At the least he owned his own property, which I understand from the various articles to be 600 acres. Beyond that, he had, at least until 1993, grazing rights for a large surrounding area of land. Part of the issue is whether those rights, which can be inherited and sold separate from the land itself, can be unilaterally taken back or altered - such as the BLM altering the terms to what amounted to one cow/calf pair per 1.3 square miles of range.
“Part of the issue is whether those rights, which can be inherited and sold separate from the land itself, can be unilaterally taken back or altered - such as the BLM altering the terms to what amounted to one cow/calf pair per 1.3 square miles of range.”
It is normal for grazing rights on federal land to stipulate that the feds can change the numbers at any time, and that any improvements the rancher makes become property of the US government. They cannot be arbitrary in changing the numbers, but that is a low standard for the BLM to meet. Under federal law, if the land has an “endangered species” on it, then that becomes a big factor in managing the land - IAW the rules the US Congress has set up.
I would love to see the Endangered Species act revoked, but I’m not going to hold my breath while waiting...