[ponygirl]

Somewhere in the myriad of threads here, someone posted that Bundy refused to sign the contract with the BLM when they tried to "renegotiate" (i.e., "arm twist") his lease back in '93. They told him he had to limit his herd to 150 cows and only graze them in summer, fall and winter. (But no access during the all-important spring time grazing.) Bundy said no, realizing that such a deal would have left him bankrupt, refused to sign, and, in his words, "fired the BLM" for mismanagement and stopped paying the fee. He attempted to pay Clark County, but they would not accept the fees.

So this is the way the BLM works. They "renegotiate," supposedly in good faith or to protect the dung beetle, or whatever other excuse they come up with, the ranchers sign on. Once the ranchers sign a new contract, the old contract is null and void. In this case, if Bundy had signed, his preemptive rights would have been null and void. Others are saying it didn't matter if he signed, that the Feds changed the game and stripped his rights anyway. That is my understanding of all of this, but I'm no lawyer. I can imagine the feds have Clark county judicial system in their back pocket, however.

[Andy'smom]

Thank you.

[BuckeyeTexan]

That’s actually not a bad summary. Bundy preserved his fundamental objection by refusing to sign a new contract.