His argument is that he was relying on a past deal made 'in perpetuity' that anyone on adjacent land could use the land at will, as they see fit, without future restrictions. OK. Then how does the permitless open season on free range cattle violate that agreement?
First off, I believe that everywhere possible, public land (all forms of public property) should be auctioned into private hands to eliminate this, and other problems. But, given the existence of the public land, it should be managed by the government to suit those who use it. That might mean finding compromises that permit grazing of cattle, with access to hikers, hunters, snow-mobilers, etc. But it shouldn't include keeping people out altogether in order to "preserve the land"... as if it were a sacred area that can only be entered by the ecological high priests employed by the EPA or Endangered Species protectors.
Whatever decisions are made, which might include grazing fees that will support the management of the grasslands, they shouldn't be applied for the purpose of driving ranchers out of business to suit the environmental fantasies of those who want everyone to stop eating beef.
Because cattle are grazing on 'free' range, doesn't mean they aren't someone's property, so I don't understand why you'd want to see them shot :-(
We are stuck with far more common property than we think. Navigable rivers are an example. And there are different agencies that tend to managing our publically owned rivers. The Army Corp of Engineers work to prevent damaging flooding, for example. The Coast Guard and local harbor patrols have jurisdictions for regulation of waterway use. A parallel to the Bundy cattle deal would be a family that counted upon being able to use a river to deliver ships they build to their customers. If the EPA decides that it is harming some guppy-like fish to have these ships in the water and drives the builders out of business, it would be like the ranchers in Nevada.
It wouldn't make sense to say that anyone can come along and have a permitless 'open season' on taking possession of any ships that are using that river.
I'm not sure that the issues of dealing with all the different kinds of public property has been very well explored from an Objectivist/Capitalist perspective. There is the air itself, the water along the coast line, the rivers and creeks, the water table under the ground, the minerals as yet unclaimed under the land's surface, our codes of laws themselves, public buildings and the land under them, national parks and forests, usable property created by government employees, public schools, right of way instances where private property would have to be crossed in some fashion to grant access to another piece of property, air space over private property, public structures like dams, roads, etc.