> like using the countryside to pasture livestock as they’ve ‘done for generations’ is an inalienable birth right I understand (and share some of) your sentime

> like using the countryside to pasture livestock as they’ve ‘done for generations’ is an inalienable birth right I understand (and share some of) your sentiment, but it's worth correcting you to say that ranchers (usually) don't feel that grazing rights are an "inalienable birth right". Instead, they feel that grazing rights are a property right, and they should not be deprived of this property without compensation. What may surprise you is that courts frequently agree with the ranchers' interpretation! Most people don't realize that when a ranch is sold, the grazing rights are sold along with the private land. They have market value, and they are attached to a particular property. Banks treat them as collateral, and maybe more importantly, the IRS treats them as assets for the purposes of taxation: https://famguardian.org/publications/propertyrights/estatax.html https://famguardian.org/publications/propertyrights/estatax..... So yes, everyone must adapt, but it's not nearly as simple as the ranchers simply being wrong. The way the US West was settled created a system where private individuals really do have a (some sort of) legitimate property right in the use of public lands. Unless you are willing to give up on private property altogether (personally, I'm more sympathetic than most to Proudhon's "Property is Theft" argument) a more nuanced understanding is necessary. Here's a good (and reasonably balanced) article that gives more background about the issues: https://www.perc.org/2016/01/21/managing-conflicts-over-western-rangelands/ https://www.perc.org/2016/01/21/managing-conflicts-over-west.... The first third is about the Bundy case, the middle about the how we got the system we have, and the last part is about where it might go from here.