Replies

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.

You state it well, as far as it goes. One point that you missed is that many of the grazing rights existed prior to the feds taking “possession”. The feds had no authority to charge grazing fees - in these cases they were termed “management fees”.

As managers, they operate at the will of those who own what is being managed. When they began managing for the environmentalists instead of the grazers they were guilty of mismanagement and in violation of their enabling legislation - and many ranchers set about to fire them.