The USFWS is using people’s private property investments, in federally administered national forest system lands to farm wolves. These lands were set aside for economic support for small communities. These lands are not wildlife preserves, they are not parks. There are surface rights attached to them. This is a violation of law, and Supreme Court rulings. These lands do not meet the definition of Public land, the grazing allotments are not, “leases” as so many think. They are valid existing surface rights that existed prior to the Agencies that are now intent on destroying the rights on them
Laura Schneberger
Gratiot v US 1841
Congress is possessed of exclusive power to dispose of the “public lands” under Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 of the Constitution.
No mention is made in any National Forests legislation of “grazing permits” because title for grazing purposes was acquired under the mineral land laws only for “surface” title. The Mineral Land Act of 1872 intended to reserve minerals for separate disposal and the 1878 Timber Acts intended to reserve “timber” on “mineral lands” for use by local grazing settlers, miners and residents.
Curtin had 23,000 acres of pre existing range rights that predated establishment of Yosemite National Park. The Army was in charge of national parks at the time and claimed Curtin needed a “grazing permit”. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Curtin unanimously holding that he had valid existing rights and did not need a “grazing permit”. No mention is made in any National Forests legislation of “grazing permits” because title for grazing purposes was acquired under the mineral land laws only for “surface” title. www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/3219525581391463
1894 Barden v Northern Pac RR, Kinney Coastal Oil v Kieffer 1928
The Allotment Owner has title to the surface, thus leaving the “lodes, ledges, veins and deposits” available for “exploration and development” (and separate “patenting”) under the Mineral Land Laws. www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/3168429089834446
1893 Cameron v United States
The Grazing Rights Act of 1875 made “grazing” specifically applicable to the mineral land laws and the Enclosure Act of 1885 specifically authorized stockraisers having “surface claims” containing stockwater “locations” to fence in their “grazing” “surface claims” and these rights were good even against the United States.www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/3184283468249008
Specifically authorized stockraisers having “surface claims” containing stockwater “locations” to fence in their “grazing” “surface claims” and these rights were good even against the United States (Atherton v Fowler 1877, Hosmer v Wallace 1878, Griffith v Godey 1885, Cameron v United States 1893). www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/3184283468249008
1893 Nobel v Union River Logging RR , Shaw v Kellogg 1897, Jones v St Louis Land & Cattle Co 1914
When Congress grants rights in an Act without providing a process for a bureaucrat to issue a piece of paper called a “patent” then no patent is required and an official government survey map (your allotment map) is equivalent to a title document
1881 Smelting Co v Kemp
Unlike the agricultural land laws, there was no acreage limit on the number of “locations” that could be claimed under the “mineral land” laws
The US Supreme Court and State Supreme Courts ruled over a dozen times that a “grazing range” or a “stock range” was a property right (Nichols v Dobbins MT 1877, Griffith v Godey 1885, Brooks v Warren UT 1887, Dodge v Jones MT 1887, Webber v Clarke CA 1887, Comm. Natl. Bank of Ogden v Davidson OR 1889, Cameron v United States 1893, Grayson v Lynch 1896, Salina Stock Co v Salina Creek Irr. Co 1896, Ward v Sherman 1904, Bacon v Walker 1907, Brown v Walling 1907, Curtin v Benson 1911, Steptoe Livestock Co v Gulley NV 1931). Of all these cases Curtin v Benson is the most compelling. In a unanimous decision the US Supreme Court held that J.B. Curtin (who claimed 23,000 acres of “range” rights under the Act of 1866), had a valid pre-existing grazing property right that excused him from any requirement to obtain a “permit” before grazing within the recently established Yosemite National Park.
Alright I know i'm going to ruffle feathers, but MSLF is a big part of the problem why ranchers are getting their ALLOTMENTS pulled out from under them. They perpetuate the myth that ALLOTMENTS are "public land" and that ranchers have NO property rights only a "preference" to a "permit". ALLOTMENTS are NOT "public land" they are split estate land where the rancher is the surface owner, and the federal government simply retained the minerals and "commercial timber" for separate disposal. "Grazing rights" have been property rights expressly recognized by Congress Since the Grazing Rights Act of March 3,1875 (18 Stat 481). Griffith v Gody 1885, and a dozen more SCOTUS decisions down to Curtin v Benson 1911, held "stock ranges" to be property rights that could not be defeated by bureaucrats trying to force the ranch owner to obtain a "permit". It's sad that these people think they don't have ownership of their ALLOTMENT because they had their "cooperative" "permit" cancelled. The Supreme Court was unanimous in Curtin v Benson, and that case has NEVER been overturned.