It seems the Cliven Bundy issue is going to remain an item which everyone is weighing in on. Here’s my 2 cents.

The first thing I noticed was some law professor came out and pretty much said it was a bad move to support Bundy because it was settled law, EVERYTHING BELONGS to the King…, now I don’t know who settled that law, because it is pretty much taken for granted that the states were given statehood with the understanding they were to be treated equally, which makes one wonder what’s equal about 70 percent of the Western states ending up federal land and those states can go fish for tax revenue.

Of course, the Eastern states were given all the “public domain” lands as they were surveyed, which they in turn opened up those received “public domain” lands for homestead, a practice that was in progress in the Western states, until the federal government determined there was too much corruption in the state homestead policy, because lumber companies and others were insisting on anyone applying for a job must take out homestead and turn the homestead over to the lumber company for a job. Refusal to do so, was on peril of death.

Of course the lumber companies grew out of the railroad companies which in certain instances, like the Southern Pacific, which traded innumerable sections of the desert in the Southwest for prime virgin mineralized timberlands in the Pacific Northwest.

What was that about? And essentially all the land ended up in today’s lumber companies hands. So the federal government calling the state government’s corrupt was true, but what about the federal government, weren’t/aren’t they corrupt too?

Specially today, when we have so many dubious federal agencies that make policy for the 70 percent of state lands here in the West. What ever happened to that understanding about the States being treated evenly and equally?

David Mendenhall

Moscow, Idaho

Recommended for you