No, permit reductions shouldn't be "forbidden". But when a reduction is made permanently, in this case as a result of environmental terrorism and not as a result of the lease-holder's actions, then that appears to be a taking to me. It most definitely reduced the value of the permit which was purchased and also on the subsequent value of the deeded portion of the ranching operation.
Just my layperson's perspective.
I understand your stance. How can that be reconciled with the laws/rules/etc that the BLM is supposed to manage land by? The way I take what your saying is that the unless the permitee mucks up, the permit remains the same, giving grazing the priority for management of BLM lands. If that is the case, you ought to research the history of BLM Grazing Districts, some of which are still 'working'. Long story short, the Grazing Districts were established because those lands were found "to be chiefly valuable for grazing".
That said, I think we can all agree to the interconnectedness of things on a landscape. Is the plight of species X (insert anything you want here) due to past or present grazing practices? If so, do you consider that to be the result of a lease-holder's actions which you state above is permissable to take action on their permit?
