Replies

I understand your position, but what about “public” land? Simply because it is public, would mean, under your position, that hell it’s public, anybody can do anything they want on public land. You and I both know that cannot be allowed. So how do we protect OUR PUBLIC lands from idiots who dump, squatters, etc.?

You make excellent points. I spent lots of time on my Uncle's ranch. I helped herd cows onto federal land in the spring, and back to the ranch in the fall. The cow trails my Uncle and other ranchers built and maintained were used by bikers, hikers, and anybody else seeking a well maintained trail for access to the high country.

These ranchers have pulled many a Jeep out of mud bogs. Public lands around ranches are better because of the cattle operations.

Now consider a ranch on the Arizona Mexico border. There you will find dumping and trash. As well as an invasion of foreign nationals.

IMHO the Bundy family operation is good for We the People who own the public land. The fedgov failed us miserably in the border states. That is where your concerns are a clear and present danger. The government allows trainloads of trash dumped by foreign national invaders, on private property no less.

I reject the notion that any branch of the fedgov is worthy of controlling anything.

We do that by charging usage fees which are applied to facilitate maintenance and organization of appropriate use. That’s what The Bundys agreed to.

Problem is, BLM increased fees substantially, and did NOT route those fees back to caretaking. As other ranchers learned, the new fees are designed to discourage ALL use, and to drive ranchers off the land entirely.

Maintenance & facilitation fees are fair, and a proper role of government.
Abusing the fee process for private gain (a la Reid’s solar farm involvement) is intolerable, and Bundy is laudable for standing up to such bureaucratic abuse.