Elkgunner,
So how would you deal with retiring grazing allotments then?
Revocation would result in several expensive and long lawsuits. Even though case law is on your side there must be some realization from the anti grazing forces the some kind of privelege exist for these ranchers.
The NPLGC states that private conservation groups can't get it done so the Govenment must fund this. Also it is voluntary.
My real concern is that the NPLGC is funded, supported or endorsed by several organizations which support or demand an end to hunting.
Nemont
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Federal Grazing Permit Buyout Will Not Create New Rights in Permits
Grazing permits do not convey rights to graze federal lands.
Grazing permits/leases issued under the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) of 1934 allow the permit/lease holder the privilege to use publicly owned forage. The permits/leases do not instill a right in permittees/lessees to graze federal lands. This distinction was intended by Congress in the TGA, 1 articulated in agency regulations, 2 restated in federal grazing studies, 3 confirmed by scholars, 4 and upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 2000. 5 Federal grazing permits/leases are revocable, amendable, non-assignable ten-year licenses to graze that do not convey property rights.
Grazing permit buyout does not create new rights in permits.
One fear of creating a permit buyout program is that it would create a new, unintended compensable property right in grazing permits/leases. Such a right, it is feared, could require the government to reimburse ranchers every time federal managers eliminate grazing privileges.
Such a fear is unfounded. Since 1948 federal law has mandated that the government compensate federal grazing permittees when their grazing permit/lease privileges are reduced or eliminated for military purposes without creating new property rights in permits /leases. Appended to the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), the "savings clause" in the following provision protects the government from any extraneous claims of permit-/lease-property rights:
Whenever use for war or national defense purposes of the public domain or other property owned by or under the control of the United States prevents its use for grazing, persons holding grazing permits or licenses and persons whose grazing permits or licenses have been or will be canceled because of such use shall be paid out of the funds appropriated or allocated for such project such amounts as the head of the department or agency so using the lands shall determine to be fair and reasonable for the losses suffered by such persons as a result of the use of such lands for war or national defense purposes. Such payments shall be deemed payment in full for such losses. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to create any liability not now existing against the United States. 6
For nearly half a century, no public lands grazier who has had their grazing permit/lease eliminated for non-military purposes has claimed they are nevertheless owed compensation under this provision. It is extremely unlikely that such a challenge would ever be successful.
The proposed permit buyout/lease program will avoid creating new rights in permits.
In a variety of different contexts, the Supreme Court has stated that the provision of a government benefit does not create a property right in potential recipients when Congress has explicitly excluded that interpretation in the authorizing legislation. 7 Congress need only include a savings clause similar to the TGA military provision in legislation authorizing a federal grazing permit/lease buyout program to avoid wildcat claims to grazing permit/lease property rights.
The National Public Lands Grazing Campaign will only support a legislated buyout program with the necessary savings language. If, during the political process, such language is dropped or modified and the legislation becomes a problem, the NPLGC will kill the bill.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-21-2004 16:21: Message edited by: Nemont ]</font>
