Why did he pay the blm before they changed his allowance? Wasn't it just as unjust back then, when it was a sweet deal for him? Didn't the govt not own the land then either?
Isn't it strange how his revelation that the govt doesn't own that land didn't occur until it became profitable for him to ignore the law?
Why would he deal with the state of Nevada. The state doesn't even claim to own the land. That's like me insisting on paying my brother my mortgage payment because I like him more than the bank.
Back when the blm first took over, they did follow the contract. And, it's not really profitable for him to not pay. It'd be easier to pay.
Part of the issue he, and others, has with this whole mess is that NV didn't follow the law when letting the blm and feds in.
There is a group of attorneys meeting in SLC, UT digging through law and cases looking at all this. Not just in the west. It affects land and people in other states, too.
This has been going on for a really long time. Many people laid down and let the blm, or epa, or forest service put them out of business or make them leave areas where they had lived for generations.
This guy didn't. It needs to get sorted out.
I suspect the resolution will fall in the middle, with dashes of cronyism, greed, abuse of federal power, re-interpretation of law.
Oh, and probably the creation of a new federal agency, since that seems to too often happen!
