Posted on 03/12/2004 10:28:47 PM PST by farmfriend
You always have a problem when dealing with leased lands from the Federal Government or with grazing permits IMHO...particularly in today's environment.
Just look at what damage the Clinton administration did with the Wilderness Road Initiative and EO in the 90's when they unilaterally closed all of those forest roads that provided access to lands that had been legally leased for timber operations. Those companies (like Boise Cascade at the time) still leased the land, but now they culdn't access them and their leases and operations were worthless. Lots of money and jobs lost over that...which BTW we had hoped that Bush would summarily reverse through EO like it had been implemented. He disappointed us on that one.
If in fact there were leases that the Laney's cattle company had signed (irrespective of the fact that before the forest service ever came along they simply used the land) to which they had no clear title...and if in fact those leases expired upon due notification of the government who then had title/ownership to the land, then the Laney's have placed themselves, either through negligence or through a desire to confront the government, in a bad situation.
If that is the case, then this particular set of circumstances was just waiting to happen. I am very surprised it did not happen earlier and that is why I am still looking into this, figuring there is more to the story than my own understanding as explained above.
Now, this part about the grazing and the cattle and the government's attempt to recoup what it considers losses from the broken lease are irrespective of the Lanye's access to the 100 acres they actually own. I believe there are stautes on the books (federal ones and state ones) that allow an individual access to their own land across federal ground. That is a big issue in the case with the Pilgrim family up in Alaska.
If you didn't write it down then it didn't happen.
Are we secure yet?
It pays to keep one of those disposable cameras in a vehicle for this and many other reasons.
In finding for the government over the Laney's water rights arguement, the district court stated the following:
"In entering summary judgment for the United States, the district court held plaintiffs obtained no legal right of possession or use merely because their predecessors historically grazed cattle on the land. Nor did the court find it material that plaintiffs' water rights may have long been vested under New Mexico law, stating: "[W]hether Plaintiffs own certain water rights . . . does not change the fact that such rights do not deprive the Forest Service of its statutory authority and responsibility to regulate the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands for livestock grazing through the issuance of grazing permits."
I understand that water rights and land rights were synonymous (and rightly so) at an earlier date in history. But now we have the statutory empowered agencies of the Federal Government (USFS, BLM, BOR, etc., etc.) who are "managing" the land...and we have allowed it to happen. In the case of the Klamath Ranchers, they had both the land ownership and the water rights...and it still came to a very hard fight because of the foolishness of the ESA and pwoerful lobbies and judges using bogus science to implement agendas...but at least those farmers owned the land and could not be denied access to it like is occurring here.
In this case, the ranch only has the water rights and the agency is pointing to the expired permits regarding the use of the land and monies owed by the Laney's for continuing to use the land (graze it) for 7-8 years without a permit. Water will not matter if you cannot access the land.
By signing on to the permits in the first place, the Laney's (perhaps inadvertantly) by default recognized and signed on to the government's authority and they established precedent that could then be used against them. Permit means "permission". Like I said, whenever dealing with government permits regarding land use...you place yourself in a bad situation when the time comes that the government decides to revoke the permits.
Anyhow...events like this make clear that there are still powerful forces within government that are intent on continuing to wage the war on the west and on the individual, independent farmers and ranchers regardless of which side of the aisle controls the administration. They have been empowered to do so in their minds and they will not let go of that power easily or without sacrifice on our part.
Looks like it's really been going on longer than that. From the article:
The Laneys, on the other hand, are the little guys, who want nothing more than to continue living where their ancestors settled in 1883, doing what their ancestors have done for more than a century. They have invested their life building their ranch to pass on to their children.Sounds like the Laney's could argue some kind of right-of-way by "easement by prescription." They've been doing this forever.
They have felt that because of their water rights, that they would not be denied use of the land due to the water rights.
That appears to be what they are arguing...and I happen to agree with them. But, the land ownership and stewardship issue has become cloudy in the interveneing years with the advent of so many federal agencies that have statutory power (that we have given them through our representatives...shame on us). Now, the government is in essence saying that the government owns the land and unless the Laney's keep paying for the permits and or leases, then they owe the government monies for this.
The Laney's, despite having at one time signed up for the permits, have now balked at it for 7-8 years and the government is trying to collect on the arears.
That seams to be the crux of the issue regarding the majority of the land in question and its use...and it is a difficult issue once you have established precedent by recognizing the permit authority of the government.
That is my only point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.