Following is my response to a press release (included below) by the Public Lands Counsil (PLC), which explains how Obama wants to raise grazing fees.

In all due respect to PLC and NCBA, they - as well as Allotment Owners, continue to miss the point of what constitutes Property, and historic statutes that protect such.

Coincidently, here's a reminder scolding I received this morning from a Steve Paulson (who I don't know, but am beginning to think I do).

"Government is trying to subvert your land rights. Example: Western Watersheds Jonathan Ratner either doesn't recognize your private property rights and that you OWN your Allotment and the water on it, or he's working with government to run you out of business. It's likely BLM and Ratner see you as a lessee trespasser on Federal lands that ceased to be Public Lands when Congress passed the Federal Land Management Policy Act (FLMPA) in 1976. They consider your water to be "Waters of the U.S." owned by the Federal Government. They consider your property to be "theirs" under the guise of "public lands".

Your Allotment water is NOT "Waters of the U.S.". Your Allotment is NOT on "public" lands - it is on Federal Government lands which is no longer "public". Your Allotment water and your forage belongs to the Allotment owner - YOU! NOT the public, NOT Ratner or the Federal Government! Do you even realize their feral horses are stealing from you by eating YOUR forage and drinking YOUR water? YOU should file a takings under the 5th Amendment and make them pay for what they have taken from your business for years!"

Yes, even Chuck and I still need to be slammed over the head with reminders as to what constitutes "Property." Sadly, we've all been conditioned to believe we do not have any rights.

Few attorneys even understand or use historic statutes in their attempts to protect our Property rights. Most don't ask the right questions, or argue at the local level in local courts. Yet we continue to go to them, and loose.

In the case of BLM, the employees are "administrative." They do not have authority to manage "our business and property;" which constitutes our usage of our forage and water. In other words, BLM lacks authority to dictate turnout dates, grazing fees, AUM'setc.

Having said that though, BLM Range Con's can be of value to us, and should be called upon, not unlike an extension agent, for their knowledge. And, as a courtesy to BLM's data keeping and to our neighbor, we should give BLM the turnout dates and AUMnumbers compatible to our business management.

Yes, some cattlemen go rogue and try messing around outside their easement...and ruins it for everyone. But most cattlemen know their easement area, and do superb jobs managing their forage and water, for they full well understand the importance of bringing a fine animal to market.

PLC and NCBA could do Stockholders a tremendous service, by arguing and standing strong on our historic rights, Constitutions (state and U.S.), and statue, instead of trying to game the government.

Roni Bell Sylvester

WASHINGTON (Apr. 11, 2013) – According to the Public Lands Council(PLC) and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), President Barack Obama’s proposed budget includes an increase in the public lands grazing fee assessment that would put many family ranches out of business. Dustin Van Liew, PLC executive director and NCBA director of federal lands, said increasing the grazing fee through an arbitrary tax is unwarranted and is further evidence that the president and his administration are out of touch with production agriculture and rural economies of the west.

“This proposal came as no surprise to us—it’s a repeat of last year’s arbitrary fee increase proposal, only this time includes not only Bureau of Land Management permittees but also the U.S. Forest Service. Judging by the president’s plan to levy a 74 percent tax on the grazing fee and make extreme cuts in BLM and USFS range funding, we think it’s safe to say this administration does not understand American agriculture. Federal lands ranchers are and always have been willing to pay a fair price to graze livestock on public lands. They willingly invest significant amounts of money to manage and improve the range,” Van Liew said. “The current grazing fee is fair. In fact, most public lands ranchers already pay market price for their federal forage, when considering factors such as added regulatory costs, increased predation, ownership and maintenance of water rights and improvements and the difficulties of managing livestock in rough, arid rangelands. Arbitrarily increasing the grazing fee via a tax will do nothing more than impose unnecessary costs on the ranchers working every day to produce safe and affordable food and fiber.”

Specifically, the president’s budget calls for the BLM and USFS to impose a $1 per animal unit month (AUM) increase above the grazing fee to cover administrative costs. Van Liew said that ranchers should not bear the burden of paying for “bureaucratic administrative costs” that are out of their control, including costs such as attorneys fees paid from agency budgets to radical enviro-litigators. He added that the president’s budget outline is just a proposal and that it is up to Congress to determine final budgetary allocations.

“The president’s lack of understanding for the federal lands grazing industry, as evidenced by his proposed 74 percent tax on federal land ranchers, is extremely disappointing. Effectively increasing the grazing fee during these times of economic uncertainty will unnecessarily increase burdens on livestock producers and hamper their ability to create jobs and generate economic growth in their communities. We are not going to stand by and let that happen,” Van Liew said. “PLC and NCBA will continue working with members of Congress to do what’s in the best interest of ranchers, and thereby our nation’s natural resources, to ensure a sustainable future for our industry and rural America.”