The institution of fees on those lands was never lawful, it was an administrative action, instituted to drive the cattle off of the land. The same goes for grazing permits.
If anyone had a private claim to the land, the Fed Gov has no rights to it. That is a solid premise WRT lands from Spanish or Mexican control. It was a part of the treaty.
Thus Bundy probably does have a legitimate claim by prescription over the previous occupant.
None of the BLM’s actions on grazing lands are legitimate.
.
The State of Nevada held title to the land before the Bundy family began to use it in the same way cattle ranchers did in any ‘open range’ story.
Cattle ranchers’ desire to use land they didn’t own to feed their cattle is a part of western history and gave us the Lincoln County War, the Pleasant Valley War, the Mason County War, and the Johnson County Range War, among others. Even the Robert Duval/Kevin Costner movie, Open Range, deals with this issue.
The State of Nevada owned the land the Bundy family has used before the Bundy family ever used it. The State of Nevada conveyed the land to the federal government.
The Bundy family never gained title to the land by prescription.
First, their use of the land would have had to be ‘hostile,’ meaning use without the permission of the lawful landowner. There’s no indication that was ever the case.
Second, Nevada requires color of title to gain title to land by prescription. The Bundy family has never claimed color of title. In fact, Bundy concedes that the BLM holds title to the land.
Third, Nevada requires that a party claiming title to land by prescription have paid all taxes on the land due by himself and ALL previous occupants.
The Bundys want to bring back the days of old west cattle barons who ignore the laws of private ownership of land.
The treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo transferred sovereignty over Nevada to the USA, with unoccupied or ungranted land entering US ownership.
This dude’s family (supposedly) moved into the area in 1877. On what basis can he claim they owned the land prior to 1848?
Do you know how utterly desolate this area was in 1848? There were no cattlemen in the area, certainly not Anglo cattlemen, for the entirely logical reason there was absolutely no market and no way to get herds to market. Even in CA, which had a long coastline, cattle were raised almost entirely for hides and tallow. The rest was left for scavengers.
Cattlemen didn’t come in till after the Civil War, as his family did in 1877.
What your claim boils down to is that an entity owns worthless land. It allows other parties to use that land, initially without charge and then for fees. When the parties using the land don’t like the fees requested, they insist they have a right to keep using the land as they choose without charge, or possibly even that they have somehow acquired title.
Why should the principle be any different depending on whether the entity owning the land is a private individual, a corporation or the government?
If he grazed cattle on anybody’s else’s land, they’d charge grazing fees. Why should he be exempt?
BTW, for most of the time his family has lived in the area, they probably had an option to buy this land, at a very low cost. They chose not to.