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.
Hmmm. Swanky private schools. Bad behavior put him in NYMA. Then he went to Wharton, which is one of the top three business schools in the country. It is every bit the insider degree as Harvard.
You clearly don't do your homework on your own candidate.
it was a desultory effort, since I don't care passionately about this issue.
Regulations, and especially environmental regulations have more to do with why manufacturing is leaving the United States than does the differential cost of labor. But don't let that fact worry you. Trump has the union guys and you bamboozled with promises he cannot and will not keep.
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?
Well my "strategy of the commoners" involves using environmental laws against the agencies, as if the rancher was an NGO. The problem has historically been standing. My patent gives me that. So if I set up a business to do that work, I could go after the agency on the ranchers' behalf. Sadly, they wanted a guy on a white horse to do it all for them, so I've set about building the case myself. I'm ten years into that project. The first step was to establish myself as an expert in restoration ecology. I've done that.
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.
Agency behavior is now almost independent of the administration because it derives its mandates and its budget from court cases rigged in collusion with green groups. Environmental law derives its authrority to violate the Constitution by treaties, lots of them, held at the UN. Maybe you would benefit from a little reading on the topic here and here. Obviously, this is an abridged picture, but it will definitely bring you up to speed as to why limited government and privatization are the context for the correct fix to which Trump has shown himself ill disposed. If I told you the fix for both healthcare costs and the environment were the same, I'd bet you would think I was crazy: insurance deregulation and tort reform.
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.
Market manipulation with environmental regulations is not about fun; it is about money, BIG money, money so far beyond even Trump's imaginings as to make him into a nothing. I can name you ONE (1) regulation that cost so much money that every child in America could have gone to college for free and it ended up with a significant negative environmental impact that the same players are lining up to cash in on it.
It's that bad, and Trump is that out of it.