Executive Order 12548 -- Grazing Fees
February 14, 1986

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this Order, the term:

(a) ``Public rangelands'' has the same meaning as in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95 - 514);

(b) ``Forage Value Index'' means the weighted average estimate of the annual rental charge per head per month for pasturing cattle on private rangelands in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service from the June Enumerative Survey) divided by $3.65 and multiplied by 100;

© ``Beef Cattle Price Index'' means the weighted average annual selling price for beef cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) for November through October (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service) divided by $22.04 per hundred weight and multiplied by 100; and

(d) ``Prices Paid Index'' means the following selected components from the Statistical Reporting Service's Annual National Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods and Services adjusted by the weights indicated in parentheses to reflect livestock production costs in the Western States: 1. Fuels and Energy (14.5); 2. Farm and Motor Supplies (12.0); 3. Autos and Trucks (4.5); 4. Tractors and Self-Propelled Machinery (4.5); 5. Other Machinery (12.0); 6. Building and Fencing Materials (14.5); 7. Interest (6.0); 8. Farm Wage Rates (14.0); 9. Farm Services (18.0).

Sec. 3. Any and all existing rules, practices, policies, and regulations relating to the administration of the formula for grazing fees in section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 shall continue in full force and effect.

Sec. 4. This Order shall be effective immediately.

Ronald Reagan

The White House,

February 14, 1986.

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 10:32 a.m., February 18, 1986]
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/sp...21486b.htm

Bundy Family: “We Don’t Fear Harry Reid”…

Did you have a point here?

The Feds have overreached since 1830, hence 1861 and 2014.

You gotta love it when cons suddenly are behind the takers when it furthers their cause.

The guys cattle is eating someone else's grass...likely drinking others water...and shitting on other people's property. Not to mention avoiding fees that other law abiding ranchers are continually paying. ******* scofflaw.

Seems to me there were some people in a public park a few years back that quite a few of you wanted the cops to throw them out. Now what was that exactly again? I'm drawing a blank.

(04-15-2014 10:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You gotta love it when cons suddenly are behind the takers when it furthers their cause.

The guys cattle is eating someone else's grass...likely drinking others water...and shitting on other people's property. Not to mention avoiding fees that other law abiding ranchers are continually paying. ******* scofflaw.

Seems to me there were some people in a public park a few years back that quite a few of you wanted the cops to throw them out. Now what was that exactly again? I'm drawing a blank.

My question is why was the whole BS about turtles brought up?

He should pay his fees, as most of the other ranchers pay. The US gov't should start selling off the excess land, there is no need for it any more.

(04-15-2014 10:38 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Did you have a point here?

The Feds have overreached since 1830, hence 1861 and 2014.

You may want to check out Sepreme Court rulings on 1861.

Never should jack booted thugs show up with ARs and take your property, cattle.
Whatever happened to putting a lien on someone's real estate. Automatic weapons, really?

(04-15-2014 10:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Never should jack booted thugs show up with ARs and take your property, cattle.
Whatever happened to putting a lien on someone's real estate. Automatic weapons, really?

I highly doubt the plan was to take (read keep) his cattle. They just removed them from their land...as any land owner would.

I heard last night that a huge portion of Nevada, like 80-90% is owned by the government.

(04-15-2014 10:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Never should jack booted thugs show up with ARs and take your property, cattle.
Whatever happened to putting a lien on someone's real estate. Automatic weapons, really?

Wait, I thought you guys were all for the 2nd admendment and automatic weapons. Are you saying it's okay for yoi to have them and know that you could have it's not "right" for someone else to have them????????

(04-15-2014 10:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I highly doubt the plan was to take (read keep) his cattle. They just removed them from their land...as any land owner would.

I would have slaughtered the cows if the owners ignored warnings.

(04-15-2014 10:55 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 10:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I highly doubt the plan was to take (read keep) his cattle. They just removed them from their land...as any land owner would.

I would have slaughtered the cows if the owners ignored warnings.

Figure that would have been an impermissible government taking which would have caused a lot more problems.

(04-15-2014 10:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 10:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Never should jack booted thugs show up with ARs and take your property, cattle.
Whatever happened to putting a lien on someone's real estate. Automatic weapons, really?

I highly doubt the plan was to take (read keep) his cattle. They just removed them from their land...as any land owner would.

I heard last night that a huge portion of Nevada, like 80-90% is owned by the government.

If anything the land should revert to back to Bundy,


Actual possession of the property – The disseisor must physically use the land as a property owner would, in accordance with the type of property, location, and uses (merely walking or hunting on land does not establish actual possession). In Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Cone failed to establish actual possession by occasionally visiting the land and hunting on it, because his actions did not change the land from a wild and natural state. The actions of the disseisor must change the state of the land (in the case of non-residential property, taking such actions as clearing, mowing, planting, harvesting fruit of the land, logging or cutting timber, mining, fencing, pulling tree stumps, running livestock and constructing buildings or other improvements) or, if the property is residential, maintaining the property for its intended use (taking such actions as mowing the yard, trimming trees and hedges, changing locks, repairing or replacing fixtures such as a swimming pool, sprinkler system, or appliances), all to the exclusion of its true owner.
Non-permissive, hostile or adverse use of the property – The disseisor entered or used the land without permission from the true owner. Renters, hunters or others who enter the land with permission are not hostile. The disseisor's motivations may be viewed by the court in several ways:
Objective view – used without true owner's permission and inconsistent with true owner's rights
Bad faith or intentional trespass view – used with the adverse possessor's subjective intent and state of mind (mistaken possession in some jurisdictions does not constitute hostility)
Good faith view – a few courts have required that the party mistakenly believed that it is his land.
Open and notorious use of the property – The disseisor's use of the property must be so visible and apparent that it gives notice to the legal owner that someone may assert claim, and must be of such character that would give notice to a reasonable person. If legal owner has actual knowledge, this element is met; it can be also met by fencing, opening or closing gates or an entry to the property, posted signs, crops, buildings, or animals that a diligent owner could be expected to know about.
Continuous use of the property – The disseisor claiming adverse possession must hold that property continuously for the entire statute of limitations period, and use it as a true owner would for that time. The statute applies only to the disseisor's time on the property, not how long the true owner may have been dispossessed of it (by, say, another disseisor who then left the property). Occasional activity on the land with long gaps in activity fail the test of continuous possession; courts have ruled that merely cutting timber at intervals, when not accompanied by other actions that demonstrate actual and continuous possession, fails to demonstrate continuous possession. If at any time during the statute of limitations period, the true owner ejects the disseisor from the land either verbally or through legal action, and the disseisor then returns and dispossesses him again, then the statute of limitations period begins anew.
Exclusive use of the property – The disseisor holds the land to the exclusion of the true owner. There may be more than one adverse possessor, taking as tenants in common, so long as the other elements are met. But if any time the true owner uses the land for any reason, adverse possession cannot be claimed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

(04-15-2014 10:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You gotta love it when cons suddenly are behind the takers when it furthers their cause.

The guys cattle is eating someone else's grass...likely drinking others water...and shitting on other people's property. Not to mention avoiding fees that other law abiding ranchers are continually paying. ******* scofflaw.

Seems to me there were some people in a public park a few years back that quite a few of you wanted the cops to throw them out. Now what was that exactly again? I'm drawing a blank.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...-be-raised

This isn't lush pastureland we are talking about and for years the land in question was considered of little value for the reasons explained in the link.

(04-15-2014 10:59 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 10:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 10:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Never should jack booted thugs show up with ARs and take your property, cattle.
Whatever happened to putting a lien on someone's real estate. Automatic weapons, really?

I highly doubt the plan was to take (read keep) his cattle. They just removed them from their land...as any land owner would.

I heard last night that a huge portion of Nevada, like 80-90% is owned by the government.

If anything the land should revert to back to Bundy,


Actual possession of the property – The disseisor must physically use the land as a property owner would, in accordance with the type of property, location, and uses (merely walking or hunting on land does not establish actual possession). In Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Cone failed to establish actual possession by occasionally visiting the land and hunting on it, because his actions did not change the land from a wild and natural state. The actions of the disseisor must change the state of the land (in the case of non-residential property, taking such actions as clearing, mowing, planting, harvesting fruit of the land, logging or cutting timber, mining, fencing, pulling tree stumps, running livestock and constructing buildings or other improvements) or, if the property is residential, maintaining the property for its intended use (taking such actions as mowing the yard, trimming trees and hedges, changing locks, repairing or replacing fixtures such as a swimming pool, sprinkler system, or appliances), all to the exclusion of its true owner.
Non-permissive, hostile or adverse use of the property – The disseisor entered or used the land without permission from the true owner. Renters, hunters or others who enter the land with permission are not hostile. The disseisor's motivations may be viewed by the court in several ways:
Objective view – used without true owner's permission and inconsistent with true owner's rights
Bad faith or intentional trespass view – used with the adverse possessor's subjective intent and state of mind (mistaken possession in some jurisdictions does not constitute hostility)
Good faith view – a few courts have required that the party mistakenly believed that it is his land.
Open and notorious use of the property – The disseisor's use of the property must be so visible and apparent that it gives notice to the legal owner that someone may assert claim, and must be of such character that would give notice to a reasonable person. If legal owner has actual knowledge, this element is met; it can be also met by fencing, opening or closing gates or an entry to the property, posted signs, crops, buildings, or animals that a diligent owner could be expected to know about.
Continuous use of the property – The disseisor claiming adverse possession must hold that property continuously for the entire statute of limitations period, and use it as a true owner would for that time. The statute applies only to the disseisor's time on the property, not how long the true owner may have been dispossessed of it (by, say, another disseisor who then left the property). Occasional activity on the land with long gaps in activity fail the test of continuous possession; courts have ruled that merely cutting timber at intervals, when not accompanied by other actions that demonstrate actual and continuous possession, fails to demonstrate continuous possession. If at any time during the statute of limitations period, the true owner ejects the disseisor from the land either verbally or through legal action, and the disseisor then returns and dispossesses him again, then the statute of limitations period begins anew.
Exclusive use of the property – The disseisor holds the land to the exclusion of the true owner. There may be more than one adverse possessor, taking as tenants in common, so long as the other elements are met. But if any time the true owner uses the land for any reason, adverse possession cannot be claimed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

It's really not a case of adverse possession my friend.

Tom,

How much did the OWS folks pay for their occupation of public lands?

If laws are broken, then prosecute… rangeland violators, illegal immigrants the same.

(04-15-2014 10:45 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 10:38 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Did you have a point here?

The Feds have overreached since 1830, hence 1861 and 2014.

You may want to check out Sepreme Court rulings on 1861.

I suppose they say that the Feds can overreach whenever the hell they want?

I, and mine, respectfully disagree Cowboy.

(04-15-2014 12:26 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 10:45 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 10:38 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Did you have a point here?

The Feds have overreached since 1830, hence 1861 and 2014.

You may want to check out Sepreme Court rulings on 1861.

I suppose they say that the Feds can overreach whenever the hell they want?

I, and mine, respectfully disagree Cowboy.

I point you again to the supreme court and it's rulings on that whole little thing in 1861 and the contsitution that gives them the power to make those rulings. You that same document you want followed. There is more to it than the bill of rights.

(04-15-2014 10:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You gotta love it when cons suddenly are behind the takers when it furthers their cause.

The guys cattle is eating someone else's grass...likely drinking others water...and shitting on other people's property. Not to mention avoiding fees that other law abiding ranchers are continually paying. ******* scofflaw.

Seems to me there were some people in a public park a few years back that quite a few of you wanted the cops to throw them out. Now what was that exactly again? I'm drawing a blank.

I think you have very little appreciation for the resentment in the west about the vast amounts of land in western states that are federal land... I doubt that many who grew up east of the Mississippi do, nor even most that grew up west of the Mississippi. If nothing else, go watch Shane or The Big Country. I grew up in Denver... when I went to college in Houston, my chemistry TA was from Durango (or Gunnison). I told her I loved that part of the state - when I told her I was from Denver, she called me a "tourist" with such derision that it still resonates 30 years later. You will not get a sense for how independent Westerners are (outside the tourist industry) when you travel through. I'm not talking about the Ruby Ridge/neo-nazis/survivalists, either... I'm talking about the folks that are descendent from miners, ranchers, etc, that go way back in the area.

What should be noted first are a couple of dates:

Date of this executive order: February 14, 1986
Date of the change to the grazing rules that is relevant in this case: 1993.

Seven years is quite a long intervening time period to suggest the causal link that the OP seems to want to suggest.
Also, if you read very much about this, it becomes apparent prettly quickly that the relevant dispute here is not with the provisions of that executive order.

Nice try, RedTom.