Grazing Leases OK’d for Not Grazing

Grazing Leases OK’d for Not Grazing

In a four to one decision, the Arizona Supreme Court said the State Land Department was wrong to deny grazing leases to conservation organizations that declared their intention to not graze. "Not grazing" is a valid use of a grazing lease, according to the decision, and this should drive a stake through the heart of the Land Department's cockeyed contention that "not grazing" is commercial use.

During the court case, one justice said he could not see why getting two to five times the money, over the rancher's bid, from a conservation organization willing to rest the land, even had to be evaluated at all. "I just did," the justice said, "and it's a great deal."
This thinking apparently continued right up to the final decision. So, it appears, competitive bidding should determine who gets the lease and "resting" the land is a valid use. This could be the first step in restoring famous hunting grounds, like the one north of Oracle that Jon Tate and the Western Gamebird Alliance were trying to spare from heavy overgrazing, if sporting organizations are willing to put their money where their mouths are. It may have been easier to win this right to restore habitat, than it will be to get other sporting organizations to use it. It will take guts, commitment, and money. We'll see who joins the WGA in this important effort.
Some ranchers and misinformed hunters have argued against allowing conservation organizations to obtain grazing leases, trying to spread fear among hunters by claiming groups like the Forest Guardians will not allow hunting. This is simply nonsense. Your hunting license is still your permit to hunt State Trust Land, no matter who or what group holds the grazing lease. Make no mistake, do not be fooled--it's the law.

Dave Lukens
WGA (Western Gamebird Alliance)