That is not their goal, to make a profit or to keep the lawn mowed.
Their goal is to control what is allowed on "their" land, beholden to national political interest vs the state or local interest.
Hell, a buck .35 is CHEAP pasture.
But when the "owner", who is supposed to represent the fee-payers, undertakes to eliminate their business, folks have a legitimate bitch.
The Feds own about 5% of the land east of the Rockies.
They "own" over 50% of the land west.
The people intend to change that.
I agree with you and have stated it several times that I think the government needs to start turning over the wide open spaces. Trust me, I live in the middle of it here in Eastern Washington and Idaho.
Like many things the government is involved in they don’t always get it right on property management, but this case is so established and clear to me that I am dumbfounded at what I am reading here.
He did not pay. If he can’t make his ranch pay with what he legally owns or can lease he needs to find a different occupation. There will still be hamburgers. The law is established and his peers accept it.
Where are the articles quoting other ranchers in Nevada who support what he was doing? Perhaps there are some I have not seen, but a man’s peers often understand him best of all. I don’t see that and did not hear it and he was quite the topic of discussion at church on Sunday among the cattlemen.
We should not be so anxious to choose battle when the other side has such an advantageous position. That is a recipe for defeat.