[USNBandit]

What am I missing about the Bundy situation? The local BLM office was taking actions that cut off the Bundy's access to lands they had been grazing for decades. The Bundy's felt they weren't getting any service for the range fees they were paying, so they stopped payment. The BLM went to court and got a seizure order for the Bundy's cattle. The Bundys and their supporter put up an armed defense.

In Hammond's case, the BLM and the wildlife refuge had been cutting off pieces of grazing land from ranchers over several decades. The Hammonds had been fighting to exercise their water and other rights to property they owned.

The Hammonds had two instances involving the use of controlled burns which were self reported and then much later the authorities filed charges against two of the Hammonds. After a lengthy court case the Hammonds were sentenced to short prison sentences, served that time and were released. Later, the government appealed the sentences, due to federal sentencing guidelines, and the sentences were lengthened well beyond what is reasonable. The Hammonds are due to turn themselves in on Monday to start those unjust sentences.

[TigersEye]

re the Hammonds; I’ve already learned that much since the last post I made to you.

As for the Bundy’s you conveniently left out decades of history. Good work!

[mad_as_he$$]

Nothing in the Bundy Ranch court order gave the Feds the right to kill cattle and destroy private property. The stand off was about a asymetric response by the government.

Your understanding of the situation is imperfect. Bundy OWNS the water and the forage grown from that water. Grazing fees are rent for using the land it is on.