Thanks.
Yes, I would like to know why the standard state laws for grazing wouldn’t apply, i.e. obligation of a land owner to have a “legal fence”.
We had neighboring property to one of our pastors that was owned by a local man renowned for being the worst type of cattleman. He owned 40 acre plots all over the county, moved his cattle around from one to the other all the time, and never kept up his fences.
His cattle would get out onto our property and he would never respond when called to come get his cattle in and fix his fence.
One summer he decided to plant corn on the other side of the fence from our cattle pastor. Guess what, once those ears started filling in our cattle moved in mass through his 2 wire rusty fence and began feasting on that corn. Dad called him and left a message, “Harry, you need to come out fix your fence, my cattle are moving through it.” Not realizing which fence it was, Harry did his norm and just ignored the call. Within a couple of weeks, the corn was gone.
Later on we had an issue with about a dozen of his cattle that had gotten out and we woke up with them in our garden. When called he said, “I’ll be out in a few days to take care of it.” We ran the cattle down the road about 4 miles and told him the same when he came out (2 weeks later).
The federal court found that federal law requiring a permit to graze conflicted with Nevada open-range law. The court ruled that, under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law prevailed over state law. (Note, however, that Nevada state law also requires a permit and payment of a fee to graze on federal land.)
The 2013 Bundy court order relied on U.S. v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1998) in making the Supremacy Clause ruling. I haven't Sherpardized Gardner.
You should read Gardner. It contains all of the arguments being made by Cliven Bundy and the federal government except Bundy's claims that he is being evicted under the endangered species law rather than a claim of trespass.