Utah ranchers living on public land

[2rocky]

It ain't just ranchers.....

Cabin has a catch

A house in the national forest can be an idyllic getaway at an ideal price, but a thicket of obstacles comes with buying a place where you don't own the ground.

www.latimes.com

What is the Cabin Program?

Often referred to as the "cabin program", the U.S. Forest Service Recreation Residence Program (RRP) is a unique "Cabin in the Woods" program established by Congress in 1915 to facilitate family recreation experiences on our National Forests. A cabin and its improvements are the personal property of the owner who pays an annual fee for the use of the National Forest land the cabin sits on. Renewable Special Uses Permits are issued for 20 years at a time and come with a number of restrictions and obligations for the use of the land. A two-page Recreation Residence Program Overview is mandatory reading for anyone considering the purchase of a cabin.

Currently, there are nearly 14,000 cabins in the program. Cabin lots are typically grouped into cabin tracts by the Forest Service. Over 800 cabin tracts are located on 114 National Forests in 24 States, plus Puerto Rico. Over 160 local cabin associations have been formed by cabin owners, which are typically made up of one or more cabin tracts. Local cabin associations provide a way for cabin owners to share resources in forest settings. See the Cabin Association Directory for a listing of cabin associations by region.

Click here to access the USFS Recreation Residence website.

 

[thusby]

Neighbors pushed their lawnmower about 2 feet onto my property and cut the brush to do it. Thinking I should cut 2 feet off the front with a sawzall

 

[ImBillT]

I’m not looking at a map, and that might answer my next question, but again, the article doesn’t address what should be an obvious question, and that makes it appear as though the writer has an agenda and has tailored the article to promote that agenda rather than to present all the facts. Why does a 1.3+ million acre monument have to include the roughly 261,000 acre grazing allotment and a residence that is an integral part of that cattle operation? Is that grazing allotment on the most important portion of the monument? If so, why was that not explained, or explained so briefly that I missed it?

Second, the cattle operation on that allotment has been operating there for 88 years. If 88 years of running cattle has damaged the “antiquities” or historical significance there, then why include it in the monument? If 88 years of running cattle there have not damaged the historical significance there, then why not continue to allow the allotment’s current activities? Again, not addressed in the article, at least not that I noticed while skimming it.

 

[Jerky]

I’m not looking at a map, and that might answer my next question, but again, the article doesn’t address what should be an obvious question, and that makes it appear as though the writer has an agenda and has tailored the article to promote that agenda rather than to present all the facts. Why does a 1.3+ million acre monument have to include the roughly 261,000 acre grazing allotment and a residence that is an integral part of that cattle operation? Is that grazing allotment on the most important portion of the monument? If so, why was that not explained, or explained so briefly that I missed it?

Second, the cattle operation on that allotment has been operating there for 88 years. If 88 years of running cattle has damaged the “antiquities” or historical significance there, then why include it in the monument? If 88 years of running cattle there have not damaged the historical significance there, then why not continue to allow the allotment’s current activities? Again, not addressed in the article, at least not that I noticed while skimming it.

You might as well just read the damn thing then, you’ve spent enough time on the forum talking about it to have read it 3x already.

You’re assuming that the gubment is trying to stop cattle on the monument. They’re not.

 

[ImBillT]

You might as well just read the damn thing then, you’ve spent enough time on the forum talking about it to have read it 3x already.

You’re assuming that the gubment is trying to stop cattle on the monument. They’re not.

I read it. I just read it quickly. I’ve also spent less time discussing it than I spent reading it. Did the article address the stuff I’m asking about? I don’t think it did.

 

[ImBillT]

You might as well just read the damn thing then, you’ve spent enough time on the forum talking about it to have read it 3x already.

You’re assuming that the gubment is trying to stop cattle on the monument. They’re not.

After a re-read it appears that grazing would be continued to be allowed. Frankly the article does very little to address what the Johnson’s actual concerns are, what changes would be made, what laws the Johnsons may or may not have violated, what they owe anyone or anything else of substantial usefulness. All I’m really getting from the article is that the Johnsons don’t want their allotment to be part of the monument, that they have filed all of the requisite paper work to do what they’re doing, the BLM has been sloppy, and the article accuses the Johnsons of living there “rent free” which I would personally consider to be a mischaracterization. Can you tell me why I should be upset with the Johnsons?

 

[Jerky]

After a re-read it appears that grazing would be continued to be allowed. Frankly the article does very little to address what the Johnson’s actual concerns are, what changes would be made, what laws the Johnsons may or may not have violated, what they owe anyone or anything else of substantial usefulness. All I’m really getting from the article is that the Johnsons don’t want their allotment to be part of the monument, that they have filed all of the requisite paper work to do what they’re doing, the BLM has been sloppy, and the article accuses the Johnsons of living there “rent free” which I would personally consider to be a mischaracterization. Can you tell me why I should be upset with the Johnsons?

Look, the ranchers got a sweetheart deal. Good for them. Maybe they snuck one past the government maybe they didn’t. But that doesn’t mean they get to have a sweetheart deal for all eternity and de facto own some land just because.

There are zero places in the USA where you could have a cattle allotment and your own 27 personal use acres for $600 per month.

They need to at a minimum pay a market rent for the land under a land lease, or end their permanent residency on the property and use it truly just for grazing.

Edit: I’ll start the bidding at $1,200 per month, already doubled the estimate.

 

[Scott85]

What’s the O/U that they have the place posted and runs off anybody “trespassing” on “their” land?

 

[ImBillT]

There are zero places in the USA where you could have a cattle allotment and your own 27 personal use acres for $600 per month.

They need to at a minimum pay a market rent for the land under a land lease, or end their permanent residency on the property and use it truly just for grazing.

Edit: I’ll start the bidding at $1,200 per month, already doubled the estimate.

Based on law or based on you’re personal feelings? From what I could tell in the article, the Johnsons have not done anything wrong. If they have, the article should have said so more clearly. My understanding is that they legally made improvements(which they paid for with their own money) including some trailer houses, in order to better run their cattle operation on the allotment that they pay for. If the law doesn’t call for them to then rent the buildings that they already purchased with their own money, then what’s the problem?

 

[Jerky]

Based on law or based on you’re personal feelings? From what I could tell in the article, the Johnsons have not done anything wrong. If they have, the article should have said so more clearly. My understanding is that they legally made improvements(which they paid for with their own money) including some trailer houses, in order to better run their cattle operation on the allotment that they pay for. If the law doesn’t call for them to then rent the buildings that they already purchased with their own money, then what’s the problem?

They can keep the buildings and trailers. I want the land. And if they want the ground lease, then pay for the ground lease.

The argument that it’s too hard to get here might have held water 50 years ago, but not today. And your grazing lease isn’t indefinite.

 

[ImBillT]

They can keep the buildings and trailers. I want the land. And if they want the ground lease, then pay for the ground lease.

The argument that it’s too hard to get here might have held water 50 years ago, but not today. And your grazing lease isn’t indefinite.

I’m not convinced that their argument doesn’t hold water. I didn’t see anyone in the cattle industry quoted in the article saying that they did or didn’t have a case on that front.

No their lease isn’t indefinite. The article didn’t really say much about their lease. Makes you wonder if perhaps it would weaken the case the article is trying to make.

 

[ImBillT]

@hank4elk ‘s reaction leads me to believe e that he knows a lot more than I do, and I’m more than willing to be educated whether I think the article is poor or not.

 

[hank4elk]

It ain't just ranchers.....

Cabin has a catch

A house in the national forest can be an idyllic getaway at an ideal price, but a thicket of obstacles comes with buying a place where you don't own the ground.

www.latimes.com

I was on the board of the Nat. Cabin Owners Ass. and there was always something to be dealt with before the FS. And every lease or permit had to dealt with, inclusive of the other permitees and leasees.
My pet peeve was lease cattle roaming outside leases and eating/ruining my wildlife habitat.

Every cabin went through re appraisals and fee structures every ten years....or were supposed to be. It was a pain in the ass, but well worth the effort to own one. There were rules and laws.

The lack of enforcement and field staff on BLM lands is staggering. Makes the effort by FS seem huge in comparison.
BLM lands are leased and must follow guidelines, the same as the rules and laws on FS lands. Just never done.
BLM is to blame for squatters allowed to squat or run cattle free as much as the squatters who do it.
But...They are still squatters and freeloaders ,like the Bundy's.

Here in NM we have the same thing ,folks who just claim lands or leases on US gubberment lands for the last 80- 300 years. Squatters who never even paid for the leases. On leases that are way under the prevailing fair market price for similar rented private lands.
Free range cattle.
My useless US citizens take? Means free for the taking if not tagged and on the properly paid lease. My place is fenced to keep the range cattle out. I better not find one on my place long.

The BLM is also a pain in the ass to even get a firewood cutting permit and not worth the effort when you do get one. The wood has been poached off before the lease opens.

 

[Nickman123]

I also am not sure what's driving all the anger at the Johnsons. Are you pissed about the 261,000 acre allotment, or the 27 acres where their house sits. As far as the allotment, isn't the land still open to the public? They can't post it "no trespassing" and keep people off, right? As least that's how it works where I'm from.

If so, and assuming the cattle grazing isn't doing major harm to the land or native wildlife, what's the big deal? Since grazing is allowed on the Monument too, what does putting the allotment into the Monument even change? If the grazing fees really are below current market rates maybe they could just be adjusted.

The 27 acres with the house seems different. I agree that maybe things have changed since the agreement was made decades ago and there probably isn't a valid reason today for them to be allowed to have a house on Federal land. But I also don't feel that the Johnsons did anything wrong. Like somebody already said, maybe just put some sort of sunset in place for the deal with the house and it goes away in 10yrs, or when they die, something like that.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Look at the difference here between leasing Federal USA and Federal Canadian land in BC. In Canada they have a detailed system of steps. Impact isn’t limited to just EIS, they also consult with area First Nations too.

How to apply for Crown land - fees

All applications to use the natural resources found on Crown land are submitted through FrontCounter BC, the province’s window into natural resource permitting, licensing and tenures. Come to this page to learn about fees.

www2.gov.bc.ca

 

[old270hunter]

I also am not sure what's driving all the anger at the Johnsons. Are you pissed about the 261,000 acre allotment, or the 27 acres where their house sits. As far as the allotment, isn't the land still open to the public? They can't post it "no trespassing" and keep people off, right? As least that's how it works where I'm from.

If so, and assuming the cattle grazing isn't doing major harm to the land or native wildlife, what's the big deal? Since grazing is allowed on the Monument too, what does putting the allotment into the Monument even change? If the grazing fees really are below current market rates maybe they could just be adjusted.

The 27 acres with the house seems different. I agree that maybe things have changed since the agreement was made decades ago and there probably isn't a valid reason today for them to be allowed to have a house on Federal land. But I also don't feel that the Johnsons did anything wrong. Like somebody already said, maybe just put some sort of sunset in place for the deal with the house and it goes away in 10yrs, or when they die, something like that.

How about we all take up 27 acres or even 1 on public land and build a house. That is exactly the problem.

 

[ImBillT]

The lack of enforcement and field staff on BLM lands is staggering. Makes the effort by FS seem huge in comparison.
BLM lands are leased and must follow guidelines, the same as the rules and laws on FS lands. Just never done.
BLM is to blame for squatters allowed to squat or run cattle free as much as the squatters who do it.
But...They are still squatters and freeloaders ,like the Bundy's.

I’m wondering if you’re referring to the Johnsons as squatters and freeloaders, and if so, could you explain more? The only information I have is from the very poor article cited in the first post. From reading it, it appears as though the Johnsons are paying their grazing lease, and went through proper channels and filed proper paperwork to have the setup that they have. Am I missing something?

I haven’t seen the claim that the Johnsons are actually doing anything wrong. Are they breaking any laws? Are they skipping any payments?

I also haven’t heard the argument regarding the importance of their allotment to the monument. Does the government need their allotment? If so, does it need all of it? Why exactly is it so terrible that someone doesn’t want to loose their current employment situation at the stroke of a pen in the last days of lame duck president? Maybe the allotment should be part of the monument. Maybe it shouldn’t. I don’t see that being discussed in the article. I see the article smearing someone without presenting any evidence that they’ve done anything wrong, and I don’t see the article explaining the important details of the situation. The writer did plenty of investigation into the value of the improvements that the Johnsons paid for out of their own pockets, but did nothing to show any missed payments or lawbreaking.

 

[hank4elk]

I’m wondering if you’re referring to the Johnsons as squatters and freeloaders, and if so, could you explain more? The only information I have is from the very poor article cited in the first post. From reading it, it appears as though the Johnsons are paying their grazing lease, and went through proper channels and filed proper paperwork to have the setup that they have. Am I missing something?

Just in the sense they are paying nothing, in todays market for the leases. And from my perspective most of these " We have 27, 320, 640 acres of deeded lands and they have thousands of acres of leases" is usually suspect of the "ownership" of said leases.
I admit I have not looked into the Johnsons plight in depth.

There are thousands of acres of similar US lands claimed by homesteaders,ranchers ,etc around here that were never listed in the original homestead plates. I have FS maps that show the land as FS in the 1900-20 period. Not in the layout for homesteads. Now the land is all big ranches that wound up owning FS lands.

The Bears Ears was taken from the natives. It was not settled in a way most folks would call legal nowadays, even a Mormon lawyer would have a hard sell...

There is a ranch down the draw for sale. $15 mil for 20,000 acres it says in the ad. The ranch is 9,000 acres of deeded lands and the rest state & BLM leases the family has had locked up like they own it. Nice folks ,but lots of lawyers and judges in that family. They all live elsewhere too.

 

[TheTone]

I’m sure they’re really providing a huge benefit to the US beef supply at the publics expense

 

[OriginalOscar]

How about we all take up 27 acres or even 1 on public land and build a house. That is exactly the problem.

261,000 lease - 27 acre ranch site = .01%. Seems very reasonable.