It should also be pointed that the problems that arose in both the Bundy case and the Hammond case were ruled on by judges. In fact it was a court order that gave BLM the authority of Bundy's stock.
In the article they mention the sign that Bundy's wife carried saying the land belongs to the people, and the Bundy brothers made that statement in Oregon.
That statement is in the realm of "Sovereign Citizens"
At other times you'll hear them say turn the land over to local government or county government.
That statement is in the realm of Posse Comitatus(force of the county). The problem with that is that the Clark County, NV sheriff and the Harney County, OR sheriff were not interested in backing any of the Bundys.
Historicaaly, Sovereign Citizens and Posse Comitatus never succeed and this is ultimately a conflict between two wings within the movement. So, if somehow the feds turn loose of these lands(not likely), it ain't going to the Bundys, To the People, or to Local Government. It will go to the states. That is why the states as well as the Mormon church refused to back the Bundys.
You can try to make this into a big issue but there have been only two significant cases that revolve around "reducing the herd" since congress passed FLPMA in 1976, forty years ago. Wayne Hage and Cliven Bundy.
There has been only a handful of significant cases dealing with the RS 2477 roads. You may remember Jarbidge Road.
Thanks for your input. Very little of some of the western states are actually
state/local/private owned, but rather is owned by the federal gov’t.
How and why would a person “lease” their own property? I doubt that they signed any “lease related documents” for something they owned. They own the grazing, by Nevada law - it doesn’t matter who owns the land: railroad, private party or government, the ranchers own the grazing rights - similar to mineral rights, which can be held independent of the real estate. By law, the payment is not a lease payment, it is a management fee, for which the BLM is obliged to maintain and/or improve the grazing. Demands of herd reduction is clear evidence of non-performance.
Yes, judges ruled, and the judges were wrong. In fact, the Hammonds were convicted for destruction of government property, when they owned the forage that was burned. A judge also ruled that they should serve additional time after they served the original sentence, using the “destruction of government property” charge as the basis for this erroneous ruling.
A judge ruled in favor of the taking of my brother’s herd in a palimony case - the judge had no authority or basis for the ruling, but she made it anyway. Judges can be just as wrong and/or corrupt as anybody else. The judges in these cases did not follow clear and established law. Treaties with various tribes were broken under “color of law” years ago. This has been going on for a long time, but it is still wrong.
The whole issue regarding federal land is that the state, representing the “people” should own and control the land. This is the argument being made by the Bundys.