Range Allotment Owners, Dr. Angus McIntosh developed this sign. You may want to have your sign shop make one for each access to your allotment.
February 22, 2017 From my years of observation, I’d have to agree with your collective claim, “Public Lands Council is the only organization in Washington, DC, who solely represents the 22,000 ranchers who operate on public lands.” Please understand though, that as a Range Allotment Owner, PLC doesn’t represent me. And because I couldn’t find an entity that does protect Property Rights on Range Allotments, I helped co-found RAO. RAO is only concerned about the Property Rights of Range Allotment Owners. PLC represents ranchers on public lands. These two needs are wholly different. Chuck Sylvester
From Preference Rights to Grazing Allotments: Why Ranchers Own their Allotments By Angus McIntosh PhD There are a lot of US Supreme Court decisions on the subject of “pioneer rights”, or settlers’ rights of “possession” or “occupancy” and “use”. The case that specifically refers to “pioneer rights” is Lamb v Davenport, 85 US 307 (1873). Arguello v United States, 59 US 539 (1855), refers to a “cattle range” held in possession for 50 years (from prior to the Mexican cession to the US) as sufficient evidence of ownership. Essentially, pioneer rights are equivalent to “possessory” or “occupancy” rights that typically have the sanction of State or Territorial legislation, or; local laws, customs and decisions of the courts; or “aboriginal” title” or “possessory” or “occupancy” rights dating from a time prior to US acquisition through “treaty” (ie. Gudalupe-Hidalgo, 1848, or the Oregon-Northwest Treaty with Great Britain, 1846). This same possessory or occupancy right of “actual settlers” gives the settler a “color of title” which has been referred to as the “preference” right. The preference is the preferred right to acquire the government’s “legal title” when the land occupied or in the possession and use of the pioneer is eventually opened to settlement. (See Frisbie v Whitney, 76 US 187 (1869)). This pioneer right of possession and preference gives the occupant the right to sell his improvements as well as his possessory title, and such ownership will “relate back” to the first pioneer’s date of settlement.
Did congress intend to recognize grazing rights? An alternative perspective on the Taylor Grazing Act By Frederick W. Obermiller This exchange, part of Mr. Obermiller's article, is from pages 11152-11153 of the June 12, 1934 Congressional Record-- Senate is illuminating. Mr. McCarran. [O]ne holding a farm or a home- stead who has heretofore depended upon the public range as a part of an integral unit of which his homestead may have been the minor part, shall have the privilege of going to a loaning agency and asking permission to borrow, and having recognition of the fact that he has certain rights upon the public domain which shall not be interfered with during the term of that loan. Mr. O'MAHONEY. If I understand the Senator cor- rectly, his purpose is merely to guarantee that the rights to grazing privileges which are con- veyed by the bill shall be so definite and so cer- tain that they may be recognized as security when the holder seeks a loan. Mr. McCarran. That is exactly correct...It is a question of crystallizing the security which the mortgagee or loan agent may and will accept, so that no intervening agency, governmental or oth- erwise, may take from the value of the security. I hope I make myself clear. This exchange, appearing on pages 11152-11153 of the June 12, 1934 Congressional Record—Senate is illuminat- ing. Senator McCarran clearly attempted to formally recog- nize the existence of limited "grazing rights" having real estate value before the enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act. That value was to be "recognized and acknowledged [and] adequately safeguarded" from diminishment through "takings" by the government if pledged as security on a loan now, or at any future point in time.19 The Senate, and the House of Representatives, accepted Senator McCarran's amendment. His language remains, today, part of Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act
Theodore Roosevelt 26th President of the United States: 1901-1909 January 22, 1909
Our public-land policy has for its aim the use of the public land so that it will promote local development by the settlement of home makers; the policy we champion is to serve all the people legitimately and openly, instead of permitting the lands to be converted, illegitimately and under cover, to the private benefit of a few. Our forest policy was established so that we might use the public forests for the permanent public good, instead of merely for temporary private gain. The reclamation act, under which the desert parts of the public domain are converted to higher uses for the general benefit, was passed so that more Americans might have homes on the land.
Pacific Rural press July 20, 1907. How Forest Reserves May Be Used. The following was prepared by M.J. Anderson, acting supervisor of the Siskiyou and Ashland National Forests, at the request of the Grants Pass Commercial Club: All agricultural land included in the National forests (surveyed or unsurveyed) is subject to homestead entry under act of June 11, 1906. This covers any land that could be taken under the original "Homestead Act" without committing perjury. The act permitted such settlement was passed at the request of the Forester, and its occupation encouraged by every forest official.
Their story is told by J.P.S. Brown in his new book Chilton Vs. The Center For Biological Diversity: Truth Rides A Cowhorse. This book exposes the betrayal of trust of federal agencies and the skullduggery of a radical environmental group. I enjoyed reading this story. And remember, as Jim Chilton says, “Every day is Earth Day to a rancher.” This is because his economic well-being depends upon keeping the range productive and in good shape.