Quote:
The Bundy family has run cattle on the scrubland since the 1870's, but in 1993, the government decided it "owned" the land and would start charging Bundy rent fees for his cows grazing on it. The Bundy family refused to pay the fees, so BLM went to court over the payments, and when that didn't pan out the way they wanted, they decided to unleash an army of heavily armed, militarized "soldiers" to lay siege to the ranch and steal Bundy's cattle.
Pretty much every word of this is factually incorrect or grossly misleading.
1. The BLM did not "decide it owned the land" in 1993. They apparently reduced his allotment due to the tortoise thing. Seems like he was paying before that, and only decided he didn't recognize federal jurisdiction to collect fees once he was told something he didn't like. Bundy himself
said "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."
2. The BLM did indeed go to court over the payments, but saying that "didn't pan out the way they wanted" is silly. The BLM won decisively, obtaining judicial orders telling Bundy to remove his stock and authorizing the seizure of the trespassing animals.
3. "Laying siege to the ranch" doesn't make any sense. If the cattle were on Bundy's property, there would be no dispute. To characterize public land where Bundy raises his cattle as his ranch is absurd. The feds cannot "lay siege" to public land.
4. Characterizing federal agents enforcing a valid court order as "cattle rustlers" is ridiculous and unproductive.
Again, opinions are only as good as the facts they're based on.