[Scoutmaster]

No. You keep operating on emotion, like when you said Bundy had never lost in court, or when you made the blanket state about adverse possession that ignored color-of-title states.

Reducing the limit of livestock permitted to graze under a new BLM grazing permit/contract is specifically permitted by the law.

You and I can disagree with the law in general. We can disagree with using that provision to limit grazing due to so-called habitats of so-called Endangered Species. We can disagree with using that provision if the government is euthanizing the same Endangered Species whose habitat the BLM used as the basis to limit grazing. We can cuss out the BLM in general and question the intelligence or abuse of power of those who in Congress and the BLM who made the rules.

However, the BLM's right to limit the number of livestock permitted to graze under the renewal of a grazing permit/lease is specifically provided for in the law. Change the subject if you want (again), but that what the law says, however ill-advised it may be.

[Mad Dawgg]

Ahh no. The law is there for a specific purpose. When the law is used for other than that it is invalid. If you claim you are moving the cows to save the Tortoise then you in turn kill far more tortoise then the cows would have done on there own and you do so on purpose then your use of the law was for other than the purpose it was intended.

And that is why lawyers make the big bucks. If law were as cut and dried as you claim Bundy would've been off of that property long ago.