Out of curiosity, is the bit about Bundy not paying the land fees correct?
*******
Sort of. His family has had defacto possession and use of this land for over 130 years. At some point they did pay fees which were imposed later. Originally the fees were funneled back as assistance, and that stopped. Standard federal breach of contract, because they can. Anyway, Bundy at some point started years worth of legal proceedings and in the interim offered the payments to other state and county entities which refused the payments. One by one all of the area ranchers have been driven out or given up over increased strictures and fees. Bundy is the last one in the area still in operation.
Bundy has a case, albeit an antiquated one. Forty or fifty years ago he might have prevailed, but we were a nation of laws then.
That’s all I was asking. Kind of odd that he would try to pay a state entity for the use of federal land. Had the FedGov kept this in the courts (biased as they are) at least it would maintain the semblance of legitimacy. If what you say is correct, then the feds have decided that they’re not getting their way fast enough to suit them, and have decided to force the issue. In that case, I’m surprised that a) they haven’t already launched their assault, and b) the various private-citizen groups there haven’t told the feddies more explicitly that it’s time for them to go home.