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

An allotment has real value, it can be bought and sold. It has been stated that the BLM declared Bundy in default on his remaining 150 head allotment. It has been stated that the BLM subsequently sold that allotment for $350,000.

So that means the allotment was worth about two thousand three hundred thirty three dollars per head.

What did the BLM pay the Bundy ranch when they took away the greater portion of that allotment? By my calculations they should have payed the Bundys just a bit over a million bucks.

I certainly have not heard a word about the Bundys being paid restitution for the taking of their property (ie that 450 head allotment which was taken away for the benefit of the tortoise)

Not Property?????????

Then how in the heck can the BLM turn around and sell the remaining portion????????????

The other ranchers they ran off, asked where the line was that their cattle went on to federal land. NO ONE can show them. It is an arbitrary line. The BLM took their cattle, sold it AND charged them enough extra to put them out of business. Reid is committed to sell the land to the Chi Coms for 11% of the value. His son is involved too. He screwed over the people of Nevada big time. He should be recalled or impeached. Probably won't even make the news.

Hi Marlin,

I have looked for an update on the condition of your gorgeous dog, to no avail.

So, how is that big old, loving boy doing. Much better I hope.

Grazing Allotments are "Real Property". Lots of Grazing Allotments are sold between private parties, sometime in conjunction with adjoining private ground sales and sometimes as a standalone commodity.

Around here there are some rules and limitations on the sale of allotments. For instance as one rancher retired he sold off USFS allotments. My Uncle and a couple other neighbors who shared the allotment purchased the AMU's. But they each had to purchase a cow from the retiree to cover each head on the allotment.

I have also seen a BLM allotment sold between ranches. But the purchasing ranch was adjoining the allotment.

Lots of folks are calling Bundy a freeloader and such. But if the Feds came in and stole over a million dollars worth of their real property with no restitution, they would be loath to pay the Feds any monies also.

It can be sold by the owner
Bundy leased it until he stopped making the rental payments, at which time it was sold to the State of Nevada as turtle habitat

The Taylor Grazing Act was asked for by the ranchers. The money is supposed to fix fences and water stations. The Feds stopped doing the improvements, then said the cows were going into the wrong areas.

They used the fees to destroy the ranchers. Wayne Hage won in court and got nothing for his losses. Cliven Bundy is what is right in America, and his detractors are useful idiots for the Tyrants.

Wayne Hage won in court

And Bundy lost in court

You're WELL on your way to establishing "Cred" here.

Your Handle, and the brilliantly clever / unique sig line speak volumes about your mindset, and native intelligence.

Keep talking, and WELCOME to the campfire.

GTC

You still don't get it.

It is not "RENT". The ranch owner OWNES the allotment. The RANCHER may sell the allotment under rules set forth as "The Taylor Grazing Act".

You own your house and yard. You pay taxes on it. If you refuse to pay taxes, then a lien is placed against your property and it might be auctioned off, for taxes.

Grazing fees are much more akin to taxes than to rent.

So, let's say the feds come through and bulldoze your house because they saw a spotted owl nesting in the tree out back. Let's also say that you ran a semi lucrative business out of your home. Let's say the feds refuse to pay you for the value of your home, and they refuse to reimburse you for the custom you have lost as your place of business was destroyed.

So, how do you feel now about lining the feds' pocket with your hard earned cash.

I appreciate your asking. He's a little better but has a long way to go. We had him back to Westvet twice this past week. We have some more medicine coming in for him. Got him to eat a little today which is better than the last few. He had some company and when they came in a couple of days ago he ignored them. Today they came in the door from outside and he was up barking at them, so he did some moving around. I was glad to see that. Still praying for the poor guy.

I am glad to hear he is on the mend. Have you fully determined the cause of his distress?

You can keep repeating that, but the evidence shows otherwise, since if he in fact did "own" it, he wouldn't have lost it by not paying the fees for LEASING (not owning) grazing rights
http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Casper/range/taylor.1.html

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/a...ctim-mentality-costs-him-grazing-rights/

The fact that grazing fees are required show that the rancher doesn't own the land. Or retain rights after he ceases to make the lease payments.

Bundy should have been off that land 20 years ago when he quit making the payments.

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/

A grazing permittee does not own the allotment. They own the permit, or more specifically the preference, for grazing. The reason your family had to buy cows for purchasing a USFS grazing permit is that USFS permits are tied to the animal herd. BLM permits are tied to base property or in some cases base water. This all clearly spelled out in the Taylor Grazing Act and associated regulations directing the management of grazing on BLM lands. Those same regulations spell out how grazing permits (NOT ALLOTMENTS) can be transferred to others.

Substitute the word permit for the word allotment and you are on the right track. Base property that has a permit tied to it does not have to be adjoining the allotment for which the permit authorizes grazing.

You and pointer are absolutely correct but intellectual honesty isn't on the priority list for some.

The 7 Q&As are quite persuasive in discarding the easiness by which some get caught up in blatant ignorance and rumors.

Glenn Beck is beginning to get it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/14/ne...tates-property/

Lastly, if one truly wishes to understand the settled law behind all of this, one need look no further than the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Gardner case.

Adhering to the rule of law, also a well founded constitutional principle, has the simple minded resorting to lamely amusing accusations of liberal, pro-government, etc.

Here's the actual law and constitutional provisions that apply rather than the Infowars blather as to how it should apply. Some might learn that "I don't like it" is an argument for children,not for the adult,real world. Folks confuse Bundy's so called liberty mantra for what it actually is;Anarchism.