Originally Posted by dyna mo

A fellow at Forbes by name of David Blackmon offers a level-headed analysis, filed in a different cabinet as it were, of what many consider to be the by-and-large unreported substance of the enmities:

The dispute in question goes back to 1993, when the BLM cut the grazing rights of the rancher in question, Mr. Cliven Bundy, from a herd of thousands of head of cattle to one of no more than 150 head in order to ?protect? a species of desert tortoise that inhabits the same area of the state. Most mainstream news media reports on this story naturally did not inform their readers of this fact, or of the fact that this tiny herd allotment would be spread over the 158,000 acres of land to which Bundy held the grazing rights.

Thus, by effectively slaughtering the bulk of Bundy?s herd in such a blunderbuss way that the varmint interest is scarcely served, BLM can be understood by reasoning folk to have attempted to run Bundy -- and other ranchers -- off the land entirely. Here again is Blackmon:

When one understands these key facts, one realizes that such a tiny herd of cattle on such an enormous space would have no impact at all on the desert tortoise or any other plant or animal that lives there, and that no rancher could possibly make any sort of a living running such a tiny herd. Thus, the obvious conclusion is that BLM rendered its absurd decision with the clear expectation of running the Bundys off the land entirely. And that is a very reasonable conclusion to reach. After all, Mr. Bundy is in fact the ?last man standing? here ? the BLM strategy has worked so well that every other rancher with grazing rights in the region has given up and abandoned what had been their family?s way of life, in many cases, for generations.

Thus, BLM?s regulatory determination and implementation was very arguably, in the language of judicial review as it applies to administrative ?lawmen,? ?arbitrary and capricious? -- and therefore unlawful, whether a federal court has so declared or not.