Is Cliven Bundy's Grazing and Water Rights still valid today?

"Why does Cliven feel entitled to use of the land? Or is he actually paying the land use fees and BLM is not being truthful about that?" (a question from a friend)

Let me try the short answer.

The BLM evolved from the Taylor Grazing Act of circa 1934. The Grazing Act was established to set boundaries in what can only be best described as a period of Range Wars. It was a free for all, and sheep, cattle, and horses were plaguing the lands. They ate flora to the ground, yet the tortoise flourished. You see, turtles eat poop and the more the poop, the more the turtle eats.

OK, so if I've run off tract, let me get back to Bundys. So Cliven was paying for management. That includes infrastructure improvements, etc., not a grazing fee. Like a miner owns a claim, Cliven owns the grazing rights as well as water rights. These are all deeded and only revocable when the use has been discontinued. They then revert to the state or county or another authority or otherwise transferred.

Now, we come back to the turtle, and the heart of the issue, the Endangered Species Act. It says habitat needs preservation, which precludes habitat enhancements provided by the rancher and subsequent cattle. All this considered provides for an abundance of other wildlife from the bug to the big horn sheep...

Cliven no longer maintains a contract with the Bureau of Land Management in regards to their efforts to manage him "out of business."

...Cliven hasn't relented or transferred any deed or title. There hasn't been any filing to counter his ownership, only to remove his access to such, a result of which would after a period of time of not utilizing said property would cause him to relinquish title and possession.

☆

Vincent Easley II RealLibertyMedia.com