Originally Posted by bigswede
If I read one of the articles on the matter right, some people within the BLM confesses that the ranchers make a better job of preserving the type of nature intended to be preserved.
Boy, I'd sure like a specific quote rather than a vague recollection to establish this one. Can you clarify what "Type of nature" you seek to preserve? And this:
Quote
The government is not obliged to charge high fares for ranchers upholding a living American culture.
The vast majority of the ranchers don't find the fees, which are modest, excessive.
Quote
In the United States, grazing fees are generally charged per AUM (animal unit month). (Some additional fee or fees may be charged in various jurisdictions, e.g. per application.) On US federal grazing land, the grazing fee for 2012 (as for 2011) is $1.35 per AUM.[3] As of 2015, the grazing fee has been increased to $1.69.[4] Over several decades, the fees charged on US federal rangelands have generally been substantially lower than rates charged on private lands in the US.[5] In 2006, the grazing fee on Oregon state lands was $5.60 per AUM.[6]
Wikipedia. What about the cultures that pre-existed the ranchers? What about the bison that used to roam? What about the flora and fauna that are destroyed? Realistically, ranching is not dying out despite the government ownership of the land. The Bundys never owned the land their cattle graze on. What gives him a superior interest to ALL of those others?

It's not so much nostalgia, Swede, as ideological blindness. We, collectively, have brought forward reams of actual evidence to support our views in contrast to...? What, really?

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich