Posted on 06/08/2007 7:24:35 PM PDT by SmithL
“Winmill ordered the immediate removal of cattle from more than 800,000 acres of public land grazing allotments in the Jarbridge Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management.”
Just for the record, I was part of the “Shovels of Solidarity” and the Jarbidge Shovel Brigade actions in 2000. If the enviro-twits want a RANGE WAR, I say let them have it.....with both barrels...!!!
Wayne Hage DIED fighting the BLM and enviro-twits over this very subject. You may remember him as the husband of Idaho Congressman Helen Chenoweth - Hage, who was killed in a car wreck. I knew both of them and am sad to say NO ONE is there to replace them in the long-standing battle over property rights and land access issues in the Southwest.
~~~~~~~~
Pick up Wayne’s book, “Storm Over RAngelands” if you want a REAL education...
http://www.amazon.com/Storm-over-Rangelands-Private-Federal/dp/0939571153
Case:
Hage v. United States
Case No.: USCC91-1470L
Court:
United States Court of Federal Claims, Washington D.C.
Date Filed: Sept. 26, 1991
Issues: The case alleges the taking of Wayne and Jean Hage’s property rights on their large cattle ranch, located in Central Nevada. This includes private deeded land, water rights, ditch rights of way, forage rights, range improvements and cattle. The case was filed after a lengthy conflict with the USFS and the BLM.
Major Decisions:
Phase One: Determining the property rights owned by Plaintiff
1. Summary Judgment: March 8, 1996
Impact of Decision: The court denied in part, the governments summary judgment motion. It granted summary judgment on plaintiffs argument that the grazing permit was a contract and instead ruled that grazing permit was a revocable license, not a binding contract, and thus the cancellation of the permit cannot entitle the permittee to damages due to breach of contract. The court denied the government’s motion on the takings allegations and rights to compensation on nearly all of the remaining claims, finding “that a limited evidentiary hearing is necessary to address the mixed questions of law and fact” regarding property interests in water, ditch rights-of-way, rangeland forage adjacent to stockwatering sites, cattle, and the Hage’s ranch as well as ownership of permanent range improvements. Case Updates: June 1996, August 1996
2. Final Decision: January 29, 2002
Impact of Decision: (Counsel’s Analysis of final decision). At issue in this phase of the case was the nature and scope of the Hage’s property rights on the federally managed grazing allotments appurtenant to the Hage’s Pine Creek Ranch. In his decision, Judge Smith found that the Hages owned extensive water rights on their grazing allotments. Also, that they were the owners of ten 1866 Act ditch rights of way the scope of which included 50 feet on either side of the ditches, for which the Hage’s did not need to obtain a special permit in order to maintain the ditches. The court also concluded that the Hage’s have a right to the water, so long as they can put it to beneficial use.
Phase Two: Determining whether a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution occurred.
1. Trial Date Set for May 3 - May 21, 2004.
2. Hage v. US order issued on February 5, 2003 (pdf - 2pgs)
Phase Three: Determining the value and compensation owed to the Plaintiff.
1. Litigated simultaneously with the takings issue.
Status: With the first phase of trial complete where the court determined what property is owned by the Hage, the case moves into the second phase, where plaintiffs will have the opportunity to prove the government’s actions and environmental regulations took Hage’s property without compensation. Once this is complete, presuming we prevail, we will move into the final phase of the case, valuation phase, at the trial court level where the court will determine what the property is worth and how much is owed to the Hages.
Related Issue: Monitor Valley Water Rights Adjudication
Background: Prior to the filing of Hage v. United States, the Hage’s were already involved in a Nevada State Water Rights Adjudication, which covered a large part of their ranch. The adjudication process is initiated when a dispute arises over the ownership of the water in an area that has not previously been adjudicated. In this case, the US Forest Service had filed claims over most of the Hage’s water.
This issue is being litigated simultaneously with the Claims Court case, however, it is currently close to being completed. The State Water Engineer report, which the Claims Court incorporated in its findings, determined Hage owned all but a small percentage of the water in Monitor Valley. The federal government is appealing this determination in State Court.
~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.stewardsoftherange.org/hage_v_us/hage_v_us-bkgnd.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~
Wayne Hage is a popular and prominent speaker and writer on property rights and western land issues. With his widely acclaimed book, Storm Over Rangelands Hage is credited with being the first to comprehensively explore and document the development of private property rights in the western United States. The book can be found in the nation’s most prominent law libraries including the U.S. Supreme Court. Storm Over Rangelands has provided property owners and users with critical factual, historical, and legal tools which they can utilize to counteract government abuse of private property rights through regulation.
Hage has testified before Congress and is frequently called on to speak on property rights issues across the country. His audiences are captivated by his knowledge, integrity, experiences, and insights into what lies ahead for this county.
Hage’s early contributions to the modern-day property rights battle have earned him the unenviable distinction of being the primary target of those opposed to private property ownership and the constitutional protections of private property rights. Hage’s formal education has made him an authority on property rights. His expertise on modern governmental abuse of property rights have come through personal experience.
The landmark case, Hage v. United States, which is still in litigation, was a result of the Federal Government having implemented the political agenda of the radical environmental movement. Through physical confiscation and regulation, the government ‘took’ Hage’s ranching operation in Nevada. Unwilling to accept this action, he responded by filing Hage v. United States, a case that is being watched closely by property rights advocates and opponents alike. The case is recognized as one of the most important property rights actions before American courts today.
~~~~~~~~~~
I miss Wayne and Helen GREATLY...and, now....
It looks like YOU are going to miss them, too....!!!
Which was when Clinton was in office...which was when this judge was appointed.
Why can we not compel the Congress to sell or give away this land to whoever wants it? The Bureau of Land Management exists to hold title to otherwise unowned and unwanted federal lands acquired through treaties like the Louisiana Purchase. Until the enviro-wackos took over the Congress in the 1970s, the federal government simply gave away considerable tracts of land under the Homestead Act of 1862 and various other land-distribution laws. I want to restore the era of land ownership in the West. If we eliminate federal management, then ranchers and other land owners would manage the land to preserve its value because of their newfound financial stake in the perpetuation of the economic activities dependent upon such lands. The enviro-wacko movement has turned a government land-distribution program into a communistic “government owns all land” program. Let’s reverse it, and these stupid rules would become irrelevant.
You have freepmail.
Resource development on Alaska Federal land was frozen about 1890. Except for some oil development, which does not count Prudhoe (State land) but does count NPR-A, the freeze is mostly still in place.
What’s worse is that “dry storms” filled with lightning strikes burn square miles of BLM land each and every year. Millions of acres burned in that area last year. Fighting those kinds of fires is very costly, and with the normal winds Nevada gets, these fires are tough to put out. The FWS service had to round up deer- antelope and wild horses and move them to ranges where there was SOMETHING for them to eat.
Taking the cattle off this land creates more problems than most city people realize. The enviros are feeding them a line of crap, and the enviros get to do it with tax-deductible donations on top of everything else.
Actually, more accurately, the Nevada Division of Wildlife held a doe hunt last year (2006) in fire-affected areas of Elko County because there is no feed for them.
The wildlife biologists reasoned that the deer won’t be sustained by the range that is left after the 2005/2006 fires, they’re going to die anyway, so we might as well hunt them, get the herd size down to numbers that can be supported, and go on.
Since these anti-grazing twits have started interfering in rangeland decisions through courts, the wildlife numbers in Nevada have gone down, down, down, down. Your chances as a NV resident of pulling a deer tag have gone from perhaps 5 out of 6 years, to every other year, to perhaps 1 in 4 years. I expect that starting this year, NV residents won’t pull a deer tag but every sixth year if they apply every year. Those herds in Elko county provided most of the deer tags given out in the state.
And the taxpayers are being soaked for 10’s of millions of dollars every year to fight these fires, and it is all off-budget, emergency spending. It just keeps going up and up every year.
Helen was a friend of mine too. Losing her was far worse than a kick in the gut.
Did we meet at Jarbidge the FIRST time...???
What an EVENT...!!!
Yep, it’s TIME.
Do it for Wayne & Helen.
I live east (downwind) of the areas that burned last summer. We were choking on smoke all summer long.
The West is going down the tubes and with help of liberal judges such as Clinton appointee B. Lynn Winmill, it is in free fall. The BLM Grazing regulaltions the Judge negated were badly needed to help save the crippled public lands grazing industry. Together with all of the Endangered Species’ rout of the western ranchers and in particular the wolves in Idaho, Montana, Idaho, Arizona and New Mexico, this liberal Judge who doesn’t know one end of a cow from the other, is only making the anti-grazing whaco’s more emboldened. Numbers of livestock grazing on US Forest Service lands is at an all time low and spiriling downwards, and the same with BLM lands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.