dlh wrote:I have no sympathy for Bundy. Ranchers should pay for their grass leases. That is well-accepted--at least in Texas. Bundy thinks he is entitled to a free grass-lease on the tax-payer's dime. Just a free-loader in my eyes.
I bet we pay A LOT MORE for the feds to manage it than we lose for a pennies/acre grass lease.
They are probably saving us millions by grazing it... imagine the gov't contracts involved in keeping thousands of acres cut or controlled burned.
Been a while since I read up on that one but...
I believe that land was originally "taken" (some say confiscated) by the gov't and part of the agreement was that they (the ranchers) could graze it... fast forward some years and the gov't changed it's mind. (against the original written agreement without cause or compensation)
That's a far cry from a cattle lease here in TX. This would be more in line with the State taking your land for flood control or elevated highway and allowing you to continue hay production and grazing (as compensation for the land) when not flooded... and then one day locking you out of land you had legal permission to use.
As with most feds vs ____ cases, rest assured there is way more to the story that we have heard/read.