Oooo, the handwave assertion. Gosh, I'm so impressed. It doesn't fit his record.
The BLM owning land, as opposed to states owning it, is different from persecution of ranchers doing a controlled burn.
You are WAY out of your league here. The BLM doesn't own land; it manages it as a Federal agency. I've written three books on environmental policy and political corruption in government land management. So give it a rest and admit you blew it. OK? You're dead wrong here.
Trump is unlikely to do diddly about the EPA because he doesn't understand the technical, economic, and legal issues AT ALL. Nor is he predisposed toward limited Constitutional government.
Hmm. Princeton degree, Harvard Law, Bush administration, US Senate. Hardly an outsider.
You are WAY out of your league here. The BLM doesn't own land; it manages it as a Federal agency. I've written three books on environmental policy and political corruption in government land management. So give it a rest and admit you blew it. OK? You're dead wrong here.
It's worse than that: not only do I not know a lot about the issues: it was a desultory effort, since I don't care passionately about this issue. I think it sucked that Clinton signed the EO he did which prevented extraction of coal from (IIRC) lands in Utah, allowing that Indonesian family to clean up. I think it sucks that whoever it is, got their green panties in a wad to refuse to allow controlled burns, preferring to allow nature to run its course, upon which Yellowstone and environs had catastrophic forest fires. I vaguely get the impression, that the Feds are trying to keep people from grazing cattle on otherwise barren Federal Land, just so they can get their rocks off: similar to the fuss over drilling in ANWR which is so desolate that even the mosquitos in Alaska consider it to be out of tha way.
That being said:
If the government is being unreasonable,and the courts are backing them up, what is the best approach for an aggrieved rancher / water user to do?
And is there any truth to the rumors that the govt. wants the people off the land so the govt. can make good on selling mineral rights to the Russians (esp. Uranium) pursuant to an agreement made by Hillary? (I've seen rumors of such elsewhere on FR.)
And the govt. ending up shooting people over occupying what appeared to be a "closed for the season" ranger station, looked like "the usual bureaucratic overreach" seen from MOVE getting burned down in Philadelphia, to Waco and the Branch Davidians, to the motorcycle gangs in Texas where a bunch of people got shot and those who didn't get shot, got indicted.
Trump might not cavil over ownership of the land...and I agree his broad brush big mouth simplistic take on it doesn't look encouraging: but what I've seen of him is that he often walks back his initial remarks, after he's taken the time to read up on the issues. As a New York City Developer, I bet he hasn't thought about rural land issues much. But I bet he'd side with citizens over the bureaucracy, when it is clear the bureaucracy is just yanking people around for the fun of it.