[Scoutmaster]

The BLM told Bundy the same thing he was not allowed to keep his 900 or more cattle on the property anymore he was only allowed 150 Cows on the property BUT he had to pay the same fees.

BLM grazing fees are per animal unit month (AUM), about one-fourth or less of private AUM fees. The AUM fee is set annually. AUM grazing fees are not a mysterious concept to ranchers.

In 1993, the AUM went up and Bundy's 1984-1993 grazing permit expired. Under a new contract, the total fee, if Bundy had grazed 150 cattle on the Bunkerton allotment, would have been 150 x AUM. Bundy didn't graze 150 cattle.

Ah. BLM grazing contracts/permits provide that the holder can continue to renew them on the same property at the new AUM, provided the holder honored the terms and conditions of the old contract and permit, but that the BLM may place limits on the number of livestock grazing on the allotment based on a number of factors . . . such as so-called Endangered Species habitats.

Bundy has always lost in court.

None of this excuses the BLM's military response.

Incidentally, the BLM loses over $150 million a year administering the subsidized grazing program under which AUM is drastically below fair-market AUM and maintenance costs. Sounds like an efficient government program.

[Scoutmaster]

Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870.

Minimal research is your friend, CBS. The Bundy family didn't move to the area until 1878.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Bundy has always lost in court."

Yet his cattle are still there. In fact by all accounts Bundy cattle have been on that land since 1887

Seems strange that someone who has never won in court still continues to win what he wants.

[GAFreedom]

I’d like to thank the three of y’all for being the voice of reason and facts on this issue.