Feds refuse to say whether they've "euthanized" (killed) rancher's cattle in Nevada

For those of you too busy with life to keep track of such things, the federal government has sent a few hundred armed jackboots to a ranch in Nevada, to seize the cattle of a rancher who's had a two-decade dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing rights on what the gummint calls "public land."

You see, "public land" sounds SO much nicer than saying "government land," which is how the feds really regard it.  They own it, and may God help you if you fail to comply with one of the zillions of edicts dictating how you must behave when you set foot on it.

As you may have guessed, I'm very skeptical about all levels of government, but after reading the published details of the case--again, it stretches back 20 years--it appeared the feds did have a cause of action, and I was prepared to cut 'em some slack.  Until I read this:

BLM Won’t Say If They’ve Euthanized Cows In Ranch Standoff

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) won't say if they've euthanized any cows in the roundup of Cliven Bundy’s cattle on public land in Nevada.

Amy Lueders, the Nevada state director for the BLM, said in a conference call Thursday evening that the agency does have a “protocol,” but would not release any numbers for animals they have found dead or that they have euthanized.

A reporter asked about heavy construction equipment that was seen coming in and out of the blockade, and whether cattle have been found dead, injured, or euthanized during the operation.

“In terms of the number that we’ve found, animals who are, I think, deceased on the range, or if we’ve had to euthanize an animal, we don’t have an answer to that question at this time,” Lueders said. “We will euthanize an animal during the impoundment if they exhibit dangerous characteristics, threaten the health and safety of the employees, display a hopeless prognosis for life.”

“So, we do have a protocol in terms of when we would euthanize animals,” she said. “But we don’t have any answers at this time in terms of the numbers.”

Now, you need to read the article closely:  Amy Lueders isn't some GS-3 clerk who's been shoved toward a microphone to guess at policy, but is the damn *state director* for the federal BLM.  As such, you'd think she would know what the hell is going on. 

To put it a different way:  Either she knows every detail of what's going on there, or no one does.

Why wouldn't Amy say "We haven't killed any of this man's cattle" if that was the case? 

Before we analyze that, note that line about "heavy construction equipment was seen."  Many observers on-site have reported "bulldozers." 

Bulldozers are utterly useless for rounding up cattle.  On the other hand, they're almost mandatory if one wants to *bury* 500 or 700 head--which is a figure published by the BLM from helicopter surveys for cattle in the immediate area as recently as three months ago.

Why would the thugs...sorry, the feds...choose to kill the man's cattle instead of selling 'em?

I suspect it's because if they rounded 'em up and moved to sell 'em, the guy would get an injunction and file suit.  The resulting trial would attract a huge firestorm as the case revealed how corrupt the BLM is, and how unlawfully they've acted.

For example, the head of the BLM's policy division was employed by Nevada senator Harry Reid, and there's evidence suggesting Reid may be involved in some hugely profitable land deals involving the rancher's acreage.  While that remains to be seen, I suspect this would all come out in a trial.

But if the feds kill all the guy's cattle, along with a few members of the guy's family, the Democrat-loving media will paint the man as part of a vast Tea Party conspiracy or some such, which will make it virtually impossible for him to find a federal judge who will even let a lawsuit against the government proceed.

In an earlier life I had quite a few encounters with the BLM and I'm pretty sure I know how they think:  That all civilians are Gaia-raping, mouth-breathing Neanderthals who want to vandalize all public lands.  And they'll do anything their bosses suggest to "protect the public lands"--even if it means killing and burying 500 head of cattle.

Again I don't *know* if that's the plan but I can't imagine why the state director would say the equivalent of "Argle bargle gobble-babble" instead of just "No, we haven't killed any and have no intention to do so" when asked point-blank about it.  Her non-answer was totally consistent with someone who wanted to deflect heat but was reluctant to openly lie.

Also the phrase in her evasion "We will euthanize an animal during the impoundment if they exhibit dangerous characteristics, threaten the health and safety of the employees..." sounds very much like someone preparing the ground for a cover story.  After all, everyone knows you can't go letting cattle "threaten the health and safety of the employees."  In fact I wouldn't be a bit surprised if a report has already been written showing that several head exhibited behavior characteristic of "mad cow disease" that led to the government-ordered killing and burial of something like 150,000 head in the U.K. a decade ago.

Other--less likely--choices are anthrax and hoof-and-mouth disease.

We'll see.