I’m sure that the Bundy clan feel that they have been wronged. But her own statement shows that not to be the case. From the article “... These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads...”
Their ancestors paid the government to use that land.
“...My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve....”
Bundy himself paid grazing fees but when he disagreed with how those fees were used, he quit paying. Of course, to make his position sound better, he says he “fired” the BLM. Guess what, he doesn’t get to fire the BLM because the BLM was established by the land owner (US government) to manage the land that the US government owns. They did not work for him in the first place.
Once he stopped paying his fees, he stopped having access rights to that land. No different than a renter who stops paying rent.
I think you’re mischaracterizing what she said.
I disagree about her statement. She maintains throughout that they’ve been wronged and as much as ever when it came to paying for rights.
She says they were told those fees were for a certain purpose but then the government stopped providing the service they’d paid for. He canceled their policy in her mind.
It would be no different than my canceling my flood insurance policy. I’d have to then deal with it myself and not rely on the fed. As a farmer would say, he said “I fired them.”
He would not have thought he stopped having access to the land because he thought the fees were for the services promised.
In North Carolina, the Fed promised the people of Swain county a road after the Fed inappropriately pressured people into giving up land for the Smoky Mountain Park. They have never provided that road.
Should the descendants now move back onto that land and say, “They never did their part of the bargain.”?
I would fully understand if they did.