5 ms·

See: Cliven Bundy

poulsbohemian 9y ago
Came to post exactly this. Once upon a time there were vast western lands open for grazing. There were even "wars" fought between cattle and sheep ranchers over grazing rights. Today the feds have closed off many areas -- for example, if I understand correctly, in the Hells Canyon area there were once 300,000+ sheep left to graze, where today there are effectively none. Certainly there were areas that were significantly damaged by overgrazing and a better balance for the public good was needed. That stated, one of the counter arguments is that it started with the ranchers, then the feds come along and close the roads, soon the public forests become inaccessible and unused altogether. There are a lot more public lands in the west apart from the major national parks. Certainly the Bundy's approach missed the mark in terms of articulating their arguments on this issue.
- Gargoyle 9y ago
  There's a very beautiful documentary from 2011 about open range sheep grazing in Montana, called SWEETGRASS. It's un-narrated, mostly just lets things speak for themselves. http://www.pbs.org/pov/sweetgrass/ http://www.pbs.org/pov/sweetgrass/
- openasocket 9y ago
  My understanding was that Bundy was grazing his cattle on federal land and was refusing to pay grazing fees. He argued in United States v Bundy (1998) that he didn't have to pay grazing fees. https://www.scribd.com/document/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXIS-23835 https://www.scribd.com/document/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXI...
  - rconti 9y ago
    Which is an effing joke, as the federal government charges pennies on the dollar for grazing rights compared to what a private landowner would charge. And yet, the Bundys want the taxpayers to take it in the shorts even more for their privilege and profit.
    - hduwvzvshsuz 9y ago
      How exactly are taxpayers paying anything?
      - rconti 9y ago
        If they're getting charged less than market rate, the government is subsidizing their behavior on public lands.
    - nkurz 9y ago
      While there are many that share your view, the legal situation is far more complex. While disputed, there is in fact legal precedent for considering "grazing rights" to be private property, with the annual fees being paid for the administration of the program rather than being a rent designed to be equal to the free market value of the grass. Did you know, for example, that grazing rights aren't something that is available on the "open market", are specifically attached to piece of private property, and are generally transferred (and inherited) along with it? That the IRS considers grazing rights such an integral part of the valuation of a ranch that they are subject to estate taxes? Here's a simple introduction: http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2014/05/19/grazing-rights-statehood-or-serfdom/ http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2014/05/19/grazing-rights-st... And some legal theory: https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/viewFile/9241/8853 https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/view... And a recent update in central case that's been ongoing for decades, alternating between many (mostly Nevada district court) decisions favoring the ranchers, and many (mostly California circuit court) reversals: https://www.fseee.org/2017/03/08/nevada-rancher-hage-loses-in-court/ https://www.fseee.org/2017/03/08/nevada-rancher-hage-loses-i... This is unsettled law, and calling it "an effing joke" doesn't do it justice. You are welcome to disagree with the ranchers' arguments, but if you care about truth, fairness, accuracy, and respect, I don't think you should call it a joke, at least until you've looked at the situation more closely.
      - openasocket 9y ago
        Let's go into the Bundy case here. His family has had grazing rights over this land in Nevada for generations. Then in 1993 the federal government restricted access to much of that land to protect an endangered species. They seized the land but he refused to sell, continued grazing, and stopped paying his grazing fees. He could have challenged the seizure in court, but he did not. He could have kept paying his grazing fees, but instead he went to court and tried to argue he should be allowed to graze for free. When he lost, he continued grazing his cattle there and refused to pay for it, at which point the government took his grazing rights for lack of payment. Whether or not grazing fees count as private property is actually irrelevant. He lost his grazing rights by refusing to pay for them. If he had kept paying, and actually challenged the seizure and sued, that would be an interesting case, but he did not. There are interesting argument here, but Bundy is not the one making them. He doesn't even acknowledge the authority of the federal government, and instead fell into the crazy Sovereign citizen crowd. (Also, even if grazing land is considered private property, the federal government could seize the land: https://www.fws.gov/refuges/realty/faq.html https://www.fws.gov/refuges/realty/faq.html )

See: Cliven Bundy

Came to post exactly this. Once upon a time there were vast western lands open for grazing. There were even "wars" fought between cattle and sheep ranchers over grazing rights. Today the feds have closed off many areas -- for example, if I understand correctly, in the Hells Canyon area there were once 300,000+ sheep left to graze, where today there are effectively none. Certainly there were areas that were significantly damaged by overgrazing and a better balance for the public good was needed. That stated, one of the counter arguments is that it started with the ranchers, then the feds come along and close the roads, soon the public forests become inaccessible and unused altogether. There are a lot more public lands in the west apart from the major national parks. Certainly the Bundy's approach missed the mark in terms of articulating their arguments on this issue.

Gargoyle 9y ago
There's a very beautiful documentary from 2011 about open range sheep grazing in Montana, called SWEETGRASS. It's un-narrated, mostly just lets things speak for themselves. http://www.pbs.org/pov/sweetgrass/ http://www.pbs.org/pov/sweetgrass/
openasocket 9y ago
My understanding was that Bundy was grazing his cattle on federal land and was refusing to pay grazing fees. He argued in United States v Bundy (1998) that he didn't have to pay grazing fees. https://www.scribd.com/document/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXIS-23835 https://www.scribd.com/document/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXI...
- rconti 9y ago
  Which is an effing joke, as the federal government charges pennies on the dollar for grazing rights compared to what a private landowner would charge. And yet, the Bundys want the taxpayers to take it in the shorts even more for their privilege and profit.
  - hduwvzvshsuz 9y ago
    How exactly are taxpayers paying anything?
    - rconti 9y ago
      If they're getting charged less than market rate, the government is subsidizing their behavior on public lands.
  - nkurz 9y ago
    While there are many that share your view, the legal situation is far more complex. While disputed, there is in fact legal precedent for considering "grazing rights" to be private property, with the annual fees being paid for the administration of the program rather than being a rent designed to be equal to the free market value of the grass. Did you know, for example, that grazing rights aren't something that is available on the "open market", are specifically attached to piece of private property, and are generally transferred (and inherited) along with it? That the IRS considers grazing rights such an integral part of the valuation of a ranch that they are subject to estate taxes? Here's a simple introduction: http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2014/05/19/grazing-rights-statehood-or-serfdom/ http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2014/05/19/grazing-rights-st... And some legal theory: https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/viewFile/9241/8853 https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/view... And a recent update in central case that's been ongoing for decades, alternating between many (mostly Nevada district court) decisions favoring the ranchers, and many (mostly California circuit court) reversals: https://www.fseee.org/2017/03/08/nevada-rancher-hage-loses-in-court/ https://www.fseee.org/2017/03/08/nevada-rancher-hage-loses-i... This is unsettled law, and calling it "an effing joke" doesn't do it justice. You are welcome to disagree with the ranchers' arguments, but if you care about truth, fairness, accuracy, and respect, I don't think you should call it a joke, at least until you've looked at the situation more closely.
    - openasocket 9y ago
      Let's go into the Bundy case here. His family has had grazing rights over this land in Nevada for generations. Then in 1993 the federal government restricted access to much of that land to protect an endangered species. They seized the land but he refused to sell, continued grazing, and stopped paying his grazing fees. He could have challenged the seizure in court, but he did not. He could have kept paying his grazing fees, but instead he went to court and tried to argue he should be allowed to graze for free. When he lost, he continued grazing his cattle there and refused to pay for it, at which point the government took his grazing rights for lack of payment. Whether or not grazing fees count as private property is actually irrelevant. He lost his grazing rights by refusing to pay for them. If he had kept paying, and actually challenged the seizure and sued, that would be an interesting case, but he did not. There are interesting argument here, but Bundy is not the one making them. He doesn't even acknowledge the authority of the federal government, and instead fell into the crazy Sovereign citizen crowd. (Also, even if grazing land is considered private property, the federal government could seize the land: https://www.fws.gov/refuges/realty/faq.html https://www.fws.gov/refuges/realty/faq.html )