I used to think grazing leases on adjacent BLM ground were a bonus when evaluating rural parcels. Access to federal forage, lower carrying costs, more flexibility — sounded straightforward. Then I watched a friend lose his entire first year of operation because he didn't dig into the active lease history before closing. The allotment had been overgrazed for a decade, the range condition was formally flagged by the BLM state office, and the agency was already moving toward a stocking reduction. None of that showed up in the property listing. None of it came up with the seller's agent. It was all sitting in public grazing permit files that nobody thought to request.
Now I treat BLM grazing records the same way I treat water rights filings — mandatory research, not optional. The range condition and any pending permit modifications can swing the actual carrying capacity of a piece dramatically from what's advertised.
Has anyone else found that adjacent federal allotment status changed their offer price or killed a deal entirely?