“If his claim is true, then he should receive a hearing as one who has over time established a right-of-way.”
He has HAD a hearing. He had the chance to provide evidence, and the court, in a summary judgment case, would assume it was true and give him every benefit of doubt - but he had none to present. By giving summary judgment to the BLM, the courts were ruling that there was NOTHING presented by the guy that indicated the case had any merit whatsoever.
They didn’t just rule against him. They said his case was so baseless and lacking in law and evidence that it would be a waste of time to present it to a jury.
As for not being in the land owning business - I like national forests and places where I can go hike, hunt or ride horses. The land in Utah and Arizona and Nevada has almost no value. There is a reason why the government couldn’t even GIVE IT AWAY. When it takes a square mile of land to feed one cow, no one wants to own the land.
As it is, we get a lot of use out of the land - grazing, timber sales, recreation. The Constitution does provide for the federal government to own land. The original signers of the Constitution gave huge swathes of land to the government.
This guy is a free-loading nutjob. Conservatives ought to keep their distance.
Grazing? Out of land that needs a square mile to feed one cow?
The National Park in North Carolina took land from my Swain County family and many others....Great Smoky Mountains.
Good land and perfectly usable...and being used. So they could give city slickers a place to recreate.
Gave them a deal they couldn’t refuse.