Every Allotment Owner needs to respond...: "All actions by the Secretary 'shall be subject to valid existing rights', in accordance with Title VII of the Federal Land Policy Management Act. Grazing Allotments are NOT "public land", but are split-estate land. Grazing Allotments are a "surface title for all agricultural and ranching purposes", that together with all forage, water rights and improvements constitute a surface property right that predates creation of Grazing Districts under the Pickett Act/Taylor Grazing Act, and as such are "valid existing rights" that give Allotment Owners priority rights that supersede all terms or conditions of all plans, permits, contracts and other instruments.
Mountain State Legal Fund, what case have they won?
May 22, 2020
...MSLF just lost a fight for Allotment Owners in Idaho just a couple weeks ago with the stupid argument that there’s a right to graze on “public lands”. They are making the same “public land” BS argument in New Mexico over the wild-and-scenic designation of the Gila River. MSLF is William Perry Pendley’s old group, so either they are forgivably ignorant, OR are purposely stabbing Western ranchers in the back. An “Allotment” is NOT “public land” so either they’re ignorant and don’t know the difference or they are purposely using a stupid losing argument to undermine allotment owners while furthering the interests of their biggest donors (minerals industry). Some will say “how dare you besmirch MSLF after all they’ve done for Western ranchers”. In 30 years they didn’t do anything for the Hages, Laneys, Gosses, or any other Allotment Owners. So, tell me what have they done for allotment owners? Go ahead I’ll wait...
A “grazing allotment” is an “additional entry of grazing land” under the General Land laws and as such did not require payment of additional fees or issuance of an additional patent. The original homestead patent (ie. “base property”) was sufficient to carry title to the “additional entry” and the two could be sold separately (Webster v Luther, 163 US 331 (1896)).
Your Allotment map serves as a "title" document
April 13, 2020
...However, actual surface “title” to “allotments” was acquired under Section 13 of the 1870 mineral land act in para materia with the Grazing Rights Act of 1875. This law actually granted stockraisers on “mineral lands” a “right to a patent”. The Supreme Court has said that the right to a patent once earned is equivalent to a patent issued (Ballinger v Frost 1910). Once an official government survey map was made and issued it serves as a “title” document admissible in federal court (Shaw v Kellogg 1897)...
This bill demonstrates how devious the left is. Cancellation of a “permit” doesn’t deprive the allotment owner of his property and he can continue grazing livestock without government interference. The so-called “permit” is in reality an optional “cooperative agreement”. Ranchers were legally using their allotments for decades before the Forest Service or Grazing Service were created. A “permit” is not required before an allotment owner can use his property (Range right). Curtin v Benson 1911. If allotment owners understood their property rights they would gladly opt out of the government’s “cooperative agreement” cost-share range improvements program.
“Allotments” to be purchased and “retired”. This is not possible constitutionally of course, but does demonstrate how communists have infiltrated and taken over the Democrat Party. The idea is no different than Nature Conservancy or Ted Turner buying up Kansas and then donating it all to the federal government. Allotments are private split-estate property. 90% of Nevada is made of split estate grazing allotments. Allowing enviro-communists to buy up Allotments and then donate them to the government would defeat the very split estate land ownership pattern Congress established over 100 years ago.
Not wildlife preserves. Allotments were established to economically stabilize rural communities
November 30, 2019
Essentially “Grazing Districts” and “grazing allotments” are restricted split estate property rights (similar to an HOA). They were established to economically stabilize the livestock industry in rural communities (Chournos v United States 1952). They cannot be converted to wildlife preserves or other uses (Kinney Coastal Oil v Kieffer 1928). The rancher is the owner for all agricultural and ranching purposes (Watt v Western Nuclear 1983).
There are still some people that do not understand how property of the United States is disposed of under the Constitution. Art 4, Sec 3, Cause 2 clearly states that Congress has the sole power of disposal of the “public lands” (Gratiot v United States 1840)....
Beware of National Forest System's "co-operative agreement" grazing permits
May 14, 2020
The definitions are still the same as the existing definitions of “national forest system” and “federal land” or “public land”. The only way private land (grazing allotment) becomes part of the “national forest system” or “federal land” is if the private land-owner signs a “cooperative agreement”, “permit, contract or other instrument” giving authorization to the “Secretary” to “administer” their allotment. 16USC ch98 Sportsmensaccesspublicland.pdf
I was asked the difference between split- estate land and BLM land. There is no BLM Land. It is all split-estate land, only the Bureaucrats have people confused and mislead. If you “Shepardize” every case dealing with “grazing” you’ll see in every instance it was stipulated that the land at issue was “public land”. An “allotment” is not “public land”. Through a series of “legislative grants” under the Mineral Land laws (1853, 1865, 1866, 1870, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1878, 1884, 1885 culminating with the Validation Act 1890) Congress granted to the “surface claimant” or “adverse claimant” surface title to their grazing allotment.
All power not delegated to the Federal government is reserved to the “State or the people” under 10th amendment. Even establishment of a National Forest, Park, etc. does not remove state or citizens jurisdiction over non-federal subjects. Although not necessary, the Forest Organic Act 1897, Weeks Act 1911, Taylor Grazing Act 1934, and the Jurisdiction Act 1936 all state that no state will lose is jurisdiction simply because the federal government owns an interest in national forests, grazing districts or Grasslands.
....this is just a mild picture of what wolves do. I’ve seen calves still breathing their last breaths with their guts eaten out. Every death of an animal attacked by wolves is prolonged gruesome agony for that animal. No exaggeration that is simply how they like to feed. These wolves are not confined to a park or preserve. They have been purposely released onto private grazing allotments by environmentalists and self serving bureaucrats.
Fake news again. The 1978 ESA amendment clearly says you can kill any endangered species if you have a good faith belief that it could cause bodily harm to someone. If you confront wolves in order to protect livestock and they appear to be a threat to you (or anyone) you can kill them (Shuler v Babbitt 1998).
Ok, the Park and Reservation Act of 1916 (39 Stat 535) authorizes the Secretary of Interior to “grant the grazing privilege”. A “privilege” is defined as “an exclusive right”. The use of the term “grant” preceding the term “grazing privilege” is a clear indication of the intent of Congress of the irrevocable disposal. No mention is made of any authority to rescind or “cancel” the grazing rights thus granted...
1978 United States v New Mexico, Forest and grazing districts were NOT reserved for environmental, aesthetics, recreation, or wildlife and fish preservation
So, ranchers are the “surface owner” of their split estate “grazing allotment”, meaning they own the grass, the right to cut or use trees, the right to build improvements, the stock-water rights, the right to cultivate forage, and all rights of ownership necessary to utilize and protect those rights.
...the 1973 Act is not a stand alone Act. It is part of at least 10 previous Acts. The first was Called the Migratory Bird Act 1913 (it was held to be Unconstitutional in United States v McCullagh, 221 F. 288 (D.Kan.1915). It was re-written and re-enacted again in 1918 and challenged again in 1920 Missouri v Holland where it was upheld on the basis that it was only to regulate interstate commerce. Eventually called Endangered Species Act in 1969 (83 Stat 275). Acts on the same subject must be read in “para materia” especially when they are specifically cited in a later statute. Previous statutes are not repealed simply because Congress enacts additional legislation dealing with the same subject. The Supreme Court actually cites the 1929 version as authority in US v New Mexico 1978, stating that endangered wildlife areas cannot be established in national forests without permission from the State legislature...