Hage decision clarified

There has been much speculation and misunderstanding surrounding the Hage decision since it was issued and published by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, January 2002. Wayne Hage of Tonopah, Nevada filed his suit for a temporary takings in 1991 after the U.S. Forest Service confiscated his cattle in a paramilitary action, sold his cattle and kept the proceeds from the sale. The temporary taking affords Hage the ability to keep the ranch, but also to be paid for the period of time (11 years) the United States prevented him from making a living on his ranch.

The January, 2002 Final Decision and Finding of Fact was the third major decision published just in the property phase of the case. The dispute was, in part, over who actually owned the property rights within the allotments, (those lands the government called "public lands"). The Court first decided what property rights existed on the allotments and who owned them, before it would decide whether the government had temporarily taken the Hage's ranch operations, and what compensation was due him.

Recent published articles have indicated the only property rights awarded Hage in this ruling were vested water rights and forage, confined to within 50 feet on each side of his 1866 irrigation ditches.

To end this controversy and confusion among the Hage supporters, I offer this challenge: I'm willing to pay anyone $1,000.00 if they can show me where Judge Smith ruled that Hage's forage rights were confined to 50 feet on each side of his irrigation ditches. In addition, and with all due respect and affection, I'm willing to go anywhere and appear in any setting, to openly discuss and debate these decisions with those who've published conflicting opinions. If one should doubt my offer, those who know me, know I keep my promises. This is a promise.

The fact is that the 1866 ditches on the Hage ranch comprise only .001 percent of the water sources of the ranch. If the interpretation that Hage was awarded the minuscule amount of forage were correct, Hage would have, long ago, folded his tent and left Pine Creek Ranch to the government. Instead, the reality is that, based on the proper interpretation of the ruling, Hage's cattle are now grazing on the allotments, previously forbidden by the U.S. Government, without a grazing permit.

How could this happen in this climate of strict regulatory controls?....