UNTIL THE COWS COME HOME

TRAFFIC STOPPED FOR A SAND HILLS CATTLE DRIVE

MYRON LEAVING CAMP FOR HOME

ANDY, JOAN, JUDY AND BUDDY

Saturday,  9:00 AM.  33 degrees F, wind E, light.  The sky is overcast and it was raining enough for me to put on my rain jacket when Buddy and I went out walking,  but it has since stopped.  The humidity is 82% and the barometer is down somewhat, now at 30.27"
   I got the missing cord for the new camera yesterday, so can post a couple of photos taken at the Larsen camp on Thursday night. They are packing up and leaving today, the first time ever, I believe, without any maple syrup.
   For all the news coverage of the Nevada armed standoff between rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management, and all the analysis by pundits and TV lawyers and judgers, I don't think most Americans understand the underlying philosophical and legal concepts involved in the dispute. I am for sure not a lawyer, but am something of a student of history, so here, for what it is worth, is my perspective.
   The concept of the "open range" is not only a part of American history, it has its roots in European and even ancient history.  And I suspect it is a concept that has its counterparts in most if not all cultures that were supported by the grazing  of animals.  Long before the concept of ownership of land arose, nomadic herders roamed at will with their cattle and sheep across the prairies and steppes, much as the earlier hunters and gatherers did.
   The land was not owned by anyone, nor by any government entity.  It existed as a common resource for all with the strength to keep their cattle safe from predation.  The watering places were used by all, and all were able to move their animals to better forage and to markets.
   In early American history, every town and village had a central "commons," most of which still exist in the East to this day. The grassy commons provided a place for town  residents to graze their family milk cow.  In England and throughout Western Europe common fields, woodlots and rural pathways between communities still exist, free for all to use "in common" with such rules as are needed traditionally decided at the local level by the people who use them.
  The concept of an "open range" is nothing more than a latter day iteration of land held "in common,"  for free use by all.  Until the invention of barbed wire, even private property was crossed  to move  herds over long traditional trails to market.  Range wars erupted when fences were erected that denied such common use of land and water resources for herded cattle.
   In the western states of the United States, vast tracts (about 50%) of the land is supposedly "owned" by the federal government; but by what right has it been removed form the ancient concept and actual precedent of usufruct (the English common law concept of the rights to the use of  land not actually owned)? If I allow my  neighbor to use my land for a driveway or even to build upon without a fee for a certain length of time he can claim ownership by adverse possession, what we call "squatter's rights" in the vernacular.  This is an ancient concept in common law.  Why does it not apply in this case?  In Northern Wisconsin and neighboring states, Indian tribes may fish, hunt and gather on state, federal and even private property, as right of usufruct gained through treaty with the United States government.  Shouldn't western ranchers have some such rudimentary rights?
   The ranchers of the west used common land without paying a fee for a century or more; what has happened to their common law right of use?  And how can the government charge a fee for use of what was formerly used in common for generations? And,  if any entity other that the users has the right of actual ownership of the vacant land, shouldn't it be the states that were created from it?  The government of the United States only "owns" the land through conquest, and even at that has ceded back vast tracts of land to the Indians from which it was taken by force.  Why shouldn't vast tracts of unused land be, in like manner, ceded now to the states and to the ranchers who have used it and made it productive for generations?  And the supposedly endangered tortoise is only a ploy by the federal government to maintain control of the land, as proven by the fact that during the recent altercation federal forces ran all over the contested area, destroying tortoise nests and habitat.
   Rancher Bundy has been fighting in the courts for years to regain free common use of the land his ancestors used in like manner.   I think he has every right, in logic and precedent, to do so.  Eventually this matter will have to be resolved peacefully and equitably through the justice system.  I contend his case needs to be re-litigated, and argued within the context of the ancient rights of herdsmen under common law.
   Argued until the cows come home.