[bert]

This is all very interesting to me in the abstract. I believed that the BLM policy was uniform. It seems that is not the case.

In my mind the western land grants were 160 acres, one fourth of a 640 acre section or one square mile. The Bundy’s claim ownership from way way back. It would seem reasonable that the original actual ownership occurred as a homestead grant of 160 acres or the purchase of the land from a previous homesteader.

And yet, the few words dedicated to the land they apparently have a deed, their ranch, is said to be only 150 acres. It would seem that somewhere along the way 10 acres was some how sold off or otherwise lost.

Of course that really doesn’t matter except as a loose end.

[Ben Ficklin]

Whatever the increment of land was, or how they got it has some relevance. But, the grazing lease associated with that land also has greater relevance. If it takes a 100 acres per cow......................

So when a ranch(however big or small) sells, the associated grazing lease adds to the price of the land that I being sold, even tho the lease is not owned by the seller or the buyer. Because the lease has been in place for so long, the lease has become semi-perpetual, or as Bundy has said, ancestral.

[Duke C.]

The Clark County parcel map shows two 80 acre parcels owned by the Bundy Trust- 160 acres total: Source: http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/assessor/Pages/RecordSearch.aspx