Replies

Kit and Sherry Laney lost their fight with the Forest Service about 10 years ago. They had their cattle confiscated and lost everything and even ended up divorced, it was very sad. The Forest Service went into their ranch with a large show of force as well. Their ranch was remote and fewer people were on the internet- no social media so they didn’t get much publicity or support. Kit ended up serving time in jail because the government goaded him into causing a scene by not treating the cattle right when they were gathering/holding them. An Arizona rancher named Wally Klump also had a fight with the government and he served years in jail for contempt of court because he stood up to them and wouldn’t remove his cows. Klump did not give in to the government either but again- little publicity, so he also had little support. There were several other ranchers that were cleaned out by the government for standing up to them in the last 20 years, not to mention all those that were put out of business that didn’t stand up to the government.

The government recognized rancher’s grazing rights for around 100 years to the extent they were bought and sold with the ranch- value of grazing rights were figured in value of the ranch. Very different situation than private rents or leases of anything. Ranchers had grazing and water rights on federal or state land tied to their deeded ground and it was recognized by the government and before the government went to war with the ranchers in the 1990s it was a relationship between ranchers and the government that was considered so secure government agencies and banks loaned money based on grazing rights as collateral. That relationship existed because our ancestors placed great value on those that produced our food, unlike so many today that think their food comes from Walmart. Ranchers were considered stewards of the land by the government and the rancher made improvements to the land like pipelines, fences, etc. Wildlife benefited because of the water provided by ranchers that otherwise would not have been there in the mostly dry West. It was a good relationship until environmental activists decided cattle were evil, they even had a slogan “cattle free by 93” meaning they wanted no cattle anywhere by 1993. That is how long this battle has been waged against ranchers by environmentalists and the government. Untold ranchers have lost their ranches in this battle and cattle numbers are really low, which is one of the main reasons beef is so high in the grocery stores.

Ranches that have grazing rights still to this day are appraised as if the grazing rights are part of the ranch. With the track record of the last 20 years since the government decided to support environmentalists instead of those that produce our food, I can’t imagine that those ranches will hold their value.

For those that think these ranchers should have just “paid their fees” it is not that simple- the government cuts their grazing numbers to the point they have no choice but to go out of business. In some cases they are told they have to keep cattle out for a number of years which is the same as putting them out of business. If ranchers disagree with this the government will not accept their fees so they cannot “just pay their fees” it is not that simple. Most water rights in the West are tied to use, so if a rancher does go along he ends up losing water rights from not using them or not using enough water. Ranchers getting their cattle numbers cut by the government can not only lose their grazing right, but their water rights as well. It is a really bad situation.

I posted this on another thread.

Am I wrong ?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3146356/posts?page=19#19

B4Ranch,

I know you’ve been all over this issue, I’ve done a little research myself and would like to know your thoughts.

From what I can tell, it comes down to this:

BLM issues “Grazing permits” that require compliance with their Terms and Conditions. This includes a limit on the number of cattle (as a result of pressure from environmentalists)

If a Rancher has less cattle grazing on public lands he will lose the rights to the water since he is not using the water.

The BLM has been consistently shrinking the acreage for these allotments for well over 20 years.

The BLM is engaged in a two, maybe three step process to drive the rancher out of business.

They are forcing the rancher into a catch 22. Agree to the terms and they lose their water rights, without the water rights they can’t allow their cattle on public lands.

It seems to be more about the water than anything else.

Keep in mind these “water rights” are not for “resale” but for use by cattle.

The BLM has been slowly reducing access by shrinking the allotments and forcing a reduction of livestock (terms and Conditions) that, in turn forces the reduction/forfeiture of “water-rights” (lack of use), that ultimately forces the rancher out of business.

That’s my understanding.

Please point out where I may be wrong.

Wow terrific summary.
You are correct it it the enviro-commies behind it all. They have created situations all across the country not just for cattlemen and ranchers but for every group there is to basically get rid of as many people as they can and have the government steal peoples lands anywhere the enviros see fit. From the tall forests to the deep blue seas to the shallow waters of the near shore fisheries where we fishermen spend much of our lives enjoying and earning a living from the sea.
The enviro-wackos have laid claim to anything and everything they can in the name of the endangered species act and any ol’ environmental cause they can think of. then they got all the money they could behind them and all the lawyers in the world to enforce anything and everything they want. It's a huge con to socialize the country and destroy capitalism and our way of life.
They need to be stopped and as previously stated at the ballot box,we don't need a shooting war.
Take their money away and they will find something else to do with their time.