so happy birthday, bill. you can check us out 24 hours a day, by going to our website, aljazeera.com, where the news continues 24 hours a day, seven days a week. >> a guy who has been grazing his cattle on federally owned land. he doesn't want to pay for that privilege. cliven bundy said the government has no business owning that land in the first place. this is inside story. >> hello, i'm ray ray. clive next bundy's family has

lived in the nevada . he has been grazing his cattle on federal land. when the federal government came to seize his cattle, his friends came to his aid heavily armed. it has fueled questions in other states and other contexts. does the federal government have any justification for owning and managing the land in nevada or is the federal government guarantor of federal land. we'll start with background. nevada cattle rancher cliven bundy said it's his right to

graze his cattle on any land he chooses. and his story has gained national attention. officials at the u.s. bureau of land management in nevada say bundy has been running hundreds of cat until a federally protected wildlife area and for years has refused to pay the fees required to do so. the blm is seeking more than $1 million in back fees and fines from bundy, and when he refused to pay the government began rounding up his cattle to confiscate them. a band of armed men rallied to bundy's side and in the stand off that ensued bundy's son was tased by officers. the blm fearing a violent confrontation backed down. >> get off our land, period. give us back our property 12,347 the blm is the agency managing federal lands mostly in the west, balancing the demands of ranchers, environmentalists and

others. in nevada the federal government owns more than 80% of the state's land. the blm oversees 245 million acres including 800 grazer areas. rancher bundy owns 160 acres he said were homesteaded by his family in the late 1800's, a heritage that he cites as claims to water rights today. his family said that he bought the land, and the federal government has no authority in this matter. nevada does. >> the courts have ruled on his arguments and have said that the land that he claims is his is public land. the courts have ruled that his cattle are in trespass. the courts have demanded that he remove his livestock, and the courts have authorized bureau of land management and national park service 12347 clive n bund

bundy's sentiments have been echoed by his minutes. >> we're a different breed. we won't let that happen. >> no, we won't. this is the wild west. >> i feel sorry for federal agent who is want coul to come d push us around. i don't want violence, but if they're going to bring violence to us. if that's the language they want to speak, we'll learn it. >> it's a local story that taps into the vein of government sentiment. nevada's senators traded barbs on the issue on a local tv interview. >> if there were ever an example of domestic, terrorist wannabes, it's these guys. we should call it this way. >> what senator reid call terrorists i call patriots 12,347 they have talked of a task force to defuse the

situation, but it's unclear what that would look like. it's been more than 20 years since the seens of ruby ridge in waco, texas, in the wild west. not looking for a fight, the government has receded from the scene for now. >> joining us now with a look at the nevada confrontation, and what it represents in the long history of the people of the west and the federal government, the professor of ge geography of clark university. and ken ivory, and rob morocca, senior scientist for global diversity. professor, let me start with you. i think it's a surprise to people in a lot of other places in the country that the federal government owns more than 80% of the land inside the borders of

nevada. how did that happen in the first place? >> that's an interesting question, ray, and what's happening on this ranch in nevada illuminates a lot of history in the united states in one microcosm. for the first 115 years or so that's history up to 1890 the united states policy towards land was to get as much as it could and then fill it up with settlers, not just settlers, but farmers. startinstarting with thomas jef, the idea was very much that the united states would be a nation of family farms. that would be good economically, politically, culturally, in all sorts of ways. around 1890 the federal government reversed course 180 degrees and said whereas up until now all this land that we've been acquiring we assume

we'll turn over to private hands through homesteading acts, giving it to railroads, etc. you know what, what we still own as federal land we're going to keep as federal land inperpetuity and manage it. why did they do that? one is that turned out privatizing a bunch of land and natural resources did not always work out. it led to inefficient wasteful use, environmental destruction. it led to a lot of overgrazing, it led to wasteful timber practices, clearcutting, leaving timber behind that led to forest fires, and of course political corruption in seeing who would benefit from this public la largess. their concerns that the united states would run out of critical

natural resources, notably timber and others, and there were concerns those resourcessos were not being used efficiently. so federal government around the 1890's said we're going to keep these lands in federal ownership but critically they did not mean by that that we will make them national parks or lock them up for preservation. there is a small contingent arguing for that, but for the most part the resources would still be available for private use. you'll still be able to graze cattle, cut timber, looking for valuable minerals and so forth, but you'll do it with the basicc underlying landownership being federal. what evolved was this complica complicated patchwork of property rights. that it wasn't simply a case of the federal government owns this and a private landowner owns this. you have a complex interweaving

of use rights, access rights, water rights, lease rights, etc., etc. that system lasted--became more complicated and lasted until the 1970's or so when the environmental movement essentially said, you know what, we don't think these lands are being managed very well. they're supposed to be managed for multiple uses, but they're really just being managed for commodity production. we want to revisit that. we don't trust the agencies because they've been taken over by the ranchers and timber companies, so forth. we have a passage of environmental laws that basically say that we want stronger policies for this land. >> er with in this nevada land that has been set aside to protect a native tortoise. you heard that quick history lesson, and your state of utah

and the next door state of nevada are thinly populated compared to other places in the country . ideally, in your view, who should own that land that is currently under the jurisdiction of the federal government? >> there is more to that story. there were hearings titled grantings. not if, only how. and when their proposal was only to transfer the surface to the states and keep all the federal and mineral ownership, the states killed that bill. a year later he was the tailo the taylor grazer act, it is oh to use the public use of the lands. at statehood every state had what is called an enabling act, the state contract. it is called the solemn contract that congress by policy does not have the authority to

unilaterally change, the uniquely sovereignty of a state where particularly all the state's public lands are at state. nevada has the same language for disposal he i extinguishing act. nevada was actually a state three years before nebraska. nebraska goes from a little more than 30% public lands down to 1%. while nevada goes from 86% to 81%. utah has the same operative language for extinguishing title hood of public lands as north dakota, south dakota, nebraska, louisiana, alabama. they simply have not honored that promise with the states in the west. that's what is happening now. because that have frustration, the complex patchwork that the professor called it is creating environmental and economic urgency throughout the west.

you have forest that are sitting as tinderboxes and you have record fire conditions that are killing millions of animals, destroying water shed and habitat for decades. you've got wild horses issues where under their own plans, their own regulations the federal government is showed to limit the wild horse population in a particular southern utah area 300 wild horses yet there are 2,000 wild horse there is, and their population is doubling every four to five years. destroying the ecosystem, and their solution because they don't have the money is to reduce cattle grazing by 50%. what is happening now the states are saying, look, the promises of statehood are the same. you've kept that promise with states east of colorado. this is the only solution big enough for states that have more than 30% of their revenue comes from a federal government that says it's unsustainbly broke. we have environmental conditions on the ground that we have an urgency that is tremendously

apparent. with that regard in the west we have tremendous conditions that need to be solved on the ground. that's what is happening now. this is so much bigger than one rancher in nevada. >> you just heard representative ivory's indictment of the situation. is he right? the federal government is not a very good steward of a lot of land in your part of the country. >> first i want to work my organization. i work for the center of biological diversity . it's event that representative ivory stops his memory of 1932 talk about giving back of lands to the states. the lands in the west are vastly different than lands east of the mississippi river or in the great plains. the lands in the west are the lands nobody wanted. the states made applications for the lands they did want to incorporate into state ownership or privatization because the

lands are so air rid, the majority of the lands remained in federal ownership simply because the state didn't want them. nevada is the dryest state in the nation, and the mow mojave desert where this is occurring america. the land policy management act of 1976 explicitly stated that the lands in federal public ownership would remain so inperpetuity unless it could be proven that it was in the national interest to do others. the united states enjoys a unique heritage among nations of the world where we have set aside a vast acreage for the enjoyment of our citizens in a way that won't degrade the land, in a way that everyone can enjoy, and unfortunately a person like cliven bundy decides to make 600 acres of american public land his own.

>> rob, we're going to take a short break, when we come back we'll talk about the particular case véeera america

>> welcome back to inside story. i'm ray ray. on this edition of the program we're talking about the nevada ranchers stand off, and more

broadly about government management of american land and natural resources in the west. rob morroca, how should all this end? we've got a situation where you heard earlier in the program of people saying, i feel sorry for federal agent who is try to come in here. we're not going to let that happen. the feds just stay off of our land. how does this end in a way that doesn't involve violence and bloodshed? >> you know, ray, we are a civil society, and we're governed bylaws. that's how we keep our civility. this should end by federal laws being upheld, people held responsible for violating those laws. first and foremost in my mind, and in view of the organization, the habitat of the desert tortoise needs to be preserved .

the cattle need to be removed as soon as possible and expedient as possible. >> how do you see this ending? >> you see them step up, the comment that was made that the states don't want the land is simply ludicrous. the only time the land was offered was in the 1930's was when they offered the surface and not the minerals. nevada did a study that under state management there would an net positive of $1.6 million a year. the way they needs to end the federal government needs to honor very promise. that's what the representatives of the people are working on. >> should cliven bunding paying

his animal unit month, calculate i fees, and the people who are activated, need to activate their energy under rule of law under our constitutional system in choosing representatives who will stand up and compel congress to keep the same promise that it already kept. there was a 2009 unanimous supreme court case that said congress does not have the authority to even laterally change the uniquely sovereign character of a state's admission particularly where all of the state's public lands are at stake. >> professor, before we go, does this have the potential to be a cattl acatalizing moment? >> i think this is ultimately very much a national question, and so the question has to be what is the overarching or

overriding public purpose here? and it's important to think in our history even when lands were privatized and homesteaded, even when grazing and other uses were allowed, and when we heightened environmental uses the consistent theme there is it's always held to be in the national interest not simply in the interest of private individuals or users. >> do you see big changes coming, or is this really a question of who has got the political power in the near term? if there is a republican ascend dency in the republican election will those like cliven bundy gets a reprieve. >> there may be a reprieve but it's changing. what you see is a regional elite, a group of people who have a lot of political access and power, and who are seen as

central to the united states in terms of identity, what could be more iconic than the cowboy? that is really not what we're going to see in the west in the 21st century. >> we're going to have to stop there. thanks a lot to our guests , gentlemen, good to caulk to youu all. that brings us to the end of this edition of inside study. the program may be over but discussion continues. we want to thin hear what you tk about this or any day's shows. you can send us your thoughts on twitter or you can reach me directly @ray ray news. see you for the next inside story. in washington, i'm ray ray.

>> rival palestinian factions reach reconciliation, after seven year's stand off. ♪ hello, you are watching al jazeera live from our headquarters here in doha. for the next 30 minutes. we're on your side, participate barack obama's message to japan in his territorial dispute with china. ukraine says it is relaunches a push against