Piute County Sheriff threatens arrest of Forest Service personnel

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

PIUTE COUNTY, Utah -- It's the second smallest county by population in Utah, but Piute County is making a lot of noise in the Western Land Movement these days.

Longtime rancher Stanton Gleave is at the center of a conflict that includes the County Sheriff on one side and the U.S. Forest Service on the other.

Gleave wore his cowboy hat and held up a pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution as he spoke with the Rural Caucus of the Utah State legislature on Feb. 12.

"These federal people have no right to be here if you follow (the Constitution)," Gleave said.

The Piute County Sheriff, Marty Gleave, (We're told Marty is Stanton's nephew) also talked with the Rural Caucus.

"We're not taking no more cuts on the Mountain. I'll deputize every man, woman and child in the county to stop what's going on," Sheriff Gleave said, referring to Monroe Mountain, where the Forest Service has taken grazing permits from Stanton Gleave and another rancher, Keith Anderton.

The Forest Service is working to revitalize aspen growth on Monroe Mountain.

Seventy-four percent of the land in Piute County is controlled by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.

Piute County is located in central Utah about 157 miles south of Provo.


  • Reese

    The ratification of the Articles of Confederation was delayed for two years by Maryland, who refused to ratify until the larger states-primarily Virginia and New York-had ceded their extensive land claims in the West to the national government.
    It was agreed that the possession of land would provide much-needed bolstering of the authority of the central government. New York was the first to cede its lands, and Virginia soon followed suit on January 2, 1781, whereupon Maryland ratified the Articles of Confederation. On March 1, 1781, just a little less than eight months before Yorktown, the decisive battle of the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation went into effect. If you read the acts (enabling acts) that create the states after the constitution was ratified, you will find language about when land owned by the federal government is sold that a percentage of the proceeds will go to that state. The enabling act was first used when the “Father of the Constitution” was the President. If he thought that the wording in the enabling acts was fine under the constitution, then It must be OK for the Federal Government to own property.

    • tim smith

      Does this mean anything to you about the intent of the Constitution Founders to dispose of western lands a few years later??
      “the unappropriated lands that may be ceded or relinquished to the United States, by any particular states, pursuant to the recommendation of Congress of the 6 day of September last, shall be granted and disposed of for the common benefit of all the United States that shall be members of the federal union, and be settled and formed into distinct republican states, which shall become members of the federal union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence, as the other states”…

      The other original states owned the unappropriated lands within their boundary!!

      tim smith

      • Reese

        One big issue is that the majority of the land in the original colonies was private owned land. Virginia had to cede the land that became Ohio to the central government because it was pretty much wilderness at the time and Maryland would not sign the Articles of Confederation until the land was ceded. This resolution was before the Constitution was written when the central government did not have authority to tax directly, so had no way to pay back the loans, IOU’s and other bills that resulted from the war. The articles of confederation stated that the states would be taxed on lands granted to or surveyed for any person. States had been paying into the general fund but they were running out of money, so they wanted the central government to sell land to pay for the war rather than taxing the states. As new states were to be created, they were given the same standing as was given in the Articles of Confederation. There is nothing in the Articles of Confederation stating that any unapproprated land would remain to the states. And since Maryland and two other colonies made Virginia and New York cede the unappropriated land to the central government, your argument about the original states owning unappropriated land seems to be invalid. Interesting trivia, Virgina State only owns 1.4% of the land in Virginia. Of course at that time the French owned the Louisiana Territory, so the thoughts about land really changes when that purchase was made.

  • Steve

    Ill-informed followers of Willard Cleon Skousen pose an existential threat to the United States of America. Pull a Bundy and you’ll join them in prison.

  • Val Cecama Hogsett

    Absolutely sick of hearing about whining ranchers and their loss of MY PUBLIC LANDS grazing permits. The land NEEDS to be healed from excessive grazing. I want my land back from all corporate ranchers, mining companies and other special interest groups!! I want my money back gone to support or subsidize any such corporations. It is one thing to have a small family ranch on public land that has been there for generations, but when it turns into 10 of thousands of acres and a corporation….NO TY. I am going to take a page from the Bundito book and refuse to pay my taxes so they no longer get MY money to live on, and my land to keep expanding on, and killing my wildlife along with all the destruction of the range and water!! SO SICK OF THIS. Take you militia’s and go somewhere else, YOU are NOT Americans!

  • sapian

    How incredibly stupid can this fool be!? I WISH he would arrest ONE FS worker for doing their job. He would get sued beyond his wildest dreams, and hopefully criminally charged like his Bundy Klan buddies!

  • LC

    If your interpretation of The Constitution for the united States of America is correct than why would any one (including back posts) object to doing what is stated in The Constitution for the united States of America?? I could be wrong – but I thought we were all trying to work together. What do you want for your life – that of your family – for your children. I want harmony – joy – peace – commitment to Humanity. Call me selfish – I’m tired of fighting.

    • Rick

      I’m tired of these ranchers exploiting public lands (which I co-own with every other tax paying American) for their own income and benefit… I do agree that the ranchers need to make a living, but when the equation for making more money equals running more livestock it gets quickly out of hand.

  • Miguel

    Reading many of the so-called government-supporter commentary herein, I’m Absolutely Appalled at the stunning levels of ignorance displayed by modern-day American mindless, Kardashian watchers, who, more appropriately are to be termed “The Good Germans”, who so mystified Post WWII Americans when Post WWII Americans described their shock that so many Germans who so blindly followed their National Socialist Workers Party leader, Adolph Hitler’s PC directives, such that Disaster for All occurred for five or six years of Death & Destruction! All “pro-government” blathers herein blindly follow their Dear Leaders’ Hypocritical Pronouncements, just as fools all through time have done (in service to their Emperors, Potentates, Pharaohs, Dictators, kings, Queens all through Mankind’s Governance Time on earth)!!

  • Dave Tibet

    Lets get this straight!

    The Feds have ZERO yes ZERO rights in this regards and it is high time the media makes this fact reported!

    “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And”
    This is NOT DC
    This is NOT a Fort
    This is NOT a Magazine
    This is NOT an Arsenal
    This is NOT a Dock Yard
    Taking land is NOT a useful building if there is no building on said land!

    End of subject there is no debate. The constitution has never been amended to allow the feds to own anything besides the above list!

    What they are doing is unconstitutional and there is NO IF ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT IT!

    WE THE PEOPLE own that land and they have ZERO rights to OUR LAND!

    • Rick

      …and what ‘right’ do the ranchers have to exploit the property co-owned by others for their own, exclusive benefit? Yes, they do pay grazing fees (…or ‘should’, Mr. Bundy), but that is an arbitrarily set amount that does not roll back into the public’s fund.
      I don’t agree with the “Fed”, don’ t get me wrong, but I also do not agree with ranchers being able to exploit and decimate the public’s property for their own benefit.

      • RichS1963

        Probably because in the case of Cliven Bundy at least, his family has been using that land for over 100 years. Before BLM existed. Before Hillary sold of mineral rights. Before BLM started giving the land it is supposed to manage to a company partially owned by liberal scumbag Harry Reid. The BLM is taking private property from individuals and it’s going to come to a head. You liberals think it’s just a bunch of gun nuts playing at being weekend warriors. Newsflash, they are engaged in a very real fight and this is the only way they can do it. You see to do it the right way, the politically correct and government approved way is a process that takes about twenty years. Yes twenty years. But they don’t say that on TV so almost no one is aware of it. And what really blows my mind is all the folks who support the government when the government won’t let anyone on the land they manage.

    • John Mygatt

      Dave, With the power and authority granted to the Congress and Supreme Court of the United States by that little “pocket Constitution”, this argument of yours was defeated. The authority of the Federal Government, (Congress) to own and manage lands is settled law and has been for some time, making it as much a part of our Constitution as the original document!. Google it…


      l am so tired of people thinking their pocket Constitutions are all there is. lt would take more than ten fully loaded semi trucks to carry all the laws, provisions, acts, decisions and amendments that are covered by the original Constitution, all of which carry the full weight and authority as the original!

  • Gregory

    Reporters needs to start saying “Skousen Constitution” and not “Pocket Constitution”. Please research what I am referring to. Thanks.

  • Shellie

    For those of you who are of the belief that the US Forest Service and the BLM are taking the grazing permits back because they are going to “heal” the land; you are in for a rude awakening. They will not take it to heal it, they are taking it to prevent anyone else from having it. Think your taxes are going to create a perfect place to spend time? Nope, you will be charged to visit “your land”, and my money says that they will allow drilling or some other way more destructive activity to be conducted somewhere on these lands, and when you wake up and realize that all other rights afforded under the US Constitution are gone (many are gone already); you’ll wish those ranchers were back! Oops, too late again to realize the real reason for their actions! Just ask the Hammond Family who is in prison for nothing more than they used to do ALONGSIDE the BLM/US Forest Service. And, as far as that goes, I should also hope that all of you complaining about the ranchers are vegetarians!!! I am and I still can see what is going on.

  • Gregarious Antithesis

    It is everyones land not just a bunch of ranchers, miners, etc. If they don’t like the rules then go pay grazing fees on someone’s private land, it is that simple. If you buy some land then by all means do what you want but don’t for one second give me this horsecrap about public land and any of these individials or this sheriff have any right other than to protect people from harm not to make a stand against fed workers on public land IT IS NOT THERE PLACE OR BUSINESS!!!

    • Kat In Tx

      The ranchers do not get to graze for free. They lease those lands the same way you lease a car or apartment and in many cases their permits transferred to them when they purchased adjoining property and, in some cases, families have held the same permits for generations. How would you like for someone to kick you out of your apartment just two months into a one year lease?
      Once a state achieved statehood, they were no longer a territory and we’re to enter the union on equal footing with the original thirteen states with their lands belonging to them. The government never had a right to reserve any of it for themselves. Isn’t it strange that those western states have the richest minable resources?
      Article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the constitution says the Federal government cannot own land beyond 10 square miles around D. C. unless it is PURCHASE from the states. Our founding fathers understood the greed in human nature.

  • Gregarious Antithesis

    If these folks don’t like the law then by all means get a constitutional lawyer and good luck, the States for the most part can’t afford to manage or maintain what they have turn public lands over to the state and next thing you know they sell it to private parties, hell with that.

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.