That executive order is not what established grazing fees, it had to do with the way they were to be calculated.
Grazing fees/management fees were first charged by Grazing Boards set up by the Forest Service in the early 1900s.
The Taylor Grazing Act 1934 created a Division of Grazing, grazing allotments, established Grazing Boards, charged fees. In 1939 the Division of Grazing became Grazing Service- fees were charged.
1946 Grazing Service and General Land Office became BLM, charged grazing fees.
1978 Law signed by President Carter was to give more credence, power what have you to those using public land other than ranchers. The law was to originally raise grazing fees on public land to the same as for leasing deeded, but due to many restrictions and requirements to build fences, etc. ranchers felt it wasn’t fair to pay same fees and that part didn’t pass. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=30058
1979 Sagebrush Rebellion (Nevada led, but other states joined in)- Ranchers feeling pressure from environmental groups influencing BLM and Forest Service policy, removing cattle for wilderness areas, etc. Ranchers fought back by attempting to get Public Land turned over to the states to manage. The state of Nevada legislature claimed 49 million acres from BLM by passing an act declaring so, as did Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. When Reagan was running for President he stated: “I happen to be one who cheers and supports the Sagebrush Rebellion. Count me in as a rebel.” The Sagebrush Rebellion never really ended, many lawsuits, claims over several years. It simmered down when Presidents Reagan and Bush were in office because they reined in the Forest Service and BLM and supported ranchers.
1986 Reagan’s Executive order was in response to the law signed by President Carter and the Sagebrush Rebellion- mainly the purpose was establishing a set way to determine fees so fees could not be arbitrarily raised beyond reason to put a rancher out of business, which many claimed was happening.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/21486b.htm
There is more...rules regulations and laws, pressure from environmental groups...Earth First is a big player that was out in front to get all cattle removed from Public Lands (all lands for that matter)- slogan “Cattle free by 93” was a declaration of war against ranchers. and now Earth First keeps a low profile letting biological diversity groups take the lead, same goal, put ranchers out of business.
In a nutshell, since the 1970s there has been a war waged against ranchers that have grazing rights on public land by environmentalists/liberals and they have fought BLM and Forest Service in court over what they see as favored treatment of ranchers. At first Forest Service and BLM supported ranchers but then began to support environmental groups.
It is not the price of grazing fees that is the issue, they cannot be arbitrarily raised (Reagan’s executive order) so instead the government cuts the number of cattle allowed. The number of cattle allowed to graze has to be a fluctuating number because of rain/drought conditions. The theory is when range conditions are good the number is allowed to be more but when there is a drought or fire that means less forage so numbers will be lower. The issue is the government started lowering the number of cattle allowed for other reasons, like the desert tortoise...though many critters, and other things are used as excuses as well. The government uses allowed numbers to drive ranchers out of business when they choose to do so. Say a rancher has grazing rights for 1000 head of cattle but the government says he can only run 800 not because of range condition but due to environmental reasons, then suppose they keep lowering the number every time it is up for renewal until the number allowed is so low it is impossible for the rancher to stay in business. That is what happened to the ranchers in the area of the Bundy ranch and that is what happened to Bundy, the government lowered his allowed number of cattle to 150, which would put him out of business. If he had signed the lease he would have been agreeing to it and would have been unable to try to do anything about it in court but would have been out of business. Since he refused to sign it the government would not let him pay fees so it was a catch 22 situation that happened because he decided to stand his ground.
The Sagebrush Rebellion has never officially ended which is why Bundy claims the land is state not federal.
Other ranchers have stood their ground, Kit Laney, Diamond Bar Ranch, NM (Forest Service went after him); Wally Klump, Arizona; Wayne Hage, Nevada, likely more that I don’t know about..the Hage battle is interesting because at one point a judge ruled in his favor and stated the government was doing underhanded things to run him out of business and awarded him damages (I think that was later overturned and his estate is still fighting the battle)
There is a lot to this, and the more you find the more you will find.
Thanks for the info. That’s the best explanation of the whole thing I’ve read so far. I knew some of that (I’m well aware of the push to close off Federal land to logging, mining and motor vehicles as well as ranching), but not all.
In the USA: War against energy production - coal - oil War against availability of water for citizens War against freedom to roam in wilderness areas War against ownership of properties, mineral and water rights. War against farmers in the California central valley. Water - any and every vestige of water provides a platform for them to litigate against you. There is so much more... trash, sewage, water, power, transportation, freedom of movement from city to city is next. They are circling the noose and many are willingly putting it around their own neck.