American Prairie loses grazing rights

[tipsntails7]

Those ranchers didn't sell stock to make money?

Honestly no idea.

But if they did then would it still be considered domestic purpose?

The issues is no where in TGA does it specify it needs to be a profit endeavor. And simply saying making a profit is domestic purpose is just obfuscation

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The question here is is it a codified requirement that they sell to make money as part of it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. The whole point of “domestic purposes” is for household purposes. In other words, non-commercial.

Although there is conflicting case law on this due to some really bad cases from the New Deal.

The real point is that public land use policy in this country is all kinds of messed up. In most places it’s terribly mismanaged for any purpose, but the worst abuses occur wherever policy allows “for profit” activities on public land. To my Eastern eyes, the public grazing land I saw in central and northern Montana was mostly overgrazed hellscape this past fall.

There you get the classic tragedy of the commons where the public land gets used really hard and without real concern for its long term health. Or, it gets locked up in litigation or other obstacles and doesn’t get used at all until it burns down.

The heads of state and federal agencies are all politicians who belong to the highest bidder and their political masters. Today the big ranchers, oil companies, or other industrial operations might be favored, next cycle it could be some radical whack job environmentalist who hates people. A sensible middle ground position that protects the long term value of public land as a public resource just doesn’t seem possible in today’s political climate.

At the same time, we have powerful interests seeking to override private property rights and others seeking to use private property rights to do whatever they want without regard to their neighbors.

And in the middle of all that, we have something like 15 million hunters in a population of 342 million people. Hunting numbers, both real numbers and per capita, have been declining my entire life.

If you want to keep hunting a “thing,” particularly something that isn’t just for the very rich, you have to keep hunting something that is “not unpalatable” to the average suburban female. That generally means providing a feeling that conservation is a super important part of hunting culture. And you have to tiptoe between giant competing interests and make alliances of convenience and try to play the powerful off against each other.

 

[Gila]

Would for profit not be a commercial purpose?

Wouldn’t industrial for profit ranching be a commercial purpose. Not domestic?

Wouldn’t “domestic purpose” really mean these original grazing allotments, and the entire act be in place to help ranchers and settlers for their own grazing use for their domestic use, for self sufficiency's to homesteading?

I can not square domestic purpose, with private for profit businesses.

No. The whole point of “domestic purposes” is for household purposes. In other words, non-commercial.

Although there is conflicting case law on this due to some really bad cases from the New Deal.

The real point is that public land use policy in this country is all kinds of messed up. In most places it’s terribly mismanaged for any purpose, but the worst abuses occur wherever policy allows “for profit” activities on public land. To my Eastern eyes, the public grazing land I saw in central and northern Montana was mostly overgrazed hellscape this past fall.

There you get the classic tragedy of the commons where the public land gets used really hard and without real concern for its long term health. Or, it gets locked up in litigation or other obstacles and doesn’t get used at all until it burns down.

The heads of state and federal agencies are all politicians who belong to the highest bidder and their political masters. Today the big ranchers, oil companies, or other industrial operations might be favored, next cycle it could be some radical whack job environmentalist who hates people. A sensible middle ground position that protects the long term value of public land as a public resource just doesn’t seem possible in today’s political climate.

At the same time, we have powerful interests seeking to override private property rights and others seeking to use private property rights to do whatever they want without regard to their neighbors.

And in the middle of all that, we have something like 15 million hunters in a population of 342 million people. Hunting numbers, both real numbers and per capita, have been declining my entire life.

If you want to keep hunting a “thing,” particularly something that isn’t just for the very rich, you have to keep hunting something that is “not unpalatable” to the average suburban female. That generally means providing a feeling that conservation is a super important part of hunting culture. And you have to tiptoe between giant competing interests and make alliances of convenience and try to play the powerful off against each other.

I do not agree with your synopsis