04-10-2014, 02:50 PM
LRRPF52 Wrote:What I see this being about is who has a bigger stick in laying claims to the land, and changing the rules (their rules) as time progressed. This family has let their cattle graze on the land since the late 1800's, well before FDR pulled the Homestead Act on us. What has happened is that what was once locally-owned land, is now claimed by the Federal Government, who "allowed" this family to let their cattle graze on the land after they had been doing, then charged a fee for it, then said they have exceeded their allotment of cattle per square mile, then said they need to make payments to them, then said they are in non-compliance.
It's an issue of sovereignty and encroachment on individual rights, as well as Federal overstep into rural lands where they have no business, but were moved to act by an environmental/animal rights organization, even though the enforcement agencies just wanted the case to go away because they knew the rulings were morally and ethically wrong, and this family was getting shafted bigtime.
Or you could look at it as unruly peasants, refusing to obey the orders of their Federal overlords, and they should just submit already. It all boils down to how you view individual rights, the 10th Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the principles the US was founded on.
You won't find a bigger advocate of private property rights than me. Or any individual rights for that matter. Which is why this is an interesting issue. To me it boils down to this. The land is not his. I haven't heard any of the possible owners of this land, besides the feds, take a stand on this. Maybe i have missed them. Seems the BLM has claimed jurisdiction for a long, long time. Have there been no court battles by the town or state in regards to this? I know the feds own most everything west of Texas. Whether they should or shouldn't is a separate issue. But seems like the horse is out of the barn. It should be a simple matter to determine who OWNS the land. I can't imagine this hasn't been done.