I will answer the above question myself. The disputed land belongs to the Federal Government, in fee simple, and is administered by the Bureau of Land Management. If Bundy or anybody else wants to use it, they need to comply 100% with the OWNER’s wishes, including all fees, etc.
On the issue of eminent domain, I strongly oppose it, unless it is absolutely necessary to fulfill a totally public requirement and even then, the governing body must prove their is absolutely no other practical method to accomplish its goal.
But eminent domain is not at issue in this case. The government has owned this land since the end of the 1840’s and only the government can decide to sell it or give it away.
Ironically, as the property owner, the government has the only property rights in this case.
And I will be waiting with bells on for somebody to find and paste the Bundy’s title to that BLM land.
There is a segment of US society which has been taught it’s not right for a man to “own all that”. That anything more that what a house sits on plus a foot on either side is all anyone can “own” and that’s more than generous and needs to change.
But even more than that, it’s the way of life. “If you absolutely must eat beef until we take that away from you, you can feed it in a stall where we can’t see it.”
Yes, the central government “owns” the grazing. And instead of helping one of the few left still trying to produce something useful off of it, look at what it does.
The want the Bundy ranch gone. The Bundys gone. That way of life gone.
I am a landowner myself. A significant landowner. 12+ acres in Pennsylvania. Currently 35+ and about to expand to 50+ here in North Carolina. Plus smaller properties in Florida, Virginia and Tennessee. And I enforce my rights as a private landowner very strictly, my land being fenced and posted.
I acknowledge the BLM has the same level of authority over their lands as I do over mine.
Now, does that mean I necessarily AGREE with everything the BLM has done? No. Do I agree with every BLM policy? No.
But if I was a rancher myself, I would acknowledge two choices in regards to requesting to use BLM land.
Abide by their fees and terms, regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable they are.
Stay off their land.
Several aunts, uncles and cousins of mine were dairy farmers and I regularly worked their farms during my childhood. One uncle owned 365 acres of land, but occasionally rented extra fields. When he did so, he surely paid the rent demanded and abided by the terms of usage dictated by the property owner.
I would not be against the Federal Government auctioning off allotments of this BLM land in fee simple to the highest bidder. But ultimately, only Congress can do that. Congress has refused and the land has remained federal.
Unless and until Congress relinquishes title to the land, neither Bundy nor any other private party can make a claim to it, but can only use it within the fees and terms prescribed by the BLM.
I am not approving of every BLM action or decision.
And federal law enforcement and federal prosecutors misbehaved.
The final statement points towards the abolition of qualified immunity.
Maybe Bundy could have got some of his money back in a lawsuit, sans qualified immunity.
In Texas Rice Land Partners v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas , the Texas Supreme Court stated that a “pipeline company cannot wield eminent domain to build a private pipeline, one ‘limited in its use to the wells, stations, plants, and refineries of the owner.’ A common carrier transporting gas for hire implies a customer other than the pipeline owner itself.”
The central government absolutely did not attempt to “give away” anything. It attempted to shift costs to states under continuing onerous central regulations.
