cacman wrote:• Does that mean free range cattle can range with absolute impunity? in a nutshell, Yes. This is where the old free-range debate starts. Kevin Coster's movie "Open Range" centers around the free-range battle that continues today.
• It's a road bordering on property where there aren't supposed to be cattle? But there is other wildlife in the area. It's the State's responsibility to ensure the safety of the road. In the CO high-country, fencing runs along the entire I-70 corridor to keep deer, elk, bear, etc. off the road. Special tunnels are offered for wildlife to cross so as not to break or inhibit their migration patterns.
• How far can these free-range cattle wander and have that "if you don't want them in your property you have to put up a fence" law still apply? Not sure if there is an exact distance, but I've seen cattle free-range over dozens of miles. Ranchers usually bring in their cattle once hunting season starts.
• If they wander into Denver proper and get hit by a car is it still the city's fault? There aren't any cattle ranches in the Denver metro area. Nor is there any food for the cattle to free-range on in the Metro areas. Most city areas have livestock restrictions, but some metro areas allow folks to keep chickens. If you hit any animal on the road, whether it be a dog, cat, chicken, or cow, you are responsible for your own driving & vehicle. If you hit a dog that's not supposed to be on the road, I do not believe you can sue the dog owner. If you hit a person on the road, I don't believe you can sue that person.
BLM land is free for the People to use, with some restrictions of course. But taxing one man for his free-range use while allowing others to use the land for biking, hiking, camping, hunting, ATV & motorcycle riding, etc, etc. with no tax is not fair. If the land is truly free to the People, no one should be taxed for how they use it. Or everyone should be taxed the same. Some folks believe free-range cattle helps reduce the chance of brush fires.
I appreciate the answer cacman. Sorry I couldn't get to responding till now.
I understand that it's the state's responsibility to maintain the safety of the road, but that obviously has some limits of reason. My question is simply, if there are no large animals which are supposed to be nearby and could, within reason, be expected to wander over the road, why would the state need to maintain fencing? (Now, don't get me wrong, I have no idea whether there are other cattle ranchers nearby or other herds... if there are, then the entire question is moot, as the state should be keeping the fence to protect from those).
My question about ranges etc is more to find boundaries. It clearly isn't acceptable for a rancher to allow his herd to meander 200mi and walk into the city of Denver, my point is that there is some limit somewhere to what these free range cattle can do. I mean, if they wander into some suburb and start grazing on lawns there has to be some restriction.
Anyway, BLM land is free for the people to use? That's kind of cool. But you do understand there is a signficant difference between for-profit use and recreational use, right? I mean, that's part of the point of taxation, to reduce the chance of over-use. Look into the classic economics concept of "The tragedy of the commons", it's almost the same issue. This rancher is using the land to raise cattle, which he then sells at a profit. From a factory perspective, it's as if he didn't have to purchase his own manufacturing equipment, just used some equipment the state owned. This reduces his capital expenses. Great. But if he can do it, shouldn't every other rancher be allowed to do it? Hell, shouldn't I be allowed to buy a cow and stick it on that land? I could be a rancher without actually having to buy or rent any land. Now, I know it's more complicated than that. but my point is that a tax on for-profit use of public property is completely rational, as it ensures that the land isn't over-used by hundreds of other ranchers all looking to reduce their necessary capital investment and use public space to supplement their private industry.
Now, I don't know the details. I do think Bundy shouldn't be taxed any more or any less than any other for-profit ranchers using public land. But I don't know if we've found any difference there
