Empty forests aren’t a taxbase. Being empty, other than a few roads to barely keep up they don’t cost anything either. No one lives there to need schools, or jails, or welfare. They may as well not exist.
Of course these local governments would have it easier if they were given new land with a logging industry to tax - that’s true of every local government in the country. And yet every other local government manages to pay their way with neither forest land or timber payments.
Historical allotments are just a polite name for welfare that’s been going on a long time.
” Historical allotments are just a polite name for welfare ...”
Sheep herders and cowboys running cattle on federal allotments put food on the table of many Americans.
With ‘vacated’ allotments, food will increasingly be from feed lots where growth hormones and lots of other drugs will likely be added.
No more free range food.
Logging also provides lumber for homes as well as jobs for families and tax revenue for all that ‘free’ stuff governments like to get credit for.
Some other economic thoughts on “ Historical allotments are just a polite name for welfare ...”
The feds do not give away these allotments for free. There is a bidding process where there are cash payments for the rent ; plus there is required maintenance or other mandated services.
Those who hate cow boys and sheep herders can and do bid , too .
Rural communities also provide fire, medical, and other emergency services to lost hikers, hunters, tourists, fishermen...These communities provide many fire fighters when massive forest fire explode every year.
Many search and rescue first responders are volunteers : they do not get paid.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? What empty forest?
It is impossible in this modern age to sustain a town and all of its civic services without some minimum threshold of population and economic base. As many of these communities are virtually surrounded by National Forest, they cannot expand enough to create a tax base to sustain their own services.
All the people who visit the Forests use police, emergency and road services. Yet the Feds pay little to nothing to support the services of their guests.
As for “allotments,” according to the Supreme Court in Union Pac. R. Co. v. Harris, 215 U.S. 386 (1910): “What is meant by ‘public lands’ is well settled. As stated in Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U.S. 761, 763, 23 S. L. ed. 769, 770: ‘The words ‘public lands’ are habitually used in our legislation to describe such as are subject to sale or other disposal under general laws.’
Starting around the turn of the last century, the federal government began “reserving” or withdrawing lands from the public lands (national forests, parks, refuges.) These are more appropriately called “federal lands.” The remaining public lands were administered by the BLM until 1976.
The first clause of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (BLM) reads: “...in order to promote the highest use of public lands pending its final disposal, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized...” It was not until FLPMA (Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976) that federal government discontinued the public lands: “The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in federal ownership.”
Now, defining “property” is a State, not a federal function. Western property law was anchored in the Roman Civil Law (Equity.) The basis of this law is the rule of appropriation - that discovery, occupation and continuous beneficial use established a better right of ownership among men according to the maxim of “First in Time, First in Right.”
Ranchers used the public lands long before they were ever reserved, withdrawn or retained. They used them before there was a Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. They established State water use rights and ditch rights over public land, which were also recognized under the 1866 Mining Act. (The Court has also recognized a right to use forage associated with the water use right in the Hage case. Angus has even discovered an old federal law that recognized rights of way for cattle traversing the “public lands.”)
These are all valuable split estate private property rights in the “federal lands.” Wayne Hage has established this in Court. (See Stewards of the Range.)
The grazing allotment was originally recognized as a pre-existing interest established by customary use and anchored by split estate property rights.
Forest Service “Use Book” of 1905 or “The Use of the National Forests”, (subtitled “Regulations and instructions for the use of the National Forest Reserves”,) July 1905, p.22:
“The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to permit grazing to the best permanent good of the livestock industry through proper care and improvement of the grazing lands. Grazing permits will be given preference in the following order; small nearby owners and then persons living in or close to the reserve whose stock have regularly grazed upon the reserve range and are dependent upon its use. The protection of settlers and home builders against unfair competition in the use of the range is a prime requisite. Priority in the occupancy and use of the range and the ownership of improved farming land in or near the reserve will be considered, and preference will be given to those who have continuously used the range for the longest period.”
Three types of grazing permits were initiated to control use of the resource and prevent over-grazing: three classes of grazing permits; A.) For those who owned adjacent ranch property (”small near-by owners”); B.) For those who owned nonadjacent property and traditionally used the public forest ranges (”all other regular occupants of the reserve range”) and C.) For transient herders who could make no claim to local property ownership (”owners of transient stock”.)
Section III of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 reads: “That nothing in this sub-chapter shall be construed or administered in any way to diminish or impair any right to the possession and use of water for mining, agriculture, manufacturing, or other purposes which has heretofore vested or accrued under existing law or acquired and maintained in accordance with such law.”
“Preference shall be given in the issuance of grazing permits to those within or near a district who are landowners engaged in the livestock business, bona fide occupants or settlers, or owners of water or water rights, as may be necessary to permit the proper use of the lands, water or water rights, owned, occupied or leased by them.”
According to Legislative History, Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, during the Taylor Grazing Act Senate Hearings had stated; “We have no intention to...drive stockmen off their ranges or deprive them of rights to which they are entitled either under State laws or by customary usage.”
Allotments for many historic ranches are actual split estate property rights in the federal lands.