• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

R-CALF helps on water rights case

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Assistance Given to LU Ranch, Joyce Livestock

in Effort to Take Water Rights Battle to Supreme Court

Billings, Mont. – On the recommendation of the R-CALF USA Private Property Rights Committee, the group’s board of directors has decided to contribute $1,000 to the legal expenses of the LU Ranch and Joyce Livestock in their long-term fight with the federal government for the water rights on land covered by federally administered grazing allotments.

After years of wrangling in the court system, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the ranchers owned the water rights on the federal land, but unfortunately, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the ranchers were not entitled to recover their attorney fees.

Oklahoma attorney and R-CALF USA member Harlan Hentges said that through the years, U.S. governmental officials have claimed that the federal government owns the water rights on land covered by federally administered grazing allotments. Not so, he said.

“The water rights belong to the ranchers who have put the water to beneficial use and have owned these water rights for decades,” he said. “Through the years, overzealous governmental officials have abused their power and ignored ranchers' private property rights on the water.

“The United States sued LU Ranching and Joyce Livestock and challenged these ranchers’ historic water rights for their ranching operations, which are located on federally administered grazing allotments,” Hentges explained. “The ranchers had two choices: 1) give up their water rights to the United States, and therefore the viability of their ranches; or, 2) defend their historic family water rights against the United States, even though the cost of doing so would exceed the value of their ranches. These ranchers defended their water rights and prevailed.”

“This was a great victory for these ranchers and other ranchers who are the target of the United States’ government because the Idaho Supreme Court rejected each and every legal theory raised by the United States,” said R-CALF USA Private Property Rights Committee Chair Kimmi Lewis.

“This abuse of power has been stopped, thanks to great sacrifice by two courageous ranching families who own LU Ranching Co. and Joyce Livestock Co., but the fight is not over,” she continued. “The ranch families are now trying to recover the cost of defending themselves.”

The ranchers’ claims for attorney fees are based on the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2000) (EAJA), which states:

“Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.”

“Based on this statute, Joyce Livestock and LU Ranching have appealed the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision that they’re not entitled to recover their attorney fees to the Supreme Court of the United States,” Lewis explained. “A Supreme Court decision in favor of Joyce and LU would be a great benefit to other ranchers and any other person trying to protect their rights against the U.S. government.

“I read about these ranchers many years ago and thought about the determination and grit the families must have had,” she said. “We must help our neighbors and be good neighbors, and we want to encourage landowners everywhere to find out what their property rights are and use them. That’s how you keep them.

“If these ranchers win the right at the Supreme Court to recoup their legal fees, that victory will send a strong signal to property owners everywhere that they can stand up for what is rightfully theirs without the risk of losing their ranches or farms in the process,” Lewis concluded.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Wow!!! Keep it up R-Calf and I just might have to take back some of the nasty things I have been saying about you!!!
Seriously......use some of those funds, you are so adept at raising, to actually do some good for the cattle industry, instead of all the LOSER legal actions that have been brought forward.
BTW, I have a $hitload of hay for sale this year. Instead of a 35% surcharge for R-Calf members, I'm going to drop it to 33 1/3%.
That's just the kind of guy I am. You're Welcome!!!!!

:D :D :D :D :wink:
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Cattle Editorial: Response To R-CALF’s Open Letter To Industry

In response to some R-CALF director letters of last week, they assert that the “livestock industry should be informed as to the nature of the lawsuits” filed against former founders, directors, and members. Well, shouldn’t that have been done months ago? R-CALF has always been a member-driven organization. Did the R-CALF board ask membership if they wanted their dollars used on these ridiculous suits? Was a vote by membership taken? Is there policy in place for these actions? The answer on all counts, of course, is “no”.

According to R-CALF’s non-profit filing application, the organization was formed to work on “trade issues”. That is what R-CALF members believe they are paying dues for. I have no problem with any R-CALF member who believes, after being told the true facts, these suits should have been filed and tens of thousands of dollars spent. However, I do have a problem with R-CALF members not being notified by the board when their money is essentially being flushed down the toilet, or when facts are “spinned”. Not only was membership denied the opportunity to vote on whether these suits should be filed, but from what I have been able to ascertain, there was never any notification to members either through the newspapers, through the R-CALF website, or through newsletters advising membership of these suits. On other occasions when R-CALF files a suit they proudly announce it – why not this time?

The first lawsuit was regarding ownership of the Cattlemen’s Journal and it was settled last week with the owner of the Cattlemen’s Journal assigning his rights to R-CALF. The only reason this suit was settled is because it was against a young family with two small kids; their legal bill was in the $6,000 range and they just couldn’t afford, financially or emotionally, to continue to fight this suit, even though they believed they would have won in the end. Keep in mind R-CALF didn’t even try to negotiate prior to the filing of this suit. With an open pocketbook to work with, I guess filing expensive lawsuits is a first step rather than a last resort for the current R-CALF leadership.

The second lawsuit wrongfully accuses three former directors of using the R-CALF mailing list to solicit membership in the newly formed United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA), which was organized on April 1, 2007, by all those who left R-CALF after the blow-up in February and wanted to continue the hard work they had been doing for years on behalf of cattle producers. R-CALF membership lists were never used, nor would any of the accused directors even consider doing such a thing. It is a paranoiac insult to their integrity. Besides, don’t cattle producers have an inalienable right to join either or even both groups?

This suit also accuses these directors of releasing the Larsen Report, a report prepared to help fix personnel problems occurring in the R-CALF office. Several others had the report but were not named in the suit. Why not? By the way, that report cost around $8,000 and was paid for with producer dollars. Since this is a non-profit membership organization, isn’t it every member’s right to view a document that was paid for with membership money and provides information that has a direct affect on the daily operations of the organization? The judge in this case said as much at the last hearing.

With regard to Ms. Eiguren’s comments about the swifthorses.com website, all documents posted on that site were accurate. The only purpose of the site was to inform members of what happened to the organization in February and to explain why so many original founders, committee chairs, and members left R-CALF to start another organization. If they had stayed, they felt their integrity and all they had worked for would be compromised. These were the folks who originally formed R-CALF and were its backbone. They have never had any desire to destroy R-CALF as Mr. Smith asserts. They just morally could not continue to support the organization in the direction it was headed. If R-CALF does not survive, it will solely be because of the actions of those currently on the board and the bad decisions they are making.

This is a public membership organization, which now seems to be run like a private corporation. There should be no “secrets” or ”confidential” documents – where is the transparency? Why is this board keeping information from its membership? When a member walks into the office and asks for a financial report, why is that being denied? Why are documents screened before being given to a member? This is no way to maintain and operate a non-profit outfit. This board works for the membership and unless they want to lose their non-profit status, they better start being more forthcoming and truthful with their members. The “spin” on why they filed these latest lawsuits against fellow cattle producers is disgraceful and laughable!

I stand by my assertion that these suits are frivolous, particularly in view of the enormous amount of time and money being spent on them, the “secrecy” in which they were filed, and the lack of any benefit to the producer’s bottom line when all is said and done. Even the judge in this case said at the last hearing it was a total waste of money!


Sharon McDonald

Melville, Montana
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
TimH said:
Wow!!! Keep it up R-Calf and I just might have to take back some of the nasty things I have been saying about you!!!
Seriously......use some of those funds, you are so adept at raising, to actually do some good for the cattle industry, instead of all the LOSER legal actions that have been brought forward.
BTW, I have a $hitload of hay for sale this year. Instead of a 35% surcharge for R-Calf members, I'm going to drop it to 33 1/3%.
That's just the kind of guy I am. You're Welcome!!!!!

:D :D :D :D :wink:

You better be careful boy,that surcharge stuff works both ways you know,them R CALFERS find out you are trying to deprive them of an opportunity to identify their product,might not want your hay :???:
good luck
 

mrj

Well-known member
Haymaker, YOU better be careful, boy!

Those R-CALFERS do NOT want THEIR cattle identified.....only USA cattle all lumped together, the worst in quality equal to the best, which is ALL that law can/will do!

mrj
 

cedardell

Well-known member
Not to worry. All the cattle in the lower 48 have already been lumped together and sell accordingly. There are really only two grades and packers do their own so what to hell.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
mrj said:
Haymaker, YOU better be careful, boy!

Those R-CALFERS do NOT want THEIR cattle identified.....only USA cattle all lumped together, the worst in quality equal to the best, which is ALL that law can/will do!

mrj

Maxine,how many times has M COOL and NAIS been explained to you ????????
COOL is a marketing issue. Animal identification is an animal health issue. The national animal identification system is a program still in its infancy and the controversy surrounding it would only further hinder the implementation of COOL.
This is unacceptable,we need M COOL and we need it now,the NAIS is years away...........good luck
 

mrj

Well-known member
haymaker, how many times must it be explained to YOU?

MCool IS ONLY a marketing tool! There are equal or better VOLUNTARY means available to producers for the purpose of improving marketing of THEIR beef, TODAY!

SOME MCOOL supporters on radio and other media have told consumers that it will provide them the means to get safer beef.

VOLUNTARY Animal ID is required by SOME branded beef programs to verify practices from age verification to vaccinations and BQA programs followed, to products fed to cattle....and more.

The "controversy" over NAIS has been driven by conspiracy minded people and groups who are willing to sacrifice the health and safety of cattle and other animals in the USA because of their ignorance of the real danger to our animals from accidental or intentional spread of deadly cattle diseases AND because rumor and conspiracy theories sustain their hatred of 'big guvmunt', In My Observation.

mrj
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
mrj said:
haymaker, how many times must it be explained to YOU?

MCool IS ONLY a marketing tool! There are equal or better VOLUNTARY means available to producers for the purpose of improving marketing of THEIR beef, TODAY!

SOME MCOOL supporters on radio and other media have told consumers that it will provide them the means to get safer beef.

VOLUNTARY Animal ID is required by SOME branded beef programs to verify practices from age verification to vaccinations and BQA programs followed, to products fed to cattle....and more.

The "controversy" over NAIS has been driven by conspiracy minded people and groups who are willing to sacrifice the health and safety of cattle and other animals in the USA because of their ignorance of the real danger to our animals from accidental or intentional spread of deadly cattle diseases AND because rumor and conspiracy theories sustain their hatred of 'big guvmunt', In My Observation.

mrj

You talk mighty big for a girl that did'nt even know what the bill contained yesterday.
There is no program for the "majority"of producers equal to or better than the M COOL bill......PERIOD.
Good luck

PS you better tell your cohorts on the Beef Board to circle the wagons,because soon the cattle man is going to demand the check off promote beef Bred,Born and Raised in the good ole *USA* :wink:
 
Top