CABPRO Report

A Fifth Amendment Property Rights court decision: Hage v. United States

By CABPRO Staff

A special thank you goes out to Herman Bansemer for bringing to CABPRO’s attention the June 6, 2008 final decision of Judge Loren Smith of the US Court of Federal Claims in Hage v. United States.

As a result of Wayne and Jean Hage’s property rights fight, which began in 1991, the property rights western ranchers hold on federal grazing allotments have been defined and given Fifth Amendment protection when taken through physical and regulatory actions by the federal government. The precedents set by Judge Smith’s decision extend beyond the west and establish a deterrent to environmental policies that take property from all Americans. 

At long last, landowners have protection from the radical environmental agenda.  For nearly 17 years the Hage’s, owners of the Pine Creek Ranch near Tonopah, Nevada, fought the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management which were being encouraged by several environmental organizations that claimed the Hage’s held no property rights on federal lands. 

The court ruled in favor of the Hage’s thereby securing protection for water rights on federal lands that flow to private property; for range improvements on federal lands; and, for the ditch rights of way.

Hage v. United States is important to American landowners not only because of its role in western land law, but also because it strikes at the heart and core of the environmental movement. More about this interesting story can be found on the Stewards of the Range website.

Again, thank you Herman for the tip and Stewards of the Range for helping Wayne and Jean Hage win their case which thereby helps protect our Fifth Amendment property rights too.

As The Government Regulates To Save Us From Ourselves

On July 1, 2008 it became illegal to use a cell phone while driving unless you were using a hands-free device, however, if you are a California trucker with a Class A or Class B license you are excluded from part of the California hands free cell phone law, while driving a big rig truck using the walkie-talkie feature of Nextel type cell phones, and phones of other vendors who offer a push-to-talk button on the device.  This exemption applies to big rig trucks, tow truck drivers and drivers of some farm vehicles - when driving those vehicles.  So, it’s OK to be driving an 80,000 pound vehicle 55 - 65 mph while multi-tasking with your Nextel type phone but it’s not OK for the average joe to use his?  Police we’ve spoken with say California’s new cell phone law is a low priority enforcement item.  There are already laws against careless driving, so why write new ones which target a legal product and its use?  Certainly there are many activities which cause distractions while driving e.g., eating, drinking coffee/soda, playing CDs, talking with passengers, putting on make up, having Fido in your lap between you and the steering wheel while hanging his head out the driver’s side window.  Does targeting cell phone usage make anyone safer?

On July 29 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted  8-3 to ban the sale of tobacco products in any pharmacy within the city limits.  Drug stores caught selling tobacco products are to be fined up to $1,000.  San Francisco is the first city in the United States to ban the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies/drug stores.

And, also on July 29, the Los Angeles City Council placed a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in South LA for at least for a year.  The LA City Council expects the moratorium to give the city time to attract restaurants that serve healthier food.  The area targeted in South LA is an impoverished neighborhood with a large number of fast food restaurants and above-average rates of obesity.  So, the LA City Council is meddling in what type of businesses they deem to be healthy and diet conscious.  Isn’t it more important what you eat and not where you eat it?  Government intrusion into the free market place has a lousy historical track record.

The right to govern ourselves is the most critical part of freedom. Certainly allowing some government entity to make these decisions is not going to increase our freedoms. The more we expect the government to do for us the more freedom they take from us.

More to follow as the government tries to save us from ourselves.

- End -