NO! The land in question involves state land that is controlled by the BLM which oversees and makes improvements for the lessees who lease the land.
The BLM stopped performing their paid duties back in 1993 and Bundy continued the grazing of his cows and performed the land enhancements at his own expense..
Rather than pay a federal agency that had stopped performing its duties in an attempt to drive off Bundy, Bundy stopped paying the required fees and was willing to pay Clark County, the real owner of the land......
Clark County chose not to accept those payments and now we have the current problem.......
As a side note, Mr. Bundy is more than willing to pay for the retroactive grazing rights to Clark County but not the BLM........
It’s interesting clark county will not accept Bundy’s
lease money. Kinda makes one wonder if there is money being
slipped under the desk of the county clerk, sheriff? I’d
ask the governor to take the lease money. After all, the
states are supposed to rule their own territory.
Some of our presidents are crafty though. I remember during
the Clinton term, soft coal was found in Utah, a LOT of soft
coal, acres and acres of it. He and his side kick, algore,
went to Utah and signed it into a Federal Park. It insured his buddy from Hong Kong, who has lots of soft coal to be the big daddy of soft coal.
Thanks for the info. I need to catch up on these details and thus far it has seemed confusing to me. Thanks!
I don't understand how these grazing fees work but on a general note a rancher doesn't get to choose who he pays for something. When he stopped paying BLM that was his major screwup. Even if somehow his logic is right these things come down to legalities and don't see how he prevails. It's a shame he couldn't have handled in some way where he DOES prevail because the way the feds are acting now makes my blood boil.
He is on Hannity radio now about to take phone calls, it was recorded earlier today. now at : http://tunein.com/radio/The-Sean-Hannity-Show-p20631/