This is merely the facts catching up with the news. Many people were under the impression that Bundy's family had homesteaded the 160 acres way back then and also had been grazing the allotment since way back then. And that these had passed down to Bundy thru succession. We know better now.
Not just this but other things.
We knew he was trespassing on the allotment but only after the BLM documents and court documents became available we see that there was a second trespass when he moved his stock onto the Lake Mead Recreation Area. It would appear that it was the second trespass that set the wheels in motion that led to this incident.
And it was only after the fact that it came to light that there were 3 separate incidents and it appeared that all 3 involved militia vs BLM. Now we know that the sheriffs dept was heavily involved in the main incident. And as the sergeant said, it didn't make any difference to Bundy and the militia whether it was the BLM or the sheriffs dept, the militia was looking for a fight.
I don’t see where I’m ‘spinning’ anything.
the article you posted, http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny
pointed to Bundy’s claim:
“I’ve lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements,” Bundy said.”
I used two of the geneological data points contained in the article to demonstrate that, indeed, his family did live ‘up and down the Virgin Valley.’ Littlefield was settled in 1865 and is 10 miles from Mesquite, down the Virgin river. Bundy can claim relatives in both. In 1869, Powell’s expedition of the Virgin River was in danger from the Northern Paiute, so it was definitely ‘pioneer times’ Did his ancestors run cows? I don’t know, haven’t had a reason to dig that deep, but my first guess would be, yes. Settlers needed meat.
water rights:
“ The doctrine of prior appropriation, commonly referred to as “first in time, first in right,” was developed in California during the 1850s.
“The miners, just as they did with the mining laws, developed their own water laws before any state or federal court or legislature spoke,” writes University of Colorado professor Charles Wilkinson in “Crossing The Next Meridian.” “If two men, or companies, came in and diverted a whole stream, so be it. If just one took the whole stream, so be it. They needed it; they depended on it; they had rights to it.”
In 1882, the Colorado Supreme Court made the definitive ruling that established prior appropriation. It remains the most important decision ever handed down in any Western court.
In “Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co.” the court ruled that the upstream water user who held senior water rights could legally divert an entire river out of basin, despite the burden that was placed on Coffin, a farmer who was the downstream user.
The decision meant that a river’s water, like gold in a mining claim, is a resource. It belongs to those who are smart enough, tough enough, rich enough and lucky enough to seize it.”
http://csbj.com/2013/08/20/water-wars-warriors-still-changing-history-in-west/
now, I’m sticking with the article you posted, but if you want to address a few stray cows in Lake Mead (photo evidence please), we can go there, too. By the way, the Lake Mead aspect is an issue because a conservation group threatened to withhold a large grant to the BLM for protection of the ‘willow flycatcher’ until all cattle were removed from Lake Mead (or was it just Bundy cattle?). As for who Bundy bought his ranch from, who are we to know it wasn’t a relative or family friend?