Obama seizes N.M. land for national monument in Bundy-like showdown

originally posted by: buster2010

If grazing was allowed before it became a national monument then it will be allowed after it becomes one. Unless harmful grazing is occurring in which the ranchers permits would have been cancelled regardless if it was made into a monument or not.

Opinions on this argument ultimately boil down to which side trusts the government, including the "purity" of the government's intentions and which side distrusts them, wants to see them stripped of all powers in lieu of state ownership and control, and believes their intentions are almost always in opposition to the Will of the People.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Opinions on this argument ultimately boil down to which side trusts the government, including the "purity" of the government's intentions and which side distrusts them, wants to see them stripped of all powers in lieu of state ownership and control, and believes their intentions are almost always in opposition to the Will of the People.

So, you and I can meet over there and see if grazing is still happening.

This is what Johnny Mestas, an actual grazing lessee in the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument has to say.

Johnny Mestas: A monumental opportunity for grazing in county

There has been much to say recently about grazing leases on what is now a national monument. My relationship with the Bureau of Land Management goes back for generations, as my family has grazed cattle on these lands and the partnership between families and the BLM in New Mexico has been substantial and beneficial to both parties.

Over the years we have been through drought, times of excessive moisture, abundance and scarcity. Our partnership as cattle growers with the BLM has taken on many faces, we have had to be at different times, the one who takes from the land, and other times, the one who gives back. Through the years relationships between cattle growers and BLM have been stable and built on integrity. So why should the designation of a national monument change what has taken years to build? It shouldn’t. The Rio Grande del Norte is a good example of how the interests of many users of public land can continue and, in fact, become more secure.

There are those who say protection of public land means that the current uses have to be sacrificed in order to make way for new uses. If the interests of traditional users of the land like cattle growers, hunters, fishermen, fuel wood and herb gatherers are made part of the proclamation of the new monument, the way I see it is that my rights as a cattle grower have just been strengthened. If the land is protected in perpetuity, then so are our rights as traditional users.