content Copyright 2011-2014*

Wednesday, November 26, 2014
MESQUITE NEWS 
SPORTS 
HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS 
OPINIONS 
WRITER'S CORNER 
COMMUNITY 
CONSUMER NEWS 
MARKETPLACE 
INTERACTIVE 

This week's poll

Has the NSA gone too far in its data collection efforts?

Yes, they need to stop
No, they are keeping us safe
I don't care

View Poll Report

 Keywords:
one or more words required
all words required
forced & ordered phrase
Multi forced & ordered phrase
words with exceptions
Help
 
 Issue date:
Date Format: dd-mm-yyyy

   
Mesquite City Council to Revisit Gold Butte Resolution
Posting Date: 04/16/2012

By Barbara Ellestad

The Mesquite City Council only has two Administrative items on its Technical Review agenda for Tuesday, Apr. 17; consideration of approval of a liquor license conversion for Walgreens and a discussion and revisit of Resolution No. 669 that supports the designation of the Gold Butte Complex as a National Conservation Area.

The Gold Butte Resolution discussion comes on the heels of last week's uproar over Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy's clash with federal officials over his right to graze cattle in the Gold Butte range.

Even though the two situations are not directly related to each other, it does show the complexity of the issues surrounding the Gold Butte subject.

Bundy received a letter from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officials notifying him that the federal agency intended to round up all the cattle grazing within the designated Gold Butte area based on a permanent injunction against him issued by a District Court of Nevada in 1998. The seizure was scheduled to begin the morning of Apr. 11.

In an interview with the Mesquite Citizen Journal, Bundy explained that "they have no legal seizure order signed by a judge" to remove his cattle from land his family has ranched since 1877.

Ultimately the cattle grab was called off by government officials in Washington D.C. citing safety concerns. Bundy issued a statement that he would do whatever it took to protect his property, his rights, and the liberty and freedoms of "we, the people of Clark County."

The Mesquite Citizen Journal will begin a series of articles this week delving more into the Bundy situation and other concerns in the Gold Butte area.

The resolution issue that the Mesquite City Council has on its Technical Review agenda goes back to May 2010 and even beyond.

According to the minutes of the City council meeting from May 11, 2010 when the resolution was adopted, then Mayor Susan Holecheck and Council members were reacting to a request from Clark County Commissioners "to stand with them." The County had recently passed its own resolution regarding a designation of Gold Butte as a National Conservation Area with Multiple Use Areas and Wilderness..

"The resolution is what the county has done. If we are going to be a unified force then we should adopt the county's resolution with small changes made to it," Holecheck

said according to the minutes.

Then Council member Donna Fairchild replied that, "Mesquite needs to speak with her own voice. Even though Mesquite's resolution mirrors some of what Clark County has done, Council needs to add what is best for Mesquite into our resolution. That way we stand on our own two feet as well as represent our needs as a community."

The May 2010 issue was to "revisit Resolution No. 649 on Gold Butte, including the possible amendment, alteration or replacement language" that the Council had passed in 2009.

The May 2010 meeting minutes also reflect that Kraig Hafen, now a sitting Council member, spoke in favor of the resolution saying that, "the City incorporated years ago so it would not be an advisory board to the County." He apparently was not in favor of mirroring the Clark County resolution. The minutes go on to reflect Hafen's comments as he "referred to Council member [Karl] Gustaveson's remarks asking for solutions for Gold Butte; those recommendations are not being heard. Resolution No. 669 addresses all of the concerns that the community has had. The community has discussed the issues along with Council, and because Clark County said they will take care of us, the City is allowing it to occur. He asked Council to adopt Resolution No. 669 and send a message to Clark County that Mesquite has its own mind, heart and vision."

Gustaveson had said earlier in the meeting that he had concerns "about the large amount of wilderness in Gold Butte which can be problematic." He had also remarked that "In reading the County's resolution, it reads: Clark County has also defined these priorities for the national conservation. Although Mesquite cannot make those decisions, nor can the Clark County Commissioners, unfortunately, it is within their resolution which begs that Mesquite make some minor adjustment to align to Clark County resolution to include language that suggests a permanent Steering Committee," to guide other government officials regarding the scope of the Gold Butte designation.

Interestingly, Gustaveson is the only Council member who voted against Resolution 669 when it was passed.

Click here for a copy of Resolution 669

Click here for a copy of Resolution 649

Click here for a copy of the May 11, 2010 Minutes

Click here for a copy of the Clark County Resolution

 

Commentary
  • Posted Date: 04/16/2012
    Cliven Bundy is dead wrong on this issue. He thinks all of that land belongs to him and he had been refusing to pay what he owes the taxpayer, not the Federal government, for years. He is another of these Bunkerville guy that think they can ignore the rules everyone else has to follow.
    By: Susan
  •  
  • Posted Date: 04/16/2012
    This yahoo's permit was cancelled in 1994 and he hasn't paid a dime for 18 years while his cows trample everything in site. It is these kind of people that cause these issues to get out of control.
    By: Paul
  •  
  • Posted Date: 04/16/2012
    Perhaps Mr Bundy can guarantee free melons for all Virgin Valley residents in lieu of payment for those 18 years of free use of OUR property!
    By: We the people
  •  
  • Posted Date: 04/16/2012
    Yes, folks, this is another one of those folks who scream about “keeping the government out of our life” that are also the first ones to want to have preferential use of the government property that belongs to ALL OF US. Bundy’s statement that “he would do whatever it took to protect his property, his rights, and the liberty and freedoms of we, the people of Clark County" says it all. For some unfathomable reason he seems to believe that it is “his” property and that “his” rights include using and defiling OUR property for his personal benefit with precedent over “we the people’s” rights to use OUR property. Like many issues today, there is probably a common sense compromise of some type that could work for all involved, including Bundy, but the right and far-right side of our political debate don’t believe in compromise. And then they scream about the government over-reaching when they force the government into enforcing the rules by which we must all live. I say enforce the laws fairly on ALL. Enforce the court order and bring in the federal marshals if needed to assure compliance with the law and protect those doing OUR work. There is no excuse for letting a threatening bully destroy OUR property without consequences. That just rewards threatening bullies!
    By: MJ
  •  
  • Posted Date: 04/16/2012
    I agree with MJ, that land does not belong to Bundy. Nor to his cows. He should be embarassed to be known as for ripping all of US off. That is everybodys land, Mr Bundy. Get you stinky cows off of it and stop acting like the government is at fault. It is clear that YOU are.
    By: Kenny
  •  
  • Posted Date: 04/16/2012
    Maybe someone should tell Bundy it is 1877 anymore and he is embarassing the entire community of Bunkerville and making them look like a bunch of hill billys.
    By: Larry
  •  
  • Posted Date: 04/17/2012
    This lawbreaker should be arrested immediately and the cattle auctioned off. He has no case. If any of the rest of use acted this way, we would have been jailed long ago.
    By: mostlymike
  •  
  • Posted Date: 04/17/2012
    Before you feel to sorry for poor old Bundy, keep in mind his refusal to pay grazing fees adds up to hundreds of thousands (and maybe more) of tax dollars that belong to you and me that he has not paid and has profited from.
    By: Bill
  •  
  • Posted Date: 04/17/2012
    Before you go pointing you fingers and waving your arms you should know all the facts. Cliven Bundy never has claimed ownership of the land but he does OWN the rights to use the land. He owns the water rights, the forage rights, right of way, and the right to runs cattle on the land. He shouldn't have to pay rent for using the rights he already owns and he doesn't need BLM to manage his ranch. His family owned those rights before there was a BLM making them preemtive rights. The feds are trying to destroy his ranch and livelihood and steal his owned and filed rights. Remember, when you point you finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.
    By: ct
  •  
  • Posted Date: 04/17/2012
    OK, ct, I guess if we go back far enough then the American Indians actually own all the land and/or “rights to the use of the land”! The United States, and the State of Nevada need to abide by the laws of the land, or else we are a lawless society. Bret Birdsong, a professor at the Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said Bundy's legal arguments that the BLM has no jurisdiction over the federal lands he uses for ranching have been consistently rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the country! So where else does Bundy go to try to convince folks his law-breaking is actually legal? There is nowhere else! Ya know, I don’t always like the way the rules of law turn out, but we all have to abide by them or face the consequences! It is high time Clive Bundy face the consequences of breaking the law, just like Warren Jeffs or others of his ilk must face. They can all have their own “theories” of the law, but by the time the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected their self-serving theories, the argument is OVER! A renter of a property does not have the right to destroy it, nor does a lessor of property that is owned by the people of the U.S., except Bundy is not even that, as he willfully violated the terms of his lease for this property more than a decade ago and has been squatting on our land ever since. Remove this trespasser and his property and return the rights to this property to its lawful owner – the real “we the people”.
    By: MJ
  •  
  • Posted Date: 04/18/2012
    FYI: Nevada is a fence out state, so if you "REAL" we the people dont like cattle on your land get off your butts and build a fence!
    By: BigW
  •  
     
    Name  
    Email  
    Opinion (2000 Characters)  
    Publish My Opinion    
     
    CAPTCHA Image
    Reload Image
     
     
    06/05/2014 - Scott Antone Ellestad
    03/31/2014 - MCJ bids adieu
    12/19/2013 - MCJ Editor Publisher slaps back at subpoenas in Water District lawsuits
    12/17/2013 - MCJ Editor Publisher slapped with six subpoenas in Water District lawsuit
    03/11/2013 - MCJ Sets New Policy for Article Comments

            Get our toolbar!