It's only relevance is as backstory and history. I enjoy backstory and history, but I'm now much more concerned with the current situation.
You've said two seemingly contradictory things: (a) Bundy took a pass; and (b) BLM did not renew.
BLM did not offer renewal on the same terms and Bundy took a pass.
According to federal law, BLM grazing permits and leases are "generally renewable if the BLM determines that the terms and conditions of the expiring permit or lease are being met." However, the law provides that the amount of grazing on the permit or lease may be changed by the BLM in a new contract for different reasons, which is what the BLM did in 1993. I haven't found that regulation, but the descriptions I've found in various legal summaries and articles appear to indicate that the presence of an Endangered Wildlife Habitat is one of the valid reasons.
As far as the Bundy's prescriptive rights to graze from the late 1880s, the answer would be complicated. The Bundys only grazed on open range for about 45 years. When the law required a grazing permit and grazing fees, the Bundys began paying it and did so for 59 years. In most cases, if you sit on a claim (e.g., prescriptive rights to property) for 59 years, the claim may be subject to an equitable, affirmative legal defense call 'laches." Laches is an unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim in a way that prejudices the opposing party." The doctrine of laches would only apply if the federal government had been prejudiced by the delay.
In addition, paying grazing fees for 59 years can be argued as evidence the family did not believe it owned prescriptive rights.
Wouldn't your snow story be more analogous if the boys were shoveling snow for their own benefit, and if the owner of the land had ordered the boys off the property, and the owner of the land had gone to federal court on three occasions for a court order that the boys were not allowed on the land.
Ping to #353 and 361
Regarding the snow story, the boys were shoveling for their own benefit. They were making money the way boys have for years when it snows. The boys also shoveled before it went to court. In the same way, Bundy was improving and using that area before it went to court.
By the above, I’m not acknowledging the Federal Government’s ownership of that land. It’s something I’ve rejected throughout all these discussions with anyone. There are only a limited number of instances in which the constitution authorizes federal ownership. It certainly never envisioned a leviathan asserting ownership over 80% of a unique and fully capable state.
And since the authority isn’t specifically assigned, then it reverts to the State or to the people. So, I’m thinking in terms of nullification of those previous courts.
BTW, Scoutmaster, you’ve been more than friendly and fair in all your posts. I really appreciate that.