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????????????

Wayne Hage won in court

And Bundy lost in court

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.

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

The day he decided to stop paying his grazing allotment fees required by law, (not imaginary law mind you, but real law passed by Congress and enforced by federal agency) he rendered his voice and any control he had over the destiny and use of the land irrelevant.

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Once again, NOBODY said it was his land.

Been down that road already.

It didn't sink in. Tried explaining it, and got threatened with a "2x4 education" by him...

Oh. Is THAT what he posted?
=======

Yes, it was. But, even before his edit, my response still covered both dynamics.


A family that settled and homesteaded and ranched that land abiding by all the rules and paying all the fees like they did, SHOULD have a reasonable expectation that he can continue to do so without molestation by radical environmental groups backed by big government.
=======

No rockinbar, he did not pay all his fees.


Bundy's ignorance,the law,changing times and the fact this man is going to lose everything he worked his whole damn life for mandates a remedial fix a bit more respectful than the undeserved arrogance of governmental kicks to the nuts.

No rockinbar, he did not pay all his fees.

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:...............

What I don't get, especially on mostly conservative boards like this, is why people are siding with the BLM?

Aren't the BLM senior leaders sworn to uphold and defend the constitution like other public officials? Yet, they arbitrarily decide to suspend public speech and protests except in 'acceptable areas'; they seize a citizen's property and basically declare martial law on/near his property; yet, they are not fired, impeached, fined or held accountable for trampling the bill of rights.

These elected officials as well as the ones in New Orleans during Katrina, should be put on trial and jailed if convicted for tossing aside the constitution for the dictatorial leadership. Instead, none are held accountable unless they piss off a journalist.

Yet, many wannabe subjects and serfs on these boards constantly side with the oathbreaking official.

Being a citizen is supposed to have some guarantees abroad, and especially at home....

Oh. Is THAT what he posted?
=======

Yes, it was. But, even before his edit, my response still covered both dynamics.


A family that settled and homesteaded and ranched that land abiding by all the rules and paying all the fees like they did, SHOULD have a reasonable expectation that he can continue to do so without molestation by radical environmental groups backed by big government.
=======

No rockinbar, he did not pay all his fees.

IMO, it's a mess because the government,during an emotionally infused dynamic and without any sensitivity to the devastation modern history is going to inflict upon this hard working family, chose to deal with it by OD'ing on egomaniacal power trips rather than continuing to peacefully deal with the matter judiciously.

Bundy's ignorance,the law,changing times and the fact this man is going to lose everything he worked his whole damn life for mandates a remedial fix a bit more respectful than the undeserved arrogance of governmental kicks to the nuts.

Bundy's ignorance,the law,changing times and the fact this man is going to lose everything he worked his whole damn life for mandates a remedial fix a bit more respectful than the undeserved arrogance of governmental kicks to the nuts.

Someone is extremely obtuse.

No one anywhere on this thread said anything about Bundy owning the LAND. Obviously he did not own the LAND. He owned the grazing ALLOTMENT permit. (specifically...the right to consume the forage upon that land)

That has nothing to do with owning or leasing the land. Another party might own prospecting rights to the exact same land, and all should have the right to hunt or recreate upon the exact same land. (Unless some dumb ass federal agency bars those rights as well.)

Grazing allotments permits, as has been mentioned before, get traded and sold between individuals all the time. They are actual property with real value. Just as a song, a book, a drug formula, or a computer program are property.

When the BLM barred Bundy from using 3/4 of that allotment 20 years ago (the ALLOTMENT permit for which he OWNED) they in reality seized over one million dollars of his property (to my best guess). And I have not found any mention that he was reimbursed for that loss.

My point is, that would put the fight into just about any individual.

Maybe the government does need to change things to give some assurances that the historical usage will not be taken away from folks?

The "historical use was Native Americans and the Fed Govt

Yeah. That was real fair, and nobody got upset, or hurt or killed in all that, now did they?

Yeah. That was real fair, and nobody got upset, or hurt or killed in all that, now did they?

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.

[quote]Told me a bunch of environmental groups were buying up grazing rights/property, to run cows off the grounds.

You can't get the permits unless you can prove you own the cattle, and also own enough of your own land to support them for some period of time

You can't get the permits unless you can prove you own the cattle, and also own enough of your own land to support them for some period of time

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.

Detente in the rancher v. environmentalist grazing wars?
by Jodi Peterson

If you've been trolling the news recently, you might think that ranchers still reign supreme over the federal estate, despite the fact that the number of cattle and sheep on public lands has declined by more than half since the 1950s.

In November, for example, the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed a scientific integrity complaint against the Bureau of Land Management -- which oversees most of the West's 260 million acres of grazing allotments -- over a planned study of ecological trends in the region. The agency had ordered scientists to consider the influence of wildfires, invasive species, urban sprawl and climate change, but not livestock grazing, citing "anxiety from stakeholders," concern over potential lawsuits and insufficient data. Then it decided to include grazing after all, but didn't distinguish livestock impacts from those of deer, elk, and feral horses and burros. The Interior Department is investigating PEER's complaint.

Legislation introduced in May by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., would double a grazing permit's term to 20 years and exempt renewed or transferred permits from environmental review. And last January, the Forest Service and BLM rejected a petition by conservation groups challenging the vastly below-market rates they charge for grazing.

Despite all this, it's clear that public-lands grazing is facing changes. An important trend is the building momentum of a decades-long movement -- one that would give ranchers a way out of public-lands grazing entirely.

In November, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., introduced the Rural Economic Vitalization Act, or REVA, a sweeping piece of legislation that would allow federal agencies to permanently retire grazing allotments anywhere in the West if ranchers voluntarily waive their permits. (Under federal law, if a rancher simply sells a permit, the purchaser must continue grazing.) Third-party conservation groups would pay compensation at market values, and no more than 100 permits could be retired each year. Two other buyout provisions became law in late December, authorizing voluntary permit retirements within the 25 million-acre California Desert Conservation Area as well as for any domestic sheep grazing allotment located within bighorn sheep range anywhere in the West.

One of the first congressionally authorized buyouts came in 1998, in Arches National Park. In 2009, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act allowed ranchers in parts of Oregon and Idaho to permanently retire their permits. The broader scope of REVA could help federal agencies respond more quickly to conservation conflicts and emergencies across the West, such as rehabilitation after wildfires. "Permit retirement is here to stay," says John Horning, executive director of the Santa Fe-based WildEarth Guardians, one of the main groups campaigning for retirement. He calls it a pragmatic, market-driven solution. "Its influence will continue to grow, as the economic realities of grazing come up against environmental conflicts over sage grouse, bighorns and wolves."

Permit relinquishment gives ranchers options, say proponents; they can pay off debts, shift to more productive private land, invest in other businesses, or retire altogether. But the Public Lands Council, which represents ranchers, sees reductions in available grazing land as the beginning of the end. "We're adamantly opposed to buyouts that retire land from grazing," says Dustin Van Liew, the council's executive director. "It sets a dangerous precedent. If you lose enough infrastructure, the whole industry could collapse."

Other critics of buyout programs point to potential consequences such as the loss of accompanying private ranch land to development; problems with the maintenance or removal of fences, gates and water sources on allotments; and cultural, economic and social impacts on ranchers and rural communities. The BLM's position on the issue is neutral, according to senior public affairs specialist Tom Gorey.

Still, congressionally authorized buyouts offer important advantages over piecemeal approaches to grazing conflicts, say conservation groups. Some have negotiated their own permit buyout deals with federal agencies, such as in the Greater Yellowstone area, but those retirements typically aren't permanent and must be renegotiated when the agency updates management plans.

Lawsuits are another approach; groups such as the Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project have won many major cases. One recent ruling will force the BLM to consider grazing impacts on sage grouse across 30 million acres of public land; another placed an injunction on grazing on 450,000 acres in Idaho until the BLM completes a new management plan.

The problem with litigation, says Western Watersheds' Brian Ertz, is that court decisions don't provide immediate conservation benefits. Instead, they often result in further delay while the agencies perform additional studies and analysis -- which may or may not create tangible, permanent changes on the ground. And because lawsuits are adversarial, with winners and losers, they don't allow for collaboration. "We are willing to wield the stick with lawsuits, but we'd rather have a carrot there," says Ertz. Nor can lawsuits address one of the biggest issues complicating land-use conflicts -- the fact that multiple federal agencies oversee grazing with different responsibilities, rules and authorities.

Although neither REVA nor Sen. Barrasso's Grazing Improvement Act will likely get through the gridlocked 112th Congress, there are other signs that the livestock industry's political grip may be weakening just a bit. In October, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of 2006 rulings overturning Bush-era regulations that did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. Among other pro-grazing provisions, those regulations reduced public participation in grazing decisions, let ranchers acquire water rights on allotments, and gave them shared title to range improvements like fences. "Even though the livestock industry is still entrenched in the West," says Horning, "the ground under its feet shifts every day in ways that diminish its geographic scope and ultimately its political influence."