[taxcontrol]

So what? It is not Bundy’s land.

If it were not the federal government’s land but say a different rancher, would Bundy have the “right” to demand that the other rancher lease the land to him? Would Bundy have the right to graze his cattle there without paying for the priviledge? No to both.

Bundy is trying to assert squaters rights on land he does not own and by Article 1 section 8, congress has the EXCLUSIVE right to legislate the rules of that land.

[Paladin2]

The rule of Law is DEAD. Bammy could fix this with another "illegal" order.

What are the actual marginal costs the gov't incurs to "own" this land per year?

Why is it not subject to local Property (wealth) taxes?

How is it beneficial to the Gov't to own this land? How is it beneficial to the people of Clark County for the Feds to own this land?

[Paladin2]

Then there is “adverse possession”, which works for many.

I don't know about Nevada, but the State of Montana has an amazingly detailed management of water rights across the whole State. Scarey actually. Water rights could easily be an underlining issue here.