Open range laws cost everyone but the rancher: Let’s talk taxes.
In Navajo County, in 2000, a person who owned a 100-acre parcel of land
used for grazing paid about $3.44 a year in property tax.
This agricultural classification was taken advantage of by 401 propety
owners involving 481,708 acres of private land.
Is that fair to the
rest of the County’s residents who then have to make up for this discounted tax
rate? And to top that off, the private resident still had to put up with the
ranchers’ cattle tromping all over his land anyway. Private Property owners who
took advantage of this “agricultural rate” include Stone Container (17,559
acres) and New Mexico/Arizona Land & Cattle Company (71,006 acres).
Thanks, Neighbor!
A.R.S. § 28-5857 says the motor carrier fee for motor vehicles used "only
for transporting agricultural products" shall be set at seven-tenths of the
full rate. Does this mean we should all apply to MVD for the discounted rate
and be sure to keep a bale of hay in our vehicle so we’re always legally
eligible?
Water Wasters:
According to U.S. Geological Survey data, Arizona livestock used 32
million gallons of water per day in 1995. This figure doesn’t include the
water that was used to irrigate the crops grown to feed these cows. It takes
3,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef (Isaac Asimov’s Book of
Facts, 1997 edition). How can this be viewed as sensible in the Southwest,
where water is scarce to begin with?
Killer Cattle?:
ADOT statistics show that in 1997, 341 vehicle accidents were caused by
livestock being in roadways, resulting in 2 fatalities.
All collisions with animals are kept track of, but in 1997 only livestock
collisions caused fatalities.
These numbers do not allow for collisions where drivers swerved to avoid
hitting animals, which are not considered animal-related crashes.
In collisions involving livestock, the rancher is due compensation for the
cattle he loses even in cases resulting in human fatalities.
The issue of Open-Range grazing is un-Constitutional
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
Article II, Section 17 of the Arizona Constitution prohibit depriving any
person of private property without due process of law.
These documents also guarantee just compensation for property that is
taken or damaged.
Are the ranchers paying individual property owners
for the privilege of grazing their animals on land that does not belong to them?
Are the ranchers paying private property owners fair compensation for damage
done by their cattle? The ranchers are grazing cattle with the reasonable
expectation that they will see a profit from the agricultural use of other
people’s privately owned land. Why then should they not be required to “share”
some of these profits with the very people who have made it possible for them to
raise their cattle?
Ranchers receive government subsidies in regard to their livestock which
means that you and I, being taxpayers in this country, are in fact paying THEM
through our tax dollars to use OUR land to graze THEIR cattle.
This in
itself violates the private citizen’s Constitutionally protected right to “equal
protection” under the law. Simply put, the open-range laws protect the ranchers’
antiquated tradition of grazing their animals wherever they please while the
onus is placed upon the average citizen to “fence out” or protect their property
from this unauthorized use. The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with this practice,
as stated (in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. et al. 458 US 419
(1982)) by Justice Marshall who wrote for the Court: "The power to exclude has
traditionally been considered one of the most treasured strands in an owner's
bundle of property rights." at 435 "...property law has long protected an
owner's expectation that he will be relatively undisturbed at least in the
possession of his property. To require, as well, that the owner permit another
to exercise complete dominion literally adds insult to injury." at 436
"Furthermore, such an occupation is qualitatively more severe than a regulation
of the use of property, even a regulation that imposes affirmative duties
on the owner, since the owner may have no control over the timing, extent, or
nature of the invasion." (emphasis mine)
In Light v. United States (220 US 523, 537) it was stated in the decision
that “Fence laws do not authorize wanton and willful trespass, nor do they
afford immunity to those who, in disregard of property rights, turn loose their
cattle under circumstances showing that they were intended to graze upon the
lands of another.” Sounds like that decision in itself nullifies open range
grazing as we know it. In Texas, America’s #1 cattle producing state (USDA stats
at Cornell.edu) it was decided in regard to grazing laws that “This doctrine,
however, does not authorize the owner of cattle by affirmative conduct on his
part to appropriate the use of such lands to his own benefit. He will not be
permitted thus to ignore the truth that every one is entitled to the exclusive
enjoyment of his own property.”( St. Louis Cattle Co. v. Vaught 1 Tex. Civ. App.
388, 390)
Points to Consider:
I grew up in rural New York state, in a region with many cattle and dairy
operations. Out in New York cow farmers use their own land to graze their
animals and we don’t have any nonsense about the open range.
If you can’t feed the animals you don’t farm them. Period. There is no
relying on your neighbor’s vegetation to nourish your animals.
Interestingly enough, according to USDA statistics in the year 2001 New
York was home to 16,000 cattle & calves operations (that is any place with
one or more head of cattle at any time during that year) which makes it a much
larger cattle producer than Arizona, with only 3,000 cattle operations.(USDA
statistics, found through COrnell.edu)
If New York can house that many
cattle operations without the aid of open range laws, there is no reason why
Arizona can’t do the same. In comparison Arizona’s cattle production is less
than a drop in the bucket nationwide and it makes no sense to give these few
Americans the right, essentially, to use the possessions of the majority as raw
materials to feed their cattle. When the open range laws were put into effect
there were far fewer humans in the West. It was not unusual to have homesteads
miles and miles apart so it didn’t matter if a rancher let his animals wander.
The chance for human contact was slim to none. Now the population density is
such that there are far more people than cows.
Why should we humans have to cede our rights to something we use as food?
I do not believe that anyone should be forced to suffer the expense of
fencing cattle out. How archaic! That is like saying you have no legal
recourse against a thief who robs your home but enters through an unlocked
window.
There are many other reasons to oppose the open range privilege. I will be
adding additional supporting information in the next few weeks. Please feel free
to check back.
All rights reserved to the intellectual property herein
contained. If you feel the need to use any portion of the information on this
page, please give credit and either include my email address or a link to the
page. Thank you for your help in defeating the Open Range Law!!
