What's missing is the "why". This administration, by it's own admission, only enforces the laws it wants to. What's making them want to enforce this one so badly?
I don’t see how “why?” makes any difference. There is no serious argument that the US gov’t does not own the land. There is no evidence that the US gov’t reneged on a contract to let him graze cattle there. It may very well be that the gov’t has a stupid or bad reason for stopping grazing, but that has nothing to do with its right to do so.
To make an example and show of force.
Look, the guy, by the law, has been trespassing. It was never his land. Even adverse possession generally requires you to not only occupy the land, but to improve it and pay taxes. This may not be the same everywhere, but it's the general idea. He doesn't occupy the land exclusively (for grazing, maybe, but grazing lands are generally open to other use), and he's certainly not paid the taxes (fees) on that land. The improvements are moot against the other two. That being said, the federal overreach here, spending more than twice what the actual fees (and interest, admin fees, and penalties) are to deal with this is wrong. I'm no fan of the fedgov in this respect, but Mr. Bundy is also not standing on solid ground.
Because 21 years of being in court with this guy who isn't paying rent is long enough. This has been in the courts since 1993.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/04/10/rancher-nevada-public-lands/7540911/
And before 1993, in 1986, President Reagan set the fee schedule for grazing on federal land with an executive order. It has been followed since then, and hasn't been raised a single cent per head of cattle.
It has been $1.35 per head per month since 1986. http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/commentary/2014-public-land-grazing-fee-the-same-as-2013-and-2012-and-2011.html