Utah ranchers living on public land

[appaloosa]

This was a fun read...

Utah rancher enjoys free home on the range, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers

The Bureau of Land Management has allowed ranchers Sandy and Gail Johnson to live on public land in Fry Canyon, now inside Bears Ears National Monument, without rent for 45 years.

www.sltrib.com

 

[44hunter45]

Meal Team 7

 

[rmyoung1]

Interesting read, for sure. Can we the people swap them their 27-acre homesite for that 277 acres they don’t want?

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Would be fun to go pitch a tent in their front yard.

 

[232401a]

Would be fun to go pitch a tent in their front yard.

I doubt you’d be able to. Gail & Sandy Johnson probably have locked gates. Out of necessity – who wouldn’t lock up their cow camp?

 

[rmyoung1]

Would be fun to go pitch a tent in their front yard.

I was thinking how funny it’d be to take a rest off the hood of their pickup

 

[TheTone]

Anyone want to go start a cow camp on some remote public land?

 

[Sam Colt]

Anyone want to go start a cow camp on some remote public land?

Mooooo!

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Anyone want to go start a cow camp on some remote public land?

Or we go take their shit? Dividends returned to the community of a publicly owned entity.

 

[ImBillT]

Looks like the Johnsons and the previous owner followed the law entirely, the BLM may not have, but that isn’t the Johnsons fault. Why can an executive order steal someone’s legal residence and a large part of their grazing allotment?

 

[elkduds]

Looks like the Johnsons and the previous owner followed the law entirely, the BLM may not have, but that isn’t the Johnsons fault. Why can an executive order steal someone’s legal residence and a large part of their grazing allotment?

Uh, because the Fed has always been your landlord? Leases are temporary and terminable. Without an ironclad lease in place, constructing improvements on someone else's property is like donating those improvements to the owner.

 

[JLS]

Why can an executive order steal someone’s legal residence and a large part of their grazing allotment?

How was this stuff stolen?

 

[gouch]

When I worked for the Forest Service, I had to take a weeklong training course on trespasses and encroachments on public land. The one thing they kept trying to pound into our heads is that if you allow a small encroachment, it will just continue to grow and grow. This isn't an actual trespass, but it does show how by allowing just one small residence on a grazing lease grew into a full-blown cattle company headquarters.

Give an inch...

 

[ImBillT]

Uh, because the Fed has always been your landlord? Leases are temporary and terminable. Without an ironclad lease in place, constructing improvements on someone else's property is like donating those improvements to the owner.

As a non-expert in how leasing from the BLM works, I assume they have more than zero rights every time they their lease nears expiration. I don’t see anyone talking about that, and I have no idea what their rights are or are not. I only see outrage at them living on federal land(legally) and an insinuation that the BLM being sloppy should result in a loss of rights for the Johnsons. Maybe if the discussion was on the lease and what the government could and could not do based on that lease, then I would have a better understanding. As it sits , I sympathize with the Johnsons more than I do with the Bears Ears Monument or the Obama and Biden administrations.

I also find it very misleading of the author of the article to say the Johnsons have been living on federal land “rent free” whenever, as far as I can tell from the information in the article, they paid rent for the grazing allotment and they paid for all of the improvements, not the government. So how is that “rent free”?

 

[Doc7]

Meal Team 7

Ha!

 

[gouch]

I may be looking at this wrong. I have a city lot in Oregon. If I were to get a grazing lease, say in Wyoming, I should be able to build a house on that lease, because my residence is too far away to commute and isn't suitable for raising cattle anyway.

This has possibilities, I'm gunna have to look into this a little deeper.

 

[rogerthat]

I think this is a very rare thing occurrence for the BLM. A very weird one. In Montana there are quite a few residences on state lands. Then they typically have a recreational exclusion for access which sucks but I kind of get. They need to either kick them off or sell them the homestead. I would probably set it up so they could stay there until they die or sell the place but no new occupants and that includes heirs.

 

[ImBillT]

I may be looking at this wrong. I have a city lot in Oregon. If I were to get a grazing lease, say in Wyoming, I should be able to build a house on that lease, because my residence is too far away to commute and isn't suitable for raising cattle anyway.

This has possibilities, I'm gunna have to look into this a little deeper.

There was more to it than that. The location of their cattle operation was also too far from other resources or a town for them to properly run it while traveling back and forth daily. It was not simply that their chosen home was too far away. Essentially, for anyone(not just the Johnsons) to run a cattle operation on that allotment, something like the infrastructure they added was necessary.

 

[brymoore]

I’m really surprised Bundy wasn’t involved.

 

[OriginalOscar]

As a non-expert in how leasing from the BLM works, I assume they have more than zero rights every time they their lease nears expiration. I don’t see anyone talking about that, and I have no idea what their rights are or are not. I only see outrage at them living on federal land(legally) and an insinuation that the BLM being sloppy should result in a loss of rights for the Johnsons. Maybe if the discussion was on the lease and what the government could and could not do based on that lease, then I would have a better understanding. As it sits , I sympathize with the Johnsons more than I do with the Bears Ears Monument or the Obama and Biden administrations.

I also find it very misleading of the author of the article to say the Johnsons have been living on federal land “rent free” whenever, as far as I can tell from the information in the article, they paid rent for the grazing allotment and they paid for all of the improvements, not the government. So how is that “rent free”?

Great example of why Utah is working to end the Antiquities Act by getting the state filed lawsuit to SCOTUS. The term "the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected" does not mean 3.2 million acres (5,000 square miles) https://www.nps.gov/rabr/learn/management/upload/antiquities-act.pdf