Justify the Cattle Battle in NV?

I think there are more opinions available than factual information on this one.

Assuming what you say is true, then what exactly could the court rulings cited have been based on?

The BLM has done itself no favors by intentionally peddling lies about saving a tortoise, among many other missteps.

But overall, I'm not quite sure we are dealing with a situation where either side has a truly righteous cause. It kind of reminds me of the polarization on Trayvon and Zimmerman, another issue where both sides had the opportunity to avoid the eventual outcome but were too pig headed to take it.

James W.,

Unfortunately, the issues are not simple. As a condition of admission to the Union in 1864, the Territory of Nevada was required to deed all public land to the U.S. Government in perpetuity. Whether that was wise is open to question. Whether it was constitutional may be subject to interpretation. But no one has ever challenged the constitutionality of the arrangement.

Since the land was deeded in perpetuity to the U.S. Government, Clark County has no authority to lease the land to anyone for any purpose. That is probably well beyond unfair. But, many things that are unfair and still legal.

The Bundy family had been grazing its cattle on this land for about half a century before the BLM was created. I am not an attorney. My reading of historical application of English common law in the United States regarding real property is that a right of use is assumed after a period of time, typically far less than half a century.

Nevada ranchers and farmers have never supported Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). Since Reid became Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate ranching in Nevada has declined precipitously. The current BLM Director, Neil Kornze, is a long-time Reid functionary. I do not believe that this played any part in the decision to pursue the issue with Bundy. I can easily believe that it played a part in the decision to pursue with zeal.

Whether Bundy is right or Bundy is wrong, you do not steal a man's cattle in cattle country.

That was simply the wrong approach.

Legally, as an existing tenant at the time the federal government took over the land, Bundy had an existing lease agreement, and the BLM should have honored it. The county should have forwarded his rent payments to the BLM.

BTW, BLM says Bundy owes them $1 million, and they spent $1 million trying to seize his cattle. How does that make sense....

when your fact 1 doesn't have any legal issue and doesn't matter, you know you're already in trouble...

2. as long as he paid the bill, which he admitted he has not been... which destroys your no. 4 point... again...HE SAID IT...

5. it's their land now... you can cry all day about why you think it's not legal, but in the end, no one cares... you just look like some native american protester crying about stolen land..

6. even if true, doesn't matter... even if I'm going to get rich off my land, doesn't make it not my land anymore...

7. this is blatant opinion? lol you don't know the difference, do you?

8. agreed, but it's not going to be that messy

A parallel question is: Why do the people of Nevada keep electing a corrupt person like Harry Reid to the Senate. Even the Wikipidea write up on Harry Reid makes it clear that he is uncommonly corrupt.

You want ownership and use based on history do you? Native Americans owned the land thousands of years before Bundy. Should it be given back to them?

But Harry Reid wanted the land for a political payoff.

They were going to build a solar power plant.

Another Solyndra.

Think how many tax dollars they could get with that!

In 1773 the British used all proper channels of law to pass their tea tax, do you think that its legality was in the mind of anyone who fought on either side?

There is no justification for what Racist Holder did.