Posted on 04/26/2014 2:32:07 AM PDT by Rummyfan
Thank you, exactly right!
$13.50 per month would be pretty high rent on that land. I rented my irrigated pasture last year for $150/A. It will carry 2 units per acre for 6 months, it is certified organic, and my rent is considered top of the market. My irrigated pasture costs $25/A per month for 6 months (and the tenant has use of the land for the other 6 months for free) - so that comes to $12.50/AUM.
I think you meant $13.50 per grazing season - which is about right.
You are wrong - in certain areas - Nevada is one - the conflict between grazers and the BLM is nearly continuous. Hage had no problems with the BLM in California. He was warned about them when he considered buying his ranch in Nevada. He assumed he would have the same, or similar relationship in Nevada. He was wrong.
In Nevada, the grazing easements often predate and supersede any BLM claims. These easement are like any other - they are in place regardless of who owns the land. Hage won the case brought against him by the BLM in resounding fashion. Don’t dare try to marginalize those men by characterizing them falsely. The federal judge in U.S. v Hage slapped the BLM and the USFS down for their mistreatment of Hage and his family. The BLM was required to restore Hage’s grazing numbers to their full historic allotment - which was more than the Hages ever grazed, I believe. They cannot reduce that allotment by more than 25% without court approval, they cannot reduce the allotment permanently, and they are not allowed to contact the Hages directly - such was the nefarious nature of the feds’ behavior.
I don’t know where you get your information, and I don’t care - you are either ignorant about Nevada grazing law, or deliberately lying. And your characterization of Hage and Bundy being without support from other grazers is completely untrue. The Hages had the support of nearly every grazer in Nevada. If the support was not public, it was due to BLM intimidation - which has also been documented.
Most BLM field employees in Nevada know next to nothing about range management - they told my brother that his cattle overgrazed his allotment which is only open during the plant dormancy period. They also tried to claim that greasewood chopped by a bushhog for roadside maintenance was affected differently than greasewood browsed by cattle during the same period. Let me see if you understand the foolishness of their arguments.
How long have you been employed by the BLM?
I am almost certain Ben is a a BLM employee. They are no longer interested in managing the rangeland for grazing, as mandated in the Taylor Grazing Act - their enabling legislation, they instead worry themselves with where quail drink. His mention of this shows his support of the sage grouse foolishness - there being more grouse on grazed land than on ungrazed....but he won’t tell you that!
He also pretends the BLM owns the forage in Nevada - while most of it is owned, through Nevada grazing law, by grazing easement and grazing rights holders. The BLM can only charge them management fees - because the BLM doesn’t own the graze.
He claims to have ranching roots - he’s either lying, or a shameful traitor to his heritage.
Whoooooaaaa! You have a biology degree - whoop-de-doooo! Where did you get your range management degree?
His fee numbers are way off. There is no way a Nevada range permit - or any government range permit - is costing $13.50/AUM. I rent irrigated pasture for less than that - and my rent is considered high. I have rented pasture, not rangeland, for as little as $8/AUM - in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, where cattle will do much better that the 300+ acres per unit per year requirements of Nevada range.
Bundy owns the grazing rights, by Nevada law. Why would he pay the BLM for something he owns? He was paying a management fee to the BLM. The BLM tried to cut his grazing rights (which he owns, remember) by 90% and he was told to sign a paper agreeing to this reduction - a temporary reduction, of course. He refused to sign, and the BLM would not accept payment without him signing.
Care to guess where all the ranchers are who DID sign the “temporary” reduction demand? OUT OF BUSINESS! And their grazing rights are PERMANENTLY gone!
This guy is a BLM shill.
Why indeed?
I agree the $13.50 per month is way off. According the following DOI Land Mangement article the current AUM is $1.35/mo. I think there was a decimal error in the post you cite.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html
Federal Grazing Fee
The Federal grazing fee, which applies to Federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands
managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, is adjusted annually and is calculated by using
a formula originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978.
Under this formula, as modified and extended by a presidential Executive Order issued
in 1986, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM); .....
end snip
Ultimately at some point this will be decided in a court of law. How long it takes is anyone’s
guess. The BLM is preceeding with an all encompassing review of gov’t lands in Tx/Ok/Ks
with a completion date of 2017 for new regs in place. Who knows what all will come of this
and the time frame for expansion into other states. This is were the 90,000 acre Texas
land take is being discussed.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/219455667/OFO-Newsletter-Final-i
I don't mean to criticize you or the many others here who think reality is determined by what gets posted at free republic. And if you can argue or insult, then somehow that enhances your reality. And the more bizarre you are, the more credible you become.
All the arguments and conflicts on Bundy are resolved in the courtroom. So maybe that is where you should go defend Bundy because the court(s) keep ruling against Bundy.
Call him up and let him know that you are available
“All the arguments and conflicts on Bundy are resolved in the courtroom.”
Unfortunately, the courts often depend on the skill of the lawyers combined with the honor of the judge, and many judges have no honor. Try reading Sotomayer’s dissent in the Michigan EEO case...
In Bundy’s original court case, at least, Bundy represented himself, which is almost always a very bad idea.
In Bundy’s case, his legal theory that the federal government cannot own dry land is a legal fantasy. He would have been better off arguing, thru a lawyer, that the BLM was acting arbitrary and capricious - something the BLM does all the time. But then, Bundy would have to pay the lawyers, while the government had dozens provided for free at taxpayer expense.
Anyone who thinks a private individual sues a federal agency on equal footing is living in fantasy land!
Calling you names? What name did I call you?
It’s OK for you to denigrate Hage and Bundy, but you can’t back up your words when challenged, can you? You don’t know squat about range management, do you? And you don’t know diddly about this case, apparently.
Care to tell me what was foolish about the BLM claims that my brother was overgrazing? You have no clue, do you? But you aren’t bashful about spouting all your garbage about how the BLM is doing such a marvelous job of range management.
Finally, why do you feel it necessary to lie about Bundy and Hage?
That's why I suggested GilesB represent him in a new case. I haven't read all of them but if Giles says Bundy owns the grazing rights and is merely paying a management fee to BLM, that sounds like another legal avenue to pursue.
I doubt that what you heard is correct. The attorney the successfully represented Hage would take Bundy in a heartbeat. I’m sure he has plenty of offers now.
Reading (or listenign to) Mark Steyn makes you smarter
Getting to this late, I find Steyn's article impeccable as always. Reading his opinions and analysis does indeed make one smarter (whoever said that) and more well-informed on the facts of the situation!
At this late writing, I also find his remarks eerily (sic) prescient of and applicable to the Sterling/LA Clippers situation...whether it's the massive Government beaurocracies or the private-but-powerful NBA organization, sometimes it's necessary to defend the rights of even the most egregious individuals.
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.