The Battle for the American West, Wayne Hage ｜ Rancher Persecution： Bureaucratic Tyranny on the West

The Beginning of the Dispute (1978-1990)

In 1978, Wayne and Jean Hage purchased the 7,000-acre Pine Creek Ranch for about $2 million. This acquisition came with a crucial detail: the ranch was next to the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and included approximately 752,000 acres of grazing allotments on public lands, along with water rights that predated federal ownership.

The first conflict arose in 1979 when the Forest Service released non-native elk onto the Hages' allotments. These elk competed with the Hages' cattle for vital resources like grass and water and damaged fences, setting the stage for future disagreements.

Throughout the 1980s, the relationship between the Hages and the Forest Service worsened. The agency repeatedly asked the Hages to move their cattle from overgrazed areas and repair fences, documented by 40 letters and 70 visits to the ranch. Federal authorities also prosecuted Wayne Hage for removing trees along a ditch right-of-way on public land, further escalating tensions.

Escalation and Lawsuits (1991-2006)

The conflict reached a critical point in 1991 when the Forest Service canceled some of the Hages' grazing permits and impounded over 100 of their cows, which were then auctioned off. In response, the Hages filed a lawsuit seeking $28 million in compensation, alleging a federal "taking" of their property. They argued that government actions prevented them from using their water and forage rights, destroyed the economic value of their ranch, and negated the value of improvements they had made, such as corrals, spring boxes, and fences.

By 1994, more of Hage's grazing permits were canceled. That same year, Wayne Hage published Storm over Rangelands: Private Rights in Federal Lands, a book critical of government management of public grazing lands. The book resonated with other ranchers who had lost permits, inspiring three more lawsuits, all of which ultimately failed. Wayne Hage passed away from cancer in 2006 at 69; his wife, Jean, had died a decade earlier in 1996.

Legal Battles and Shifting Rulings (2002-2012)

A significant legal development occurred in 2002 when Judge Loren Smith of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, appointed by President Reagan, ruled on the Hages' "taking" case. While rejecting the Hages' claim of surface estate ownership on their grazing allotments, Judge Smith sided with them on a crucial point: he ruled that the Hages owned private-property rights to water and forage and did not require a grazing permit to exercise those rights.

After two trials and several hearings, Judge Smith ruled in 2008 that the federal government owed the Hage estate $4.2 million, plus attorneys' fees and interest, for taking their property rights. The government promptly appealed the decision. In 2010, Judge Smith increased the award by an additional $152,000 to compensate for ditches and pipelines. Ladd Bedford, a San Francisco lawyer representing the Hages, told the Associated Press, "It sends a pretty important message to the government that if you screw with a small ranching family and put them out of business, you have to pay big bucks." The government, however, appealed once more.

The legal tide turned dramatically on July 26, 2012, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the award. The court ruled that the Hages failed to prove ownership of range improvements and that their water rights had not been taken. Despite the family's vow to seek a rehearing, experts suggested there was little basis for such a move. John Echevarria, a Vermont Law School professor who represented environmental groups in the case, stated, "When this case started it had enormously expansive claims that fundamentally threatened the concept of public ownership of public lands... Its final resolution vindicates that public lands should be managed for the benefit of the public as a whole." This effectively ended the Hages' "taking" claim.

A Separate but Related Legal Battle (2007-2016)

Just over a month after the "taking" case was overturned, on August 31, 2012, a related court battle involving Wayne N. Hage (the son) saw a different outcome at the district court level. This separate case, United States v. Estate of E. Wayne Hage; Wayne N. Hage, began in 2007 when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service sued the Hage estate and Wayne N. Hage, alleging they ran cattle without a permit. Federal Judge Robert C. Jones in Reno initially ruled against the federal government, citing a BLM manager and a Forest Service ranger for contempt of court for improperly carrying out enforcement actions against the Hages while the court battle was ongoing, and even threatened to order them to pay damages.

However, the appellate court quickly reversed this district court decision. The appellate panel in United States v. Estate of E. Wayne Hage; Wayne N. Hage found that the Hages had indeed violated federal and Nevada state laws by grazing cattle on U.S. lands between 2004 and 2008 without authorization. The panel also concluded that the district court was wrong to believe the Hages had an "easement of necessity" to access water sources due to their water rights, and their counterclaim was invalid because it was filed after the statute of limitations had expired. The appellate panel further reversed the contempt findings against the government officials, determining that the district judge was biased against government agencies. As a result, the appellate court remanded the case with instructions for the district court to enter judgment for the government on the Hages' counterclaims and to reconsider the government's trespass claims under the correct legal standard. The case was also reassigned to a different district judge.

The long-running legal battle of Wayne Hage, Jr. finally concluded in 2016 before Judge Gloria Navarro, who also presided over the more well-known 2014 standoff between federal agents and rancher Cliven Bundy. While the initial contempt findings against federal officials were overturned, the appellate court had largely affirmed the government's position that the Hages were grazing without authorization. The ultimate outcome of the remanded trespass claims under Judge Navarro resulted in a judgment in favor of the government, confirming the Hages' unauthorized grazing and putting an end to this chapter of the family's legal struggles over land rights.

☆ Have a listen as Wayne Hage Jr. tells us the true story of "How the West Was Run", by Government Overreach and Jack-Booted Thugs at the “We the People” Call to Unity event in Idaho on October 6th, 2018.

Bureaucratic Tyranny and Rancher Persecution: The Battle for the American West

https://reallibertymedia.xyz/w/nfQmCWpn3izgDrg41BkqvM

☆