NPLGC Question for EG and IT

[Nemont]

Elkgunner and Ithaca,
In the interest of debate either of you support the Nation Public Lands Grazing Campaign? What is your position on Voluntary buy outs of grazing allotments? Just was visiting with my family and discussing what to think about the voluntary buy out. Not wanting to begin a flaming contest just figure out the issues.
Nemont

 

[Ithaca 37]

Here's some info on it:

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/

If the ranchers want to be bought out, why not let them? Seems OK to me. Is some group going to try to force them not to sell their grazing rights?

Why doesn't the National Cattlemen's Association appear on the list of organizations endorsing it?

 

[Nemont]

I don't know why there are not any "cattleman" organizations supporting it. The reason I am asking is because I don't understand the issue and was reading up on it.
It appears to me to voluntary. Correct me if I am wrong. I really have no problems with at all. As you state if someone wishes to sell there grazing rights so be it. No problem I can't find out why there are those who oppose it. It meets my concern of taking away something that was there for years with no compensation. Gets the anti grazing forces off the ranchers ass.
I think we can buy back pasture, not 100% of what we graze on public land, with the buy out. Doesn't change my property rights.
Nemont

 

[Ithaca 37]

You're right---it's strictly voluntary. I can't see anything wrong with the legislation. But I remember reading, when it first came out, that the Nat'l Cattlemen's Assoc. was opposing it.

Probably because they automatically oppose anything that will be good for wildlife.

 

[dgibson]

Nemont, I haven't studied on this particular issue and am no expert, but I can add to your thoughts the reason why many people oppose other voluntary buyouts made by The Nature Conservancy. The claim is that TNC uses their substantial monetary and political clout to essentially force the landholder to "voluntarily" sell. In other words, it's voluntary but there's no real option.

I have read examples to both prove and disprove this accusation, but it is something to consider when looking at these programs. I do agree that the idea is sound in its intended sense.

 

[Nemont]

DG,
In this case I am not talking about The Nature Conservancy but the Permit Buyout Legislation (HR 3324). This act funds $175 per AUM to purchase or buyout public lands grazing allotments. It is financed by the Federal Government. Go to the link posted by IT and it is there. Not that I agree with all on that website but the buyout plan was what the question was.

If your allotment is 200 pairs for 3 months = 600 AUM's x $175= $105,000. I think that is way it works anyway. No TNC involved.
Nemont

 

[dgibson]

Completely understood! I was just citing that as an example of why some might be opposed to any kind of buyout. We all know the gubmint has jackbooted thugs to force their will on the unsuspecting public.

 

[Nemont]

DG,
Sorry.
Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

Here is why I am against it.

First, I am a taxpayer, and I resent paying my tax dollars to ranchers to buy a lease that they have no propert right in. We have plenty of case law that says we can revoke grazing leases, therefore, no need to pay tax dollars.

Second, as a beef producer, why would I want to have my tax dollars sent to my competitors in the buy-out, resulting in them having a stronger balance sheet, and being a better producer than me? Why should somebody who has been using public assets recieve a windfall to quit using public assets???

Thirdly, I don't think we need to set any precedent that the goverment needs to compensate for the taking of grazing leases. These leases should remain at the conveinence of the government, and can be cancelled when we see fit.

 

[Nemont]

Elkgunner,

So how would you deal with retiring grazing allotments then?
Revocation would result in several expensive and long lawsuits. Even though case law is on your side there must be some realization from the anti grazing forces the some kind of privelege exist for these ranchers.
The NPLGC states that private conservation groups can't get it done so the Govenment must fund this. Also it is voluntary.

My real concern is that the NPLGC is funded, supported or endorsed by several organizations which support or demand an end to hunting.
Nemont

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Federal Grazing Permit Buyout Will Not Create New Rights in Permits
Grazing permits do not convey rights to graze federal lands.

Grazing permits/leases issued under the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) of 1934 allow the permit/lease holder the privilege to use publicly owned forage. The permits/leases do not instill a right in permittees/lessees to graze federal lands. This distinction was intended by Congress in the TGA, 1 articulated in agency regulations, 2 restated in federal grazing studies, 3 confirmed by scholars, 4 and upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 2000. 5 Federal grazing permits/leases are revocable, amendable, non-assignable ten-year licenses to graze that do not convey property rights.

Grazing permit buyout does not create new rights in permits.

One fear of creating a permit buyout program is that it would create a new, unintended compensable property right in grazing permits/leases. Such a right, it is feared, could require the government to reimburse ranchers every time federal managers eliminate grazing privileges.

Such a fear is unfounded. Since 1948 federal law has mandated that the government compensate federal grazing permittees when their grazing permit/lease privileges are reduced or eliminated for military purposes without creating new property rights in permits /leases. Appended to the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), the "savings clause" in the following provision protects the government from any extraneous claims of permit-/lease-property rights:

Whenever use for war or national defense purposes of the public domain or other property owned by or under the control of the United States prevents its use for grazing, persons holding grazing permits or licenses and persons whose grazing permits or licenses have been or will be canceled because of such use shall be paid out of the funds appropriated or allocated for such project such amounts as the head of the department or agency so using the lands shall determine to be fair and reasonable for the losses suffered by such persons as a result of the use of such lands for war or national defense purposes. Such payments shall be deemed payment in full for such losses. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to create any liability not now existing against the United States. 6

For nearly half a century, no public lands grazier who has had their grazing permit/lease eliminated for non-military purposes has claimed they are nevertheless owed compensation under this provision. It is extremely unlikely that such a challenge would ever be successful.

The proposed permit buyout/lease program will avoid creating new rights in permits.

In a variety of different contexts, the Supreme Court has stated that the provision of a government benefit does not create a property right in potential recipients when Congress has explicitly excluded that interpretation in the authorizing legislation. 7 Congress need only include a savings clause similar to the TGA military provision in legislation authorizing a federal grazing permit/lease buyout program to avoid wildcat claims to grazing permit/lease property rights.

The National Public Lands Grazing Campaign will only support a legislated buyout program with the necessary savings language. If, during the political process, such language is dropped or modified and the legislation becomes a problem, the NPLGC will kill the bill.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-21-2004 16:21: Message edited by: Nemont ]</font>

 

[Ten Bears]

Didn't EG post that public land grazers weren't an issue on the market? Why then say:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...as a beef producer, why would I want to have my tax dollars sent to my competitors in the buy-out, resulting in them having a stronger balance sheet, and being a better producer than me? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

Right now, the "forced" retirement of grazing allottments is getting done for less than $175 per unit. Western Watersheds operates on far less than that, and every time they sue the government as individuals, and win, the government kicks back their legal fees. They don't break even on the winnings from the government, but it sure helps fund the war chest.

And they only pick and choose the suits they will win, as they don't want to set bad precedent. I think the mere fact we are having this discussion, and your relatives are considering these issues and topics is evidence enough that some momentum is forming. I think it will be the Cattlemen who will soon be lobbying for the Act, if the momentum continues to grow.