Bundy’s isn’t an angel here, but . . .
From that link:
“Federal agencies claimed to have been in receipt of reports ‘of vehicle collisions and near collisions’ due to the cattle. Bundy directly denied the allegation.”
Further on:
“This notion is furthered by the vast area of land the Bundy cattle is dispersed”
The enviros were also complaining of “trampled tortoises”. 160,000 acres divided by 600 head - what are the odds?
“While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy’s relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada.”
Not mentioning that the solar plant needed an “environmental offset” (Bundy’s grazing area?) in order to be built. The offset has to come from somewhere.
“Provided no hot-headed lone individual or group within the militia decides to fire and provided no managers within federal law enforcement agencies decide to be provocative and flaunt their might by choosing the two roads containing armed,”
Which side did exactly as stated?
Here’s a different perspective from a St. George (40 miles distant) newspaper article:
http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2014/03/31/perspectives-bundys-vs-bureaucracy/#.U10RHrRnCiM