Showing posts with label Public Lands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Lands. Show all posts

Lex Anteinternet: This is why we can't have nice things.

Lex Anteinternet: This is why we can't have nice things.

This is why we can't have nice things.


And this is absolutely appalling.

The State of Wyoming and Natrona County will actually make more money by way of this purchase than it does keeping the property in private hands.  So what is this really about?

Well, that requires reading the wind, but if you do, it's plain that the Republican Party of the state abhors the concept of public land to at least some degree. All of Wyoming's current Congressional delegation supported the concept of turning the Federal lands over to the state during the 2016 race, and likely still think that way, even though average Wyomingites are overwhelmingly opposed to it.  Governor Gordon's knee-jerk reaction to the Marton transfer seems to express that view as well.

Underlying it all is the concept, generally, that only immediate generations seem to count, and everything is better privatized.  Listen to Republican politicians in the state generally, and you'll commonly hear that view.  While few will openly state it, the general concept is that it's best to transfer all the land to the State, and for the state to sell all of it to private parties. That will generate "wealth".

It'll also convert the state basically into Ohio, but as it seems that monied interests are the only ones that count, much of the current GOP is deaf on this issue.

Now, we can't say that this is 100% true. The GOP itself is split between the Trumpite populist wings and the old party.  Many in the old party are not of this mind, and others remember the era when Governor Geringer and legislators who supported him, like Jim Hageman, Harriet Hageman's father, attempted to privatize the state's wildlife.  But many more do not recall anything of this sort.

Indeed, the state has become amazingly blind, at least politically, to think long term, a disturbing symptom of a society that's in deep existential distress.  Like late stage Weimar Germany, people are reaching out for simple solutions to long term systemic problems, and only the most extreme views seem to be really having an influence.  

Wyoming at one time had an actual two party system.  Today is an anniversary of various events which demonstrate that, as noted here regarding past Democrats elected to state office.









1958  Gale McGee was elected to the U.S. Senate.  He was the first, and so far the only, University of Wyoming instructor to be elected to the U.S. Senate.   He was a Democrat.

McGee fit into another era in Wyoming's politics in that he was able to be elected as a Democrat and, perhaps even more surprisingly, the Class 2 Senator position was occupied by a Democrat at the time that McGee was elected, making both of Wyoming's Senators Democrats.  He served from 1959 until 1977.  That he was elected in the late 1950s is surprising to recall, because his somewhat flashy sartorial style really fit in with the early 1970s.  Nonetheless, his service stretched all the way back to 1959 and he was sworn in as  Senator by Vice President Richard Nixon.  After being defeated for a reelection bid in 1976, a campaign which he was largely absent in, he was appointed by President Carter as the Ambassador to the Organization of American States.

Politically, McGee was slightly liberal, but remained a popular Wyoming politician.  His defeat in 1976 was attributed by the national media to his opposition to the Vietnam War which was almost certainly incorrect.  McGee did oppose the war, but his seat remained safe throughout it.  There has been some speculation that by 1976 he no longer wanted to remain in the Senate, but for one reason or another ran anyhow.  That would be more consistent with his campaign that year against Malcolm Wallop in which Wallop was allowed to run a nearly unopposed campaign.  McGee was the last Senator from Wyoming to be a member of the Democratic Party.

The Post Office in Laramie is named after Senator McGee.


1964  Teno Roncolio, a Democratic lawyer originally from Rock Springs, but living in Cheyenne at the time, elected to Congress.


Roncolio would only serve one term from his 1964 election, and then attempt a run for the Senate.  His Senatorial run was unsuccessful, and he would regain his position in the House in 1970.

Roncolio's 1964 election meant that two out of the three members of Congress (House and Senate) from Wyoming were Democrats, an event which would be almost inconceivable today.

Roncolio received the Silver Star while serving in the U.S. Army during World War Two for heroism in the invasion of Normandy, and he was one of the sources interviewed by Cornelius Ryan for his Book "The Longest Day."  Roncolio was the last member of the Democratic Party to be elected to Congress from Wyoming.

And this is just from this day in history.  It omits such figures as Governors Ed Herschlar and Mike Sullivan.

It's frankly almost impossible to imagine Wyomingites voting for any of these figures now.  Osborne was elected because of something, while over a century ago, that directly relates to what we see now with Gordon, an effort by large landed interest to drive out small ones.  They were engaged, quite frankly, in an attempted Republican Party supported public lands, land grab.  The effort has never really stopped.

Roncolio was a war hero and McGee a University of Wyoming professor.  McGee would be reviled for merely occupying that profession today.  Roncolio would be harder to lambaste, as you really couldn't do that with somebody who had landed in Normandy on June 6, 1944.  That's instructive, however, in that much of the death of the Democratic Party in the state is due to the Democratic Party itself.

Roncalio was a lawyer who was a Catholic Italian American.  Sullivan was a Catholic Irish American.  Herschlar had been a World War Two Marine Corps raider.  Kendrick was a Texas born rancher.  Al these men essentially had "the bark on" in some fashion, and you knew that they held views that were close to those of common Wyomingites, including rank and file Republicans.  That day has really passed.  While some very solid Democrats remain, its nearly impossible to find one that holds middle of the road views on major social issues.  Statewide races are sometimes the exception, but often the state's Democrats can be predicted to be impossibly left wing to elect.

Up until now, this has been stemmed a bit by the fact that the majority of the Republican Party has been grounded in the traditional middle, but during this election that has already massively slipped.  It could be seen to be slipping when Barack Obama was elected, an event to which many Wyomingites had a strange knee-jerk reaction to that's hard to explain.  Following that, it became increasingly clear that major existential changes are occurring to industries that the state has long depended upon. While massive amounts of coal are still being mined, it's clear to anyone with eyes to see that this is a temporary situation, and one which the state hasn't begun to adjust to.  The same is now true of oil and gas.  Instead of addressing the economic crisis head on, the popular reaction has to been to blame the Democratic Party.  And the Democratic Party, in turn, by nationally embracing increasingly left wing causes, has made itself easy to blame.

This election really demonstrates this.  Absent a real surprise, Wyoming will be sending Harriet Hageman to Congress.  Neither Cheney nor Hageman can be regarded as "greens" (and while it's hardly been noted, Sen. Barasso has been quietly backing electric charging stations for oncoming electric automobiles in the state), but hardly a day has gone by this week where some Hageman campaign flyer hasn't arrived here, some of which just have silly theses.  To read Hageman's propaganda, the Federal government is at war with the state and keeping it from doing whatever it wants due to over regulation and by refusing to allow the production of oil and coal.  In reality, Federal oil and gas leases are going unused.

There's always an extreme danger in listening to people who tell you that nothing is your fault, and that everything is somebody else's, that person being somebody that you probably don't actually know.  One day in the early 30s somebody is telling you that the Deutsches Heer didn't really lose the war, and was somehow "stabbed in the back" by the Jews, and the next day you are freezing in a muddy trench in Stalingrad.  Well, that's your fault for listening to such complete nonsense.

Around here, right now, there seems to be very little push back on the concept that the voice of the public can be ignored, everything ought to be privatized, and everyone will benefit from never being able to go on the land again as we'll all have jobs for Big Out Of  State Entity.  That's nonsense.  But until there's a way to cause politicians to suffer at the polls for such positions, this will keep on keeping on.

Lex Anteinternet: The Invaders

Lex Anteinternet: The Invaders

The Invaders

The Invaders, 1893.  Some history repeating going on.

Woody Guthrie

The property owner, let's not pretend he's a rancher as that would imply that he makes his money from chiefly from agriculture, who owns the Elk Mountain Ranch has claimed that allowing corner crossing would devalue the property by $3,100,000 to $7,000,000, or so newspaper reports hold.  The press further reports that it was shown this information by a "confidential" source.

More likely his legal representation claimed that.

Okay, let's break this down.

This is the story, as we'll recall, of three out-of-state hunters who hunted on the Elk Mountain Ranch's leased public lands, with Elk Mountain Ranch owned by Iron Bar Holdings, and ended up being tried for trespassing in Carbon County.  According to the Wyoming Secretary of State's website, Iron Bar Holdings is a North Carolina limited liability company registered to do business in Wyoming.



North Carolina?

Well, yes, that's where Fred Eshelman lives.

Eshelman is a pharmacist by training who has done very well, economically, in that field. So well that North Carolina's school of pharmacy, which he donates to, has named that school after him.  His bio appears on their site:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fred Eshelman is the founder of Eshelman Ventures LLC, an investment company primarily interested in private health-care companies. Previously he founded and served as CEO and executive chairman of Pharmaceutical Product Development (PPDI, NASDAQ) prior to the sale of the company to private equity interests.

After PPD he served as the founding chairman and largest shareholder of Furiex Pharmaceuticals (FURX, NASDAQ), a company which licensed and rapidly developed new medicines. Furiex was sold to Forest Labs/Actavis in July, 2014.

His career has also included positions as senior vice president (development) and board member of the former Glaxo, Inc., as well as various management positions with Beecham Laboratories and Boehringer Mannheim Pharmaceuticals.

Eshelman has served on the executive committee of the Medical Foundation of North Carolina, was on the board of trustees for UNC-W and in 2011 was appointed by the NC General Assembly to serve on the Board of Governors for the state’s multicampus university system as well as the NC Biotechnology Center. In addition, he chairs the board of visitors for the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one of the top pharmacy programs in the United States. In May 2008 the School was named for Eshelman in recognition of his many contributions to the school and the profession.

Eshelman has received many awards including the Davie and Distinguished Service Awards from UNC and Outstanding Alumnus from both the UNC and University of Cincinnati schools of pharmacy, as well as the N.C. Entrepreneur Hall of Fame Award. He earned a B.S. in pharmacy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,  received his Doctor of Pharmacy from the University of Cincinnati, and completed a residency at Cincinnati General Hospital. He is a graduate of the Owner/President Management Program at Harvard Business School.

Indeed, the fact that Eshelman is very wealthy apparently was referenced by one of his employees in the initial confrontation with the Missouri hunters, which isn't a very wise thing to do as it looks bad.  Indeed, it looks bad right away, and then again in court.

So, Iron Bar Holdings is Fred Eshelman, very wealthy pharmaceutical personality.

The Missouri hunters, by all accounts, went to great pains to avoid touching the ground on Elk Mountain.  They brought ladders of some sort to step over the corners.  They were detected by the ranch employees who called the authorities, who frankly weren't really sure what to do, and they declined to issue citations.  Ultimately, this matter was somehow prosecuted in Carbon County, where the jury found there was no trespass.

During this time frame, a civil lawsuit was brought in the state's Second Judicial District. For reasons that aren't clear to me, as I wouldn't have filed it, the Missouri hunters had the case removed to Federal Court, no doubt on jurisdictional grounds.  Also for reasons that aren't clear to me, as I would have thought Iron Bar would have preferred the case to be in Federal Court, Iron Bar sought to have that reversed, unsuccessfully, claiming the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction, a claim that seem pretty stretched given the pretty obvious diversity jurisdiction here.

I wonder if both sides regret their decisions now, given the results of the Carbon County jury trial.  I have to think if the 2nd Judicial District in Rawlins had a jury that said "no trespass" once, they'd have that happen again.

Anyhow, it's in Federal Court. The docket sheet for the case reads as follows:

U.S. District Court
District of Wyoming (Cheyenne)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:22-cv-00067-SWS


Iron Bar Holdings LLC v. Cape et al
Assigned to: Honorable Scott W Skavdahl
Referred to: Honorable Kelly H Rankin
Case in other court: Second Judicial District - Carbon County, Wyoming, Civil Act. No. 22-00034
Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

Date Filed: 03/22/2022
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Iron Bar Holdings LLC
a North Carolina limited liability company registered to do business in Wyoming
represented byM Gregory Weisz
PENCE & MACMILLAN LLC
1720 Carey Avenue, Suite 600
PO Box 765
Cheyenne, WY 82003
307/638-0386
Fax: 307/634-0336
Email: gweisz@penceandmac.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Movant
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
TERMINATED: 08/31/2022
represented byEric B Hanson
KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS
633 Battery St.
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-676-2349
Email: ehanson@keker.com
TERMINATED: 08/31/2022
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE

Patrick Lewallen
CHAPMAN VALDEZ & LANSING
125 West 2nd Street
PO Box 2710
Casper, WY 82601
307/237-1983
Email: plewallen@bslo.com
TERMINATED: 08/31/2022
LEAD ATTORNEY

Trevor James Schenk
CHAPMAN VALDEZ & LANSING
125 W. 2nd Street
PO Box 2710
Casper, WY 82602
307-259-3797
Email: tschenk@bslo.com
TERMINATED: 08/31/2022
LEAD ATTORNEY

V.
Defendant
Bradley H Caperepresented byRyan A Semerad
THE FULLER LAW FIRM
242 South Grant Street
Casper, WY 82609
307-265-3455
Fax: 307-265-2859
Email: semerad@thefullerlawyers.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Zachary M Smithrepresented byRyan A Semerad
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Phillip G Yeomansrepresented byRyan A Semerad
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
John W Slowenskyrepresented byRyan A Semerad
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Wyoming Stockgrowers Associationrepresented byKaren J Budd-Falen
BUDD-FALEN LAW OFFICES
300 East 18th Street
P O Box 346
Cheyenne, WY 82003
307/632-5105
Fax: 307/637-3891
Email: karen@buddfalen.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Wyoming Wool Growers Associationrepresented byKaren J Budd-Falen
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

What does this tell us?

Well, not much, really, other than that Back Country Hunters & Anglers tried to intervene in the action, no doubt in support of the Missouri hunters, but weren't allowed in.  It also tells us that the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association and the Wyoming Wool Growers Association (which at one time were headed for a merger, but which must not have completed that process) are going to be allowed to file "friend of the court" briefs in this matter.  Those briefs will no doubt be on the side of Iron Bar.1

Which presents our first historical observation. 

The Wyoming Stockgrowers Association was instrumental in bringing about the Johnson County War and the assassination campaign that was associated with it.  I'm not saying that they organized it, but they were pretty close to the large, and often foreign owned, cattleman part of the extra judicial war against the small ranchers of Natrona and Johnson Counties of the 1890s.

I'm also not saying that they're somehow involved in such efforts today.

I'm am noting that history rhymes, if not repeats, as they say.

So what did Iron Bar's lawsuit claim? Well, see for yourself:

















In litigation, under a rule called FRCP 26, parties are required to disclose certain information, including their calculation of damages.  Piecing the news stories together, and reading between the lines, what this probably means is that somehow a reporter got access to a FRCP "self executing" disclosure.  

Normally, these aren't public, but they aren't secret either.  I obviously don't know who this cat got out of the bag, but it was riding around with its head and front feet out of the bag anyhow, and at some point it was going to get out.

Further, what this really means is that Iron Bar is asserting that if corner crossing is allowed, it'll devalue the value of the property as he can't lock up the Federal domain.

Well, hopefully that's exactly what the court rules. I.e., you can cross the corners.

Before we go on, let's note that the argument here is deeply flawed. What's apparently being stated by the plaintiff is that if the court rules that corner crossing isn't illegal, the value of the land drops, as he can't lock people out and charge people for access. 

But if it's illegal, he can't do that, and never could. Being wrong about the law doesn't entitle you to reimbursement.

You can't claim that you'll lose money as something is illegal. That's like arguing if I can't personally close the road and charge people tolls for using it, even though it isn't mine, I'll lose money.  I had no right to do that in the first place.  It doesn't matter if I thought I could.

On the other hand, if he's right, and he can close the corners, it's not like he's arguing that the value of crossing the corner is $3.1M to $7M.

You only get the actual reasonable trespassing fee, which traditionally has been the damage to the land.

Either way you look at it, the damages are pretty low.

This, by the way, is why I didn't vote for Rob Hendry, the ranching Natrona County Commissioner, in the last election.

A lot of other people didn't too, so he's on his way out, but my reason is probably unique.  Some goons of his stopped my son and I and tossed us off public land, or more accuratley deterred us from going where we were going, claiming that if we trespassed there'd be a $10,000 fine.

That's bullshit.

Anyhow, we don't know what will come out of this litigation, and the results are far from guaranteed, but this gets into the topic of the Homestead Acts, the Taylor Grazing Act, and frankly Distributism and Localism.

What Iron Bar is doing here, shouldn't be allowed to do is to lock up public land that it doesn't own. That is what the hunters were accessing.  How does that devalue the land?  As noted, if there is no right, it doesn't.  If the landowner does have that right, it doesn't devalue anything.  The damages claimed here are out of whack.

Moreover, if the purpose of the original homestead acts and the Taylor Grazing Act are kept in mind, we shouldn't even be having this conversation.

The original homestead acts, which is likely how this ranch was started at some point, were intended to induce agriculturalists into lands that were regarded as poor prospects.  The United States at that time, and indeed American culture at that time, regarded development as a good thing and had the concept that development only occurred where agriculture first entered.  The very first homestead act was designed for farmers, and farmers alone, and had that express goal.  As homesteaders moved into the West, however, livestock grazing became the common agricultural pursuit and the homestead act were modified to accommodate that.  By this point, a different sort of development, much less intense than that East of the Mississippi was envisioned, which was cattle centric.

But the law always allowed for other uses of land.  Miners actually had the superior use, their use being so extensive that they could come on land where the agriculturalist owned the surface, and the Federal Government the subsurface, and mine it anyway.

And on the Federal lands, what the agricultural user got was the right to use it, and nothing else whatsoever.

You could also buy Federal lands, of course, and you could simply run cattle on the public domain, free of charge until 1934. That fact came to be hugely significant and led directly to the Johnson County War.  By that time a fairly formal, and extralegal, system of controlling the public lands had developed which favored large landowners, and which was administered by the Wyoming Stock Growers Association.  Indeed, the WSGA did it partially under color of law.  

And, as we know, it ultimately came to war, if private war.  The large cattlemen felt the small ones were all rustler and thieves, and more than that, they were trespassing on an implied right of the large interests to control the land, title or not.  The small cattlemen, on the other hand, were largely compliant with the law, had a right to homestead, and were trying just to get by.

The small cattlemen won the Johnson County War on the field, but weren't able to put the offenders behind bars, for reasons we'll deal with elsewhere. Their defense of their ground, however, did put an end to the threat of the large cattlemen snuffing out homesteading.  It didn't completely end the violence, however, which went on, including in evolved forms with evolved causes, into the 20th Century.  In southwestern Wyoming it effectively came to an end with the hanging of Tom Horn for the crime of killing Willie Nickell, and in central Wyoming it came to an end in 1909 with the prosecution of the killers of the Spring Creek Raid.

But some portions of the old contest remain, with all the questions that existed in some form still remaining.  Some of them are existential.

To note a few, to what extent are the uberwealthy entitled to use ground at all, when their vast resources mean that the ranching aspect of ranch land is a mere incidental to their ownership?

To what extent is any human being entitled to keep others off land they aren't directly using at the time, or aren't using in a means that's contrary to the non owning entrants use?

Is it just that land that was acquired by a government agricultural land distribution program, a sort of social welfare for agriculturalist, is now owned by people who are not in that category in some fashion?

Isn't hunting more elemental than anything else, with accordingly superior rights in every existential and environmental fashion.

If you aren't touching the ground, are you really trespassing?

I'll note that I'm not saying that Fred Eschelman is a bad person.  According to what little I've read on him, he's donated major conservation easements on lands he's held in Wyoming, which is a very good thing to do.  Some of his statements make him appear to be a conservationist of the Nature Conservancy type.  An argument can be made that, in 2022, but for people like Eschelman, large blocks of land would bet all chopped up.

An argument can also be made, however, that agricultural land ought not to be owned by people who do not have some sort of direct role, participation, or interest in agriculture, or at least in the community, which at Eschelman's economic level is pretty difficult to do.  Having vast, vast amounts of money, more than the regular rich, so to speak, puts a person in a category all of its own and it's a problematic one.  The fact that levels of wealth like that are allowed to even occur suggest a certain deficiency in our economy.  And that deficiency allows a person to view people like the Missouri hunters differently than a regular rancher can, or even a regular wealthy local landowner can.

I'm also not saying that rich people shouldn't own land either.  But there is the question of what is "rich", and what is super rich.  It's one thing making money in your community and then entering agriculture, a story that's fairly common and has been for a long time.  It's another making money far, far away, and then coming into the country you are not from, are not part of, and are not of, and buying that land up.  

Indeed, an argument could be made that's a sort of colonialism.

I.e, if I had lots of money (I don't) and bought ranchland in my home state, well, I'm from there and have to live there and people can and will give me an earful at the gas station or cafe, or whatever.  But if I made piles of money and then bought up farm ground in North Carolina, and hired people to run it for me, and stopped in from time to time, I wouldn't really have any signficant connection with the community where my ground was at all.  Indeed, I don't know what people in North Carolina think, and by and large, on most days, I don't care all that much about it either. They aren't going to give me an earful at the gas station.

No wonder, therefore, the jury reacted the way it did in Carbon County.  That jury didn't want to be told that they had to bow to somebody in North Carolina.


Footnotes:

1. This is a classic case of finding yourself in a fight in a time and place not of your choosing.  This legal issue has been around for years, and has come up at least once before, but now its back in a major way, with the standard bearor for the agricultural organizations being an out of stater. The Stockgrowers and the Woolgrowers have to enter the contest or feel comfortable with no voice at all, but they sure wouldn't have wanted it to come up this way.

Related Threads:


Lex Anteinternet: Reactionary

Lex Anteinternet: Reactionary:  

Reactionary

 "Mind numbingly stupid" is the way one person I know characterized it.

Governor Questions Transparency of BLM Land Acquisition

CHEYENNE, Wyo. –  Governor Mark Gordon has announced that Wyoming is appealing a massive acquisition of land by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Natrona and Carbon Counties. The State has concerns that BLM did not involve the public in the acquisition process and that the environmental assessment did not adequately consider impacts on tax revenues, school funding, grazing, mineral development and other natural resources.

The Governor emphasized that the challenge to the acquisition is focused on the adequacy and proper adherence to the process that occurred. He supports the expansion of public access for hunters and anglers, as well as opportunities for recreation. He also recognizes the rights of private landowners to sell their land as they see fit. 

“This action is not about limiting access for sportspeople or challenging the rights of private property owners rights,” Governor Gordon said. “It is about whether the Federal government can increase its land holdings without public scrutiny, or should it adhere to the same transparent process that private landowners are subject to if they sought to purchase or exchange federal land.”

To buy or sell land the State must have a 60-day comment period and hold two public votes of the State Board of Land Commissioners.


Here's the actual complaint.[1]



At some point conservationist, hunters, fishermen, outdoorsmen, sportsmen, and the tourist industry really should start to start questioning why they support Republican candidates in this state.[2]  Suffice it to say, if Marty Throne, the Democrat, was now Governor, we wouldn't be putting up with this now.

Indeed, even while it's clear that the overwhelming majority of Wyomingites are very much in favor of preserving public lands, it continues to be the case that the Republican Party in the state has an element that doesn't.  Indeed, it's hard not to recall the late 1980s when Republicans from southeastern Wyoming attempted to privatize wildlife in the state, and came close to success before public outcry stopped it.  It's also worth nothing that a Hageman was part of that effort, and the current challenger to Liz Cheney is part of that family.

And more recently, the legislature came really close to passing a bill to "study" trying to take the Federal land away from the Federal government.  The far right in the GOP still supports that against the will of the residents of the state.

So let's break this down a little more on what the Governor said.

  • The Governor emphasized that the challenge to the acquisition is focused on the adequacy and proper adherence to the process that occurred. He supports the expansion of public access for hunters and anglers, as well as opportunities for recreation. He also recognizes the rights of private landowners to sell their land as they see fit. 
Well, then, if all that's true, knock it off and don't be suing about it.
  • “This action is not about limiting access for sportspeople or challenging the rights of private property owners rights,

Well that's exactly what the action does.

  • “It is about whether the Federal government can increase its land holdings without public scrutiny, or should it adhere to the same transparent process that private landowners are subject to if they sought to purchase or exchange federal land.”

M'eh.  A land exchange isn't anything like a sale, and quite frankly it seems that in most land exchanges the Federal government ends up with less land than it started off with.

The state should dismiss this action.

There's no reason to believe that this land won't still be grazed.  It probably just opens it up for that, on a very large scale, for neighboring ranchers.  What it does beyond that is open up land that's been closed to ready access for years up to the residents of the state.

Footnotes:

1.  A "complaint" is the initiating document in a lawsuit.

2.  I know the answer to this question even as I pose it.  As the national Democratic Party is for gun control in a big way, for abortion on demand, for much more government involvement in everything, and is on the far left of every social movement, it leaves conservative voters with nowhere else to go.

This is a tragedy, quite frankly, as it leads to the delusion in the GOP that Eathornism is the view of everyone in the GOP, and the State.  And because a lot of people in any political party are followers, rather than thinkers, it means that people who support extreme positions in the GOP do so as they're just following along not thinking them out, which would lead them to some other conclusion on some issues.

I've long maintained here, for example, that there's no reason to believe that there aren't a considerable number of people who, for example, are opposed to abortion and the death penalty, but I'm certain if this came up to the GOP Central Committee right now we'd get full support for the death penalty in a major way. That's a minor example, however.

I'm also certain that there are those, for example, who are opposed to abortion, support the war in Ukraine, and are very concerned about climate change. Where do they go to vote? They can't vote Democratic, due to abortion, and the GOP here doesn't really reflect their views on anything else.

As a result of that, they vote Republican, as abortion is their big issue.  Some people do the same with the Second Amendment, and otherwise hold very Democratic views.  

And the Public Lands issue is a good example.  People who vote only on this issue, and there are some, vote Democratic quite a bit, I suspect.

The problem is, however, is that on life and death issues, like abortion, that leaves those very serious on those issues with hardly any options left.

This year might prove to be different, however, as the Republican Party is setting up horrific moral choices for the voters.  In numerous states, the GOP is running Secretary of State candidates who would have stolen the vote for Trump in 2020, had they been in power.  As people go to the polls this upcoming election, it looks like in many races they'll have a Republican candidate who effectively is pushing for the end of democracy, or at least the installation of an illiberal democracy.  As democracy is the first principal of democracy, many voters may now pause when they go to vote Republican and wonder if that principle requires them to vote for somebody else.

For those with less firm concerns, the switch to another party may even be easier.  This fall, for example, you know for certain that voters who normally vote Republican will go into the voting booth, having never said a word to anyone, and vote for a Democratic candidate as they're sick of Trump, worried about Eathorne, tired of Republican land grabbing efforts, not really convinced that everyone needs to have StG42, and worried about what kind of environment the future holds in a year that's been weird.  The GOP ought to consider that, as if they don't manage to install the illiberal democracy they seem to imagine, they may end up getting very much the opposite.

Lex Anteinternet: Jury finds you can cross corners in Carbon County.

Lex Anteinternet: Jury finds you can cross corners in Carbon County.

Jury finds you can cross corners in Carbon County.

Elk Mountain as viewed from Shirley Basin.

Big news on the public access to lands front:

Jury finds four corner-crossing hunters not guilty of trespass

Now, what this isn't.

It isn't a court declaration that's binding precedent on the whole state.  It's one jury, in a circuit court case. That's it.

It does mean that these four guys are not going to be convicted.

And beyond that, it shows that juries, quite frankly, are unlikely to convict anyone for corner crossing.  Not only in Carbon County, but anywhere in the state.

And it doesn't end the issue, actually.  A civil suit remains, and it's far more likely to have a bigger impact, as it will likely be the one that ultimately goes to the Supreme Court and the Wyoming Supreme Court will then determine the issue.

It does send a signal, however, both to courts (of course) but to the legislature on how average Wyomingites view these issues, and that likely is summed up by a comment made in court by the defendants' lawyer:

He believed the whole mountain was his and that no one but [he] was allowed to be there … like a king.”

DEFENSE ATTORNEY RYAN SEMERAD ON RANCH OWNER FRED ESHELMAN

Eschelman is an entrepreneur who is noted for his charitable donations. . . and his donations to right wing politicians as well.  He's apparently humble and generous. Not so generous, however, that the South Carolinian saw fit to just turn a blind eye to this matter or to generally allowing some of the less well funded access to public land, not his land, on his Wyoming ranch.

The original encounter, moreover, was caught on audio and video, with Eschelman's employee stating to law enforcement;“Do they realize how much money my boss has? …and property?”

And indeed, his having a Wyoming ranch brings to mind Thomas Wolfe's comment on that in his book A Man In Full.

On the topic of decisions, this also points out the dangers of pursuing something best left untouched, something that was pointed out a couple of years ago in the Wyoming ve. Herrera case.  Sometimes, there are issues that you'd rather leave undecided.

Indeed here, the County Attorney, an elected official, made the decision to prosecute, no doubt based on prior interpretations of the law, which would have favored the same.  But in doing so, she's accidentally taken the side of a wealthy out of stater against the interest of common Wyomingites.  This probably never crossed her mind, but it likely has crossed the mind of a lot of locals by this point, and the effective statements of the defense now doubt have taken root.  Eschelman, in the words of the defense, is a would be king and oppressor.  I've now seen public comments that the County Attorney prosecuted as she was influenced by his wealth.  That's extremely unlikely, she was probably influenced by the law, and may very well not be in the class to whom this issue is dear to the heart, but she's no doubt aware that it is to many now.  How this also plays out is yet to be seen.

And indeed, this takes us back to the topic of allmannsretten, which we've addressed elsewhere.

As noted, this story is still playing out.  It'll be very interesting to see where it goes ultimately.

2021 Holiday Reflections. The Agricultural Edition.

This will be an unusual post for here, as I'm doing something unusual in general.


Most years, but not all years, I post a "Resolutions" thread on our companion blog, Lex Anteinternet.  This started off, quite frankly, as being satirical in nature, but this year it's much less so.  Satire is a delicate form of humor, often ineffectively done, and this past year hasn't been very funny, so there's not much that satire would really do, for the most part, other than be super snarky.  Snark is almost never helpful.

Anyhow, this blog, which used to simply be a catalog of agrarian themed entries on Lex Anteinternet, has grown into its own a bit and now has a little original content, although not much. Anyhow, we're going to run this post independently, even though another Resolutions thread will already be up on Lex Anteinternet.

Well, two, actually.

Anyhow, this past two years, if anything, have been ones that have shown how Chesteron, Leopold and Abbey were quite right, even though they remain voices crying in the wilderness. The voices we've heard instead, most often that of an ex President and his hard core acolytes, haven't been helpful.  Maybe it's time to drag out the Vanderbilt Agrarians, Chesteron, and Wendell Berry and see what they have to say.

Indeed, that will be our first resolution for agrarians, farmers, would be farmers, and just folks in general.

1.  Check out Berry, Abbey, Leopold, or Chesterton

The current pack of yappers is offering little in the way of deep content, and a lot of what they have to say about anything is outright destructive.  Every now and then something of value is stated, but it's hard to hear it in the general mess of things.

Let's be honest.  Almost all of the current "we need to go in this direction" is at least a little bit misinformed.  If you aren't grounded in what's real, any wind can blow you over.

Doing a little reading of some grounded folks would be a really good start in things.

And things be Wendell Berry, Edward Abbey, Aldo Leopold and G. K. Chesterton would be really good starts.

2.  Cut out the citations to the "I’m a billionth generation farmer/rancher" in the wrong context, and don't support it when its made in the wrong context.

This is one of a couple of posts here that are really directed at a very narrow few, rather than the majority of ranchers. 

Actually, it's not directed at ranchers at all, but rather at the rancher ex pats. Those who hail originally from the soil, but now no longer are working it.  For those who descend from prior generations of ranchers and are still in it, the more power to you.

I've posted on this already, but it really doesn't matter if your great-great-grandfather broke the sod in Niobrara County in 1890 if that doesn't mean you are in agriculture today.  And it doesn't make you royalty.  And. . .

3. Knock off the "agriculture is a hard way to make a living" line

Now, I want to be careful here.

Agriculture is a hard way to make a living, because of economics.

What it isn't, however, is a hard way to live.

This has been on my mind, to the political year, anyhow, but it recally came into the forefront of my mind again recently listening to an episode of  Wyoming:  My 307.  It was the one on ranching, which you can find here:

RANCHING IN WYOMING

In it, it had a long session pondering "why do we do this?" which arrived at a very interesting conclusion, that being "it's a vocation".

I think there's something to that.

But, we ought to be careful thinking that somehow because we're out in nature, and nature is a bit rough, that we're suffering. Far from it.

I've been a lawyer, a solider, worked on drilling rigs, a writer and a stockman in what now amounts to a whopping 45 years of working (I started working for pay at age 13).  So I think I know a little about work and what hard work is, and isn't. And what work is like for most people.

Somewhere at some point in time somebody fed a line of crap to agriculturalist that their work is uniquely difficult in an existential sense.  Perhaps in a physical sense, that's somewhat true, but there's plenty of other dangerous physical work that puts you out in all kids of weather.

And most modern work is, quite frankly, utterly meaningless.  Most Americans don't like their jobs, as no rational scientient mammal would like most of the jobs that now exist. 

What agriculture isn't is something that makes you work more hours per day than other people, particularly professional people, in  horrible conditions.  Not even close, quite often. And the working conditions and nature of agriculture are far better than that for most other people.  If you think that your job is somehow worse than a computer engineer in a cubicle, you are fooling yourselves massively.

Indeed, this sort of whining, and that's what it is, really needs to stop.  It's self deceptive.

Indeed, its harmful it two ways.  It's self-delusion and makes us think that, if we believe it, we are really working a lot harder than other people, when in fact that's just not true, and it also causes us to force children off the land for a better "town job" that won't be better.

Almost everything about life in the towns and cities is worse.  We ought to realize that.

If you doubt it, leave the ranch or farm and go into town.  You can't come back, and you'll regret you left.  Pleantly of people will line up to take your place.

4.  Having land doesn't make you "landed" nobility.

This, I'll note, is also directed at a narrow few, not the broader majority, of those in agriculture.

Something really disturbing has developed in the US over the past century in which those lucky enough to be born in to agriculture sometimes sort of regard themselves as petty nobility in a way.  It expresses itself in all sorts of odd ways.

Now, I don't want to suggest this is common.  

Most farmers and ranchers aren't this way at all.  But you'll see examples of it where people in agriculture will express a degree of contempt, on rare occasion, about average people.  It feeds into the thing above, in a reverse fashion, in that there's a sort of "we work hard for a living" without realizing that a lot of other people do as well.

I'll be frank that the last two items are sort of in reaction to a current political campaign.  I'm not going to get into the pluses and minuses of the merits of any candidate, but something about the videos of the campaign really strike me the wrong way for their strong rancher pull.  I'm tired of people appearing on political ads in cowboy hats arguing that you need to vote for somebody because they came from an agricultural family that knows what real values are.  It's insulting.

5.  Support getting people into agriculture.

The worst enemy of ranchers in the west are ranchers and by extension this is true about agriculture in general.  Agriculturalist decry those who regard their units as big public parks, which they should, but at the same time they don't do anything to try to help average people get into agriculture.

The reason for that, in no small part, is that it would mean a big personal sacrifice.  We could support legislation that made agriculture and agricultural land tied to actually working the land as your real and sole occupation, but we don't as that would massively depress the value of the land. It's that value that operates against us in the first place, as it means the Warren Buffets of the world become the only one who can afford the land.

We could pull this up by the root and cut it off at the head.  If we really think we're special and the real examples of the common men, we should.

6.  Think local and organize.

My entire life I've heard complaints about the midstream in agriculture.  The price of beef goes up, and cattle on the hoof do too, and the very few packers there are reap the rewards.  It's hard on consumers, and it's hard on ranchers.

I'm sure the same is true in other fields of agriculture as well.

Well, enough of that. We know it's unfair, so what we have to do is to replace the middle men with processors of our own. We could do it.  

Indeed, some agricultural enterprises, like sugar, do in fact do just this.  But it should expand. Co-ops for this purpose, organized to process for the member's benefits and not their own, would be ideal, and could more than compete with the big packers.

7. Think Agrarian

Modern agriculture suffers heavily from the worship of materialism that intruded heavily into the 20th Century and, along with it, specialization of everything.  We in agriculture often hear of "monocultures", but we almost all do just that.

Our predecessors did this much less.  Up into the mid 20th Century it was really rare to find ranches that didn't also farm a little bit, for the table, and every rancher hunted (often illegally) as well.  Farmers were the same way. A wheat farmer in Kansas was a wheat farmer, but he was probably also taking some game with a shotgun and probably kept a few pigs for the table,, and so on.

We have the resources and could lead the say on that, and indeed, some do. But the real banner carriers on this sort of thing shouldn't be people in the "homestead" movement, who are mostly chopping up big parcels of land to the ultimate detriment of everyone.

8.  Know who is your friend and who isn't.

This doesn't apply to everyone either, but I'm sometimes surprised how some in agriculture can be hostile, intentionally and unintentionally, to those who aren't, but who want to enjoy something on the land.

"No Trespassing" signs and "No Hunting" signs are signs to locals that they aren't welcome. Signs stating "This Land Leased To Outfitter" are the same thing, except they show that the lack of welcome has been monetized.

Bills to privatize wildlife are the ultimate acts of hostility. Falling in second are bills to transfer public lands into private hands.

We should realize that there are people who are genuinely hostile to agriculture.  The local newspaper publishes op ed articles by members of an organization that definitely is.  There are a lot more people who aren't in agriculture than who are, and we tend to forget that, as for most of us most of our friends are in it.

Given this, at some point we really risk public hostility.  Shut access off to the land, and next thing you know you'll be seeing "tax ag land like other land" and things of that nature, and you are out of business  and out of cash.

It doesn't really take that much to be friendly to people.

Likewise, for some reason those in agriculture often support entities and operations that are land destroying.  I've never understood that, indeed as we'll often complain about the same entities if they're on our places.  

9. Think really local.

None of us are here forever.  Try to keep that place, and keep the familiy in it.

People do a lot of things for a lot of reasons, but every time I encounter somebody, and I do fairly frequently, who ends up telling me "I grew up on a ranch", and I find them working as a lawyer, doctor, accountant, or whatever, I think it's a tragedy. That shouldn't have had to happen.

Blog Mirror: A bucket-list tour of Nebraska courthouses yields some elevator insights

A bucket-list tour of Nebraska courthouses yields some elevator insights   Mar 2