Ranchers do not pay rent; it is a fee. Referring to grazing on the drought-stricken regions of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. Chief Forester's General Statement of 1927, before the House Committee. Colonel Greeley was asked by a Mr. Buchanan if the Secretary of Agriculture was remitting, returning, the rent? Colonel corrected, "Remitting the grazing fees; yes sir." (pg. 339) Colonel Greeley noted the authority to charge fees came under the Organic Act of 1897, where the Secretary may regulate the occupancy and use of the national forests, (Mineral Lands).

The Forest Service Organic Act of 1897 which gave the Secretary the authority to regulate, is under the said Act of March 3, 1891. It reads; "Improvements created before title of land granted, entitled to preexisting rights."

"Occupancy and Use" under Mineral Land Laws. To summarize Angus McIntosh, PHD, the Forest Land Plan Management Act of 1976, lists all the laws that have been repealed. "But it does say, and this is important. Title VII, this act does not affect any valid existing rights." It specifically mentions the Secretary having to recognize those existing rights. Though statutes have been repealed, the rights have not. McIntosh teaches all occupancy, entry, and settlement west of the 100th meridian have been validated by the Validation Act of 1890, protecting all existing settlement. Once occupied and claimed, the once public land now had a legal claim attached to it. Survey Act of 1853 granted occupation and cultivation upon mineral lands. A split estate where different users could occupy same ground for the different uses of range, timber, and/or minerals. The Ditch Act of 1866 granted occupation and exploration. It specifically applied to appropriated waters, first to put-to-use. It acknowledged hundreds of years of cattle on the range through 'local customs, laws, and decisions of courts.' Both Acts, 1853 and 1866, are legislative grants.

"1878 the right to cut timber from the 'mineral lands', It didn't say 'public lands'… In the Forest Reserve Act 1891, the Validation Act was specified by reference, Section 16 or 17; The land claimed under homestead laws of specific acreage 'does not apply to the land claimed under the mineral land laws.'"

Mr. Buchanan in the historical document went on to ask Greeley if the Secretary was 'authorized' to return the fees. Greeley affirming what he had said earlier, "Secretary of Agriculture he has authority to charge grazing fees or not to charge them as he sees fit." (pg. 339) Colonel Greeley submitted a letter from the Office of the Secretary where the same question had been asked and answered. "He has full authority to waive all grazing fees when and where he believes circumstances justify." (pg. 341) Citing US vs Grimaud 1911 "…the Secretary was authorized to make charges out of which a revenue from forest resources was expected to arise." (pg. 342)

Two sides: fees or range rights. US vs Grimaud, which favors National Forest System, Federal Government has authority. Where today through the Endangered Species Act, people and industry have been removed from the land to the point New Mexico's Forests are closed to timber thinning while waiting a court order or decision. Or Curtin vs Benson, which favors use of Forest Reservations. More in line with Theodore Roosevelt's January 22, 1909, conservation plan where "the public domain is converted to higher uses for the general benefit, so that more Americans might have homes on the land."

McIntosh explains, "Both Grimaud and Curtin's cases were unanimous decisions of the Supreme Court, both decided by the same nine justices." Grimaud's decision under rules and regulations. Curtin's by existing rights granted and validated by Congress.

"Grimaud, a sheepherder who moved across country, they held this guy was a 'naked trespasser,' no right to be there and had to have a "permit," which he did not possess... On the other hand, J.B. Curtin who was an actual occupant settler (in Yosemite), claimed 23,000 acres of range rights, The Supreme Court unanimously ruled he did not have to have a permit." Same problem, continuance of grazing on Forest lands. Different results. Grimaud claimed he did not need a permit. He argued against rules and regulations on a Forest System. He lost. Curtin when he approached the courts, recognized; ranchers have rights. Statutes, Acts of Congress, Laws supersedes rules and regulations. Again, valid existing rights granted by Congress. He won.

McIntosh concludes, "The key is all in terminology, understanding that once that land was occupied and claimed as a stock range by actual settlers like J.B. Curtin, it ceased to be public land." The common public still has the right to access. But the right for another to settle or use that range has been removed.

Cattle do not pay a rent. As Colonel Greeley has said," Remitting the grazing fees, yes sir."

Next week, US Grazing Permits. Look for it.

A special thank you to Angus McIntosh, PHD

Colonel Greeley's General Statement of the Forest as recorded in the Subcommittee of House Committee on Appropriations, Agricultural Appropriation Bill for 1927. Beginning on page 336
https://books.google.com/books?id=hj7OAAAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=march%203%2C%201925%20grazing%20permit&pg=PP5#v=onepage&q=march%203,%201925%20grazing%20permit&f=false