@Undecided: I can see how one could stop at the moocher theory. Lack of time or inclination to research, lack of critical thinking skills or just casually reading the NYT would lead you there. This isn't simple and nobody looks good in this. So, if you have a compelling desire to put a quick bow on it and move on to the latest mini series on cable, then it fits the bill.But, indulge me here. What if he did pay the $300k grazing fees accumulated over twenty years? Would he get to keep his cattle on the permitted land? The clear answer is no. The guy would have gladly paid the fees for a full allotment just as he did for decades before 1993. He, like dozens of other ranchers were being run out of business over a turtle. And BTW, the BLM biologist admitted in 1993 that there was no evidence that grazing affected the turtle's habitat. In short, the grazing lands were going to be used for mitigation of environmental impact to allow the Vegas valley to continue to expand, specifically developers in Henderson. Same thing is happening here, only it's so First Solar (not the Chinese friends) can build a facility between Vegas and Mesquite.This fight isn't about money. I said that in another lengthy post. The moocher theory? Nope, not even close.Bundy fights a losing battle for sure. No legal basis for his fight and three Federal court cases told him as much. How we came to allow unelected officials as head of agencies to make law is another story, but it is what we've come to. Sorry, roy, we don't get to vote for agency heads, so the ballot box won't solve that issue.

@Clydepuckett: I can see where one would be inclined to (pretentiously and arrogantly) insult another poster and throw in a lot of 'facts' to justify this man's use of property that he was using illegally - probably too much gin & tonic.

@Undecided: I agree but at the same time they need to make a deal with this rancher. Harry Reid and other politicians should be getting together and finding ways to settle with this rancher instead of name calling.

@cbp210: A farmer was complaining to a friend about the trouble he was having in getting his stubborn mule to move. After listening to the farmer's complaint, the friend said he knew just what to do."Get a two-by-four and whack the mule across the head with all your might," advised the friend. The farmer was taken aback. "But how will that get him to move?" asked the farmer. "Well, you see," the friend said, "first you've got to get his attention!"

Removed By Request

Irate westerners have long railed against the federal government's vast land holdings, the result of America's 19th-century westward expansion.Yet their anger has mainly sputtered. The Sagebrush Rebellion, sparked by a 1976 law that established rules for the BLM's management of federal land, found a fan in Ronald Reagan, but his pledge to sell off swathes of lands fizzled in the 1980s.www.businessinsider. in/Cliven-Bundys-Mis guided-Insurrection- Revives-An-Old-Did Reagan's plan to sell off the land fizzle because nobody wanted to buy it?

@Undecided: communication and respect is a two way thing which is what I am seeing is lacking here with both parties. These people need to put aside politics and agenda and think of the people who elected them. This rancher needs to pay his dues but if there is a dispute than it needs to be addressed instead of this arbitrary tactic being used by the top heads of BLM. Harry Reid needs to get off from this name calling and instead lookout for all sides in preventing bloodshed.

@cbp210: I essentially agree with what you are saying, cbp.But this man is a special case - showing up with an army to take on federal agents and then giving the press his evaluation of the worth of various ethnic groups is a pile of you know what.

@Undecided:Hey-oooo (Ed McMahon voice)Wasn't meant as an insult, just an acknowledgement that the the roots of this deal are deep and require one to commit some serious time to research. You have to be a wonk and even if you do the time, you've got to apply critical thought to the process. I'm actually kinda **** to learn that the Govt rate per AUM is only $1.35....in the private world the grazing rate is 10x that. THAT is mooching, my friend.I have not tried to justify the man's use of the property....just to say this isn't about money,and I'm glad to see you change your premise (use of the property). He's been trespassing for 20 years. Freeze his assets (see the Ukraine/Russia thing), put a lien on his property he does own and hold a sheriffs sale............I'm trying to make the point that this govt grand standing was over the top. I'll admit that I'm not fond of how he was deemed to be trespassing in 1993, while perfectly legal for decades previously, but them's the rules. Blister his butt with civil remedies....not snipers. It REALLY pisses me off that six cattle died in the hands of mercenary cowboys, but another post, another time.You questioned my facts. Which ones? I can back up everything I said. Got a file of docs and articles. Be glad to do it, just be specific on your query..... just so I don't violate the Fairlane doctrine.Why blame it on gin? typos? Grammatical errors? Haven't had a gin & tonic this year. Summer is coming though, so....maybe you'll be right then. Thanks for the response.

@Clydepuckett: No comment.

@Undecided: Fair enough.Still curious as to what "facts" you question. I'm happy to provide sources to my assertions. I'd only ask again again that you be specific.Absent any informed debate, I'm sticking with my position.........And, hopefully, Mr Bundy is about to experience the axiom of "the wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind fine".....garnishment, levies, liens......he will be broke in the end.....doesn't take tasers, snipers, MRAPS to make that happen. Al Capone went down on a tax evasion charge....just sayin'The only good thing from this ordeal is a debate on several policy issues.......we'll talk about those laterHeading to Spec's tomorrow...gin season is on the horizon.

@Clydepuckett: This article does not indicate Bundy 'would have gladly paid...' *quote from your post...Bundy’s chapter began in 1993, when he stopped paying the monthly grazing fee to the BLM that he and his father before him had paid for decades. The fee, currently a paltry sum of $1.35 per month for each of his cow and calf pairs, is collected to offset a small portion of the public cost of maintaining the grass, water, roads, and the health of the lands he grazes. It’s not a lot to ask; indeed it’s a massive federal subsidy that few businesses receive – you can’t feed a parakeet on $1.35 per month.Bundy claimed the BLM had no right to charge him due to a thoroughly debunked, but eternally-circulating, libertarian theory that the US Constitution forbids federal ownership of land. In Bundy’s financially self-serving world view, the land on which his cattle graze does not belong to the American people, and thus the BLM has no right to manage it or charge him for the grass and water he takes from it every year.www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2014/a pr/19/cliven-bundy-n evada-blm-liberI ignore direct quots from Bundy as I give Zero Credibility to anything he has to say because of his arrogant statements and actions.Here's an question that begs 'critical thinking' - why did he make the racial comments? To gain favor from the right? Is he mentally ill? To create a distraction? To try to garner favor from Hispanic neighbors? Hate?

My original thought was this situation was not about grazing rights but about the right wing interpretation of "states rights" and I have not changed my mind.His racial comments fit right in, imo.Why would Bundy jeopardize his grazing rights by refusing to pay the fees beginning in 1993 if his primary goal was to feed his cattle?As I understand it, the turtle was not even an issue until 1998.

@Undecided: Some good thoughts here, and some misinformation. So let's take each point on its own. We need Marty McFly's Delorean to travel back in time, though, so hang on.a)As I understand it, the turtle was not even an issue until 1998.No, the turtle thing was the issue that jump started this deal in '93. You may be confused on that as '98 was when Clark County bought the grazing rights, citing the turtle issue. An article from '92...... www.csmonitor.com/19 92/0212/12081.htmland then in the same article.....Now, let's ask the question....what happened in 1992 to change the game so drastically? If you said an election, you get the prize. The environmental crowd felt that they were helpful in electing William Jefferson Clinton and looked forward to exerting influence over the grazing on public lands. They were handsomely rewarded as Clinton appointed Bruce Babbitt to Sec of Interior who unleashed a torrent of changes to their liking. They even had a slogan...Cattle Free by 93.
You can google that phrase...or just ask and I will provide links to articles from that period. b)My original thought was this situation was not about grazing rights but about the right wing interpretation of "states rights" and I have not changed my mind.I'd agree that there are those that co-opted the argument to turn the ordeal into a stage for States rights issues. And Mr Bundy will take any cause as an ally at this point.
But to say that the initial fracas was rooted in that is projection. See the prior point from the article....the enviro crowd hate the grazers and they do what they do.....c)Why would Bundy jeopardize his grazing rights by refusing to pay the fees beginning in 1993 if his primary goal was to feed his cattle?Bundy's primary goal was to keep his cattle. As I've said multiple times, he and other ranchers were being regulated out of business....by design. Pretty effective, too...he's the only one left in Southern Nev. and he'll be done in time. The Feds should now do what they should have done long ago.....choke his finances. It may take a while, but it isn't that hard to do. And if they really want to vacate the land of bovine presence, do it under the same procedures that a private land owner would cause eviction. Get your judgement and execute it through the Sheriff's office. Turn Bundy's own argument against him.... Unless of course, we think that private landowners should be set free to collect or execute court orders with guns, MRAPS, snipers and tasers. I'm not a fan of that, but that's just me.....your mileage may vary.d)His racial comments fit right in, imo.Meh, he's an idiot....his racial comments aren't the issue, they merely serve to get people to swing at a pitch in the dirt....same as his comments on the validity of the Federal Govt. Total diversions. In fact, I'm waiting for some smart media person to ask him what payment he accepts for his calves at auction. I'm guessing he gladly accepts currency from the same institution he refuses to acknowledge as an authority. Hell, maybe he gets paid in casino chips...but I doubt it. Even in Nevada, the grocery stores don't take any thing but the greenback....American made ones.

@clydepuckettThanks for correcting the turtle dates for me.