But his family owned the land before the BLM stole it.
“We own this land,” he said, not the feds. He said he is willing to pay grazing fees but only to Clark County, not BLM.“Years ago, I used to have 52 neighboring ranchers,” he said. “I’m the last man standing. How come? Because BLM regulated these people off the land and out of business.”-
Can he show prior ownership? Can he prove that the feds violated the takings clause of the Constitution?
If they did take his land without just compensation to support the war effort (WWII) he maybe SOL. If that is the case I think he should make his case to Dingy Harry saying that the feds should make him whole, as they did the Japanese families removed from their homes and businesses.
Actually, this is located on lands ceded to the US govt from Mexico after the Mexican American War, in 1848.
OTOH, there were Land Grant lands(either Spanish or Mexican) located within those lands ceded by Mexico, such as the Cabeza de Vaca land grant, aka the Baca Ranch as it was known by the gringos.
It was after 1848 that the US took control by building forts through out the west to deal with the Indians.
As you may or may not know, when the feds sold these lands they would sell either 360 or 180 acres. Initially, the "Commons" were to be used by all to "graze out on", but that led to conflicts over grass and water, so they replaced that with the lease system, in place today.
The problem arises because some have had these leases for so very long, they think the land is theirs and/or that the feds don't have the authority exercise oversight over the lands and/or have the authority to withdraw these lands from the lease system.
Thanks for posting that link. Interesting background.