The fact is this, Federal Courts, since day one have always backed the Rights of the Taxpayer’s of this land, and reinforce the situation (i.e. Federal Courts quite clear on the separation of private rights compared to the privilege of Grazing Permit Lands and the kited entitlement to them) of Grazing Permit Ranching on Public Lands, remains and always will be merely a “Privilege” given to ranchers by American’s (i.e. essentially taxpayer’s), and through their representative government politicians and agencies, but keep in mind, a “Revocable Privilege” when abused.
I suppose demeaning other American’s for a simplistic and arrogant reasoning, or intimidation because grazing permit ranchers do have to answer to American’s and the Taxpayer’s of this nation, to rightfully continue their privilege-only status, then the debate begins. Many see this as simply petty Bigotry, brought about by narrow thinking, greed, and low IQ’s, and not really understanding the Laws that protect American’s from Corrupt and Ignorant behaviors, entirely.
Whether one is a Right-Wing Conservative or a Liberal is inconsequential, as Our country is based upon Diversity; which, was fought for over the centuries, and the highest price of all, one’s life sacrificed, for America and this diversity. This bigotry today, that seems to be acceptable to some, disrespects’ those that fought for this country, or served well and with respect. Bigotry, remains unacceptable and will simply destroy this country which belongs to all of us – and this is something that bigotry nor bias can hide from others who have minds and think.
Federal Court Law
The Federal Courts over the history of America, has decided, and very clear about our Public Lands being America’s Lands, and not to be used privately. So those Right-Wing Extremists must accept the fact, in particular about Public lands, that they have no evidence to support their opinions of ownership, nor of total control of Our – American’s – Public Lands. The assumption anyone who does not agree with them are Un-American, is and remains preposterous, and nothing supports that either, other than their own bigotry, their own bias, and total ignorance of the subject. Whether one sees a grazing right as a form of “property” depends ultimately on the view of property one has. Falen and Budd-Falen (1993, p. 505) cite a 19th Century Supreme Court decision in defining the contested term as embracing “all valuable interests which man may possess outside of. . . his life and liberty.”
Quoting from the dissent in that case, Falen and Budd-Falen do not entirely convey what the minority opinion in Campbell v. Holt (115 U.S. 620 (1885) was trying to say.. ‘The term ‘property’,” said the dissent, “. . .is not confined to mere tangible property, but extends to every species of vested right” (Campbell, p.630). But if property as relevant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments covers all “vested rights,” it does not cover grazing preferences or permits, both of which the courts have regularly declared not to be a kind of “vested right.” The case law does, however, support a “thing of value” view of property for grazing permits as outlined by the Red Canyon court and the IRS in Shufflebarner and other rulings. Such a view acknowledges the clear financial advantages of a grazer’s preference right against other ranchers, while stopping short of declaring that preference a vested right of private property, protected from uncompensated government action. . .
A difficult but essential first step is to broaden the views of the parties involved. Jurists, administrators, and their supporters need to realize that court decisions and legal precedents sometimes carry much less strength than they might imagine. The persuasion process merely starts with a legal decision rather than ending with it. As many organizational theorists have noted, the authority of a rule lies in its acceptance by the subordinate rather than the rule-maker (Barnard, 1938). Similarly, ranchers and private rights advocates need to acknowledge the relative weakness of their legal case and move on, rather than continuing to press for victory in a battle that has already been mostly fought and lost.
Their case is better made in the political and cultural realm, within the confines of current legal realities. At the risk of sounding naive, both sides need to see the world from another point of view. They need to use their “imaginations,” as Rose (1994, p. 297) urges, and realize that “what you see in property is what you and others have talked yourself into about those ‘things’.”
What will happen if either side is able to see things from another point of view is beyond prediction, but that it would be an improvement on the current situation seems clear. To truly understand another view requires a basic level of respect that brings with it a world of potential for resolution. As Rose (1994, p. 297) concludes, “given some imagination, you may always talk yourselves into seeing something else-with all the effects on understanding and action that a new ‘envisioning’ may bring.”
Today we have many misguided situations or interpretations of Law within the realm of government lands use. Whether it is from those unassociated with these laws (they should perhaps learn the Law and at least appear somewhat intelligent rather than totally ignorant), or those who assume their interpretation of some Laws while leaving out the essential aspects of the Law itself, is merely self-serving and ignores the actual legality of the issue. Yes, understanding what one is reading, and acknowledge the connections to all of the legal jargon, is then paramount in understanding the Laws.
Today, as well, we have a problem with government agencies misinterpretation of the Federal Laws, and assume “Corrupting” these Laws are or remain okay, in order to reach their Special Interests, or their political favor. If this truly the case, then why have any types of Laws at all? To be an American is to acknowledge we are a Land of Laws.
This is how America operates, and if we ignore this, then we become nothing more than a backward country, and extinction, or s the Roman Empire Fell due to corruption, may not be that far off – which history shows clearly; that, corruption within all of its vast ignorance, and when accepted simply turns into a National Cancer, then as history again shows, the Country Fails – destroyed from within . . .
Literature Cited —
Barnard, C.A. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Harvard Univ. PressC, ambridge,M ass.
Royer, R, H. Hovenkamp, and S.F. Katx. 1991. The Law of Propxty- An Introductory Survey (4th ed.). West Publications, St. Paul, MN.
Coggins, G. and R Glicksman. 1995. Public Natural Resources Law.
Clark,B oardman,a nd CallaghanP ressD, eerfield, IL.
Ellickson, R 1991. Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Harvard Univ. Ress, Cambridge, Mass.
Falen, F.J., and K. Budd-Faien. 1993. The Right to Graze Livestock onthe Federal Lands: The Historical Development of Western Grazing Rights. Idaho Law Review 30505-524. Ida.
Hage, W. 1989. Storm Over Rangelands: Private Rights in Federal Lands. Free Enterprise Press, Bellevue.
Locke, J. 1690. Two Treatises of Government. ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Nelson, RH. 1986. Private Rights to Government Actions: How Modem Property Rights Evolve. University of Illinois Law Review 1986-2~361-386.
Powell, RR and PJ. Rohan. 1968. Powell on Real Property, (abridged version). Matthew Bender Press, N.Y.
Reich, C. 1964. The New Property. Yale Law Journal 73:733-787. Corm.
Rose+ C. 1994. Property as Persuasion: Essays on the History, Theory, and Rhetoric of Ownership. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.
Sax, J. 1970. The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention. Michigan Law Review 68:471-566. Mich.
Sax, J. 1980. Liberating the Public Trust Doctrine From Its Historical Shackles. U.C. Davis Law Review 14:185-194. Calif.