Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Grazing allotment is property

Irregardless of whether or not Cliven Bundy was in the wrong, the BLMs reaction and response was uncalled for and totally out of line. Excessive force come to mind. And the people's reaction to that use of force, was fully justified.

Why did the federal government feel the need to send in 200 armed agents, impose airspace restrictions, and implement "First Amendment Zones"?

Go on and take a good long hard look through the keyhole and stare Tyranny in the face boys and girls, because it just showed up at our door, big as sheit.

After my failed attempts to get them to fetch tennis balls tossed onto the Interstate, they are now back with my daughters.

Irregardless of whether or not Cliven Bundy was in the wrong, the BLMs reaction and response was uncalled for and totally out of line. Excessive force come to mind. And the people's reaction to that use of force, was fully justified.

Why did the federal government feel the need to send in 200 armed agents, impose airspace restrictions, and implement "First Amendment Zones"?

Go on and take a good long hard look through the keyhole and stare Tyranny in the face boys and girls, because it just showed up at our door, big as sheit.

All of the above is incorrect.
The actual amount was $375,000, but that was for ALL the outstanding allotments, and not Bundy's alone.

Since Bundy never "owned" anything, they owed him no money
In fact, he owes them 1.1 million in past due fees and penalties

That and much more misinformation is dispelled here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/

Someone is extremely obtuse.
=========

That is very true.

Must be your lawyering skills, here I was starting with what I presume is the Taylor Grazing Act itself....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/315

Only time payment for cancelled grazing leases is specified in that section was when the military takes over the land. Interestingly, one cannot take over another's grazing permit unless you pay the previous guy the fair value of any improvements they may have made. Didn't find anything about buying and selling of permits between private individuals.

Oh yeah...
===========



Bundy also claims that it his �right� to graze these BLM public lands. This is not the case. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 specifically states that the issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land. The Taylor Grazing Act is the granddaddy of the U.S. laws governing grazing on federal land. �Taylor� was a rancher and a congressman from Colorado, hardly someone to want government tyranny over ranching.

So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.

In Public Lands Council v. Babbitt the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the new grazing regulations promulgated by the Department of Interior under former Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt to conform to Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and found:

The words �so far as consistent with the purposes . . . of this subchapter� and the warning that �issuance of a permit� creates no �right, title, interest or estate� make clear that the ranchers� interest in permit stability cannot be absolute; and that the Secretary is free reasonably to determine just how, and the extent to which, �grazing privileges� shall be safeguarded, in light of the Act�s basic purposes. Of course, those purposes include �stabiliz[ing] the livestock industry,� but they also include �stop[ping] injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration,� and �provid[ing] for th[e] orderly use, improvement, and development� of the public range.

He has no �right� to graze it.

The federal courts have struck down every challenge Bundy has made about his claims, and has issued not one, but two, court orders to remove his trespass cattle. It�s not his land and he has no right to graze it.

but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.

Birdwatcher,

I have no idea where it is spelled out in the law. But I can show you several instances where either BLM or USFS permits have been sold and purchased between individuals locally. All such transactions are monitored closely by the supervising agency.

I also know that some permits are put up for auction by the agencies occasionally. It made the news a few years ago when anti cow (supposed to be environmental groups) started bidding for and buying such permits. Then the grasses became over grown and our perennial fire problems became much worse.

The BLM had to start demanding a grazing plan before accepting bids for permits. The enviro/whackos screamed bloody murder at that development.

The ranchers make good use of the Taylor Grazing permits. And the range lands do actually need to be harvested. Since wild bison are far too destructive to be turned loose to do the job, it can be fairly stated that the range actually NEEDS the cows.

No other animal can do the job the bison used to do. The bison migrated across the continent grazing the green grasses as they moved from South to North in the spring and back in the fall.

Cattlemen put cows out to graze when grass is plentiful and move them over the range to keep them on good feed. When the range grass is properly harvested, they bring the cows into the feed lots and home pastures.