Cattle industry

cjboz

Very Active Member
Messages
2,809
LAST EDITED ON May-23-17 AT 12:53PM (MST)[p]With surprising verbal hatred thrown around about cattle grazing and implied hunters rights I was wondering how many on here dare to say they own cattle or are involved in the industry some way. I guess cattle ranchers shouldn't sell LO tags, or pack peoples elk out of the mountains or to drop camps, or let your daughter, son, niece or nephew shoot their first deer off their alfalfa patch. Maybe you should quit hunting their fencelines?? Maybe when you are out scouting and see a cowboy riding the range checking cattle you shouldn't stop and ask where the big deer are living since there is no way they would know where a big buck or bull would be seen around livestock.
 
I can not stand the hatred they have for ranchers. They are more a friend than a foe any day and the guys who do not realize this are just making more enemies for hunters to battle with. There is a lot of common ground between ranchers and hunters. Predator numbers, land access, water development, noxious weeds, habitat damage from atvs, mining, energy development, wild horse populations, etc.

My degree is in Ag. and even though I do not make my living ranching I tend to support them way more than I hate them. I also support multiple use of public lands.

That being said there are times, especially in CO where we are at odds with each other, but I feel there is a lot more common ground than most realize.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-23-17 AT 01:11PM (MST)[p]From a study called, PUBLIC LANDS RANCHING JOBS AND THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
PUBLIC LANDS RANCHING IN THE WEST
by The Scholarly Forum @ Montana Law

-----------

"Public lands ranching accounts for only three percent of United States
beef production. Only two percent of livestock feed and seven percent
of forage consumed by beef cattle in the contiguous states is supplied by
the federal range."

------------

My problem isn't with that cattle industry itself, its the arrogance that comes with public land grazers that are a subsidized industry yet get on their proverbial 'high horse' saying that if they paid fair market value for public grazing then beef prices would soar. The numbers above prove that is not so, the far majority of beef never touch federal land. If they won't pay fair market value, then find somebody else that will or get the cattle/ sheep off public land.

I have nothing against the cattle or the cattlemen, but the same way I want the average American to have a job and pay taxes like the rest of us, the cattle industry should compete in a fair market without government subsidies.

Grizzly
 
So does a cattlemen who has run in a particular area for years know more or less about the holding capacity of their permit for wildlife and livestock than a range con or biologist??
 
>So does a cattlemen who has
>run in a particular area
>for years know more or
>less about the holding capacity
>of their permit for wildlife
>and livestock than a range
>con or biologist??

Unknowable answer. Time spent doing something does not necessarily make one and expert or a fool. I would suspect in most instances both have something to offer the discussion.
 
I still run a small bunch.
All on private. Gave up my public land permit 20 years ago and got a town job. We hauled 55000 gallons of water to one of the best live water permits in the State. Rode every morning and every evening while on the BLM critical winter range.
Did a good job too. Won the "Partner in Public Spirit award from Department of Interior...I have a journal from 1992 where I was a horseback 300 days that year...That said. I knew I could not physically or financially keep up that quality of labor intince land management. Could not morally do it any other way. So. I don't have a public lands permit. Do I support public land grazing? Kind of.. Can I see sore spot s on every allotment? Yes. I would be working on fixing them. There is no place on Public land for a lazy cow or a lazy cowboy..Load the dogs we got cows to move!
 
I think some ranchers take advantage of the cheap grazing and feel like every blade of grass in an elks mouth is one less for the cattle. Last November, there were literally hundreds of cattle still on the south Monroe forest ground with their ribs all showing. That rancher was clearly taking advantage and needs a swift kick in the nuts. The guys who run cattle on the north Monroe are a classy operation and move them off forest the last week of September, as they should. Where is the common ground between game numbers and cattle grazing? I don't know, but wishing wolves or lead poisoning on someone's herd, as some have suggested on another thread is ludicrous.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-23-17 AT 05:17PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-23-17 AT 05:16?PM (MST)

I cringe every time someone demands that some one else pay "fair market value" for using public land. It is only a matter of time when some animal rights group demands that hunters pay "fair market value" to hunt on public land. I am sure that they would look at the lease payments that Outfitters pay for nearby private land and argue that those lease payments establish a Fair Market value.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-23-17 AT 06:26PM (MST)[p]I worked on a ranch to earn my keep long ago. Love the cattle; love the people. I have no problem with public lands grazing as long as it the numbers are managed responsibly--and this is up to BLM, USFS, etc. Grass is a public resources intended for multiple use, which implies commercial value as well as recreational. The number of cattle and sheep have been greatly reduced over the past several decades--as they needed to be. It is sad for many families, but that does not alter the fact that we cannot risk our public lands simply to subsidize a lifestyle that is unsustainable.

Perhaps public lands ranchers pay too little for grazing, but they do contribute to the land in other respects. For example, many of those guzzlers we find out in the sage would not be there if not for ranchers running cattle on those allotments, and the deer use them too.

While generally supportive of well-regulated grazing, I will complain about the willingness of some ranchers to exclude the public from vast blocks of public lands--all while taking advantage of the grazing these lands provide at public expense (subsidized rates). Any rancher who accepts a public grazing contract should be required, as part of the contract, to provide free access to the public lands behind his fences. Ranchers who expect sole and unchallenged access to the publicly-owned wildlife behind their fences, for themselves or for sale to others in the form of access fees, are slowly driving a wedge between themselves and their natural allies.
 
I have herd of cows that we run on private. I support responsible public land grazing for cattle and sheep, but think their cost per AUM needs to increase some.

I cringe every time I hear a "special interest" want to take another "special interest's" activity. So a herd of sheep messed up a guy's hunt. The critters are still somewhere. Now what if the rifle shots mess up a hiker's solitude? Or a gut pile infringes on someone's experience?

And if we are going to whine about subsidies- let's start with milk and meat, wool, cotton, then move onto grain and fish. Then we can target the Expos for hunters, dentists, comic groups, and rodeos. Might as well include any form of work which receives gov't monies. And yes, hunting and fishing too.

That $40 deer tag-- to harvest a buck worth $xxxx on the open market or $xxx worth of organic meat. We sell blades of grass for $x which should bring $xx. Lots of people receiving "subsidies" which aren't comparable to "market rates". Go hike on a private ranch and they charge you $50, but hike on public land up the canyon and you might have to pay $7 to park. Subsidies are all over the place, if one wants to define them as such.....
 
Remember last year when a hundred cattle ranchers showed up at the central rac meeting demanding all the elk be killed off on Monroe?

They want them all killed on Monroe and we're happy if we get to kill one on Monroe in our lifetime. Yea that's some common ground all right.
 
I believe the price would shoot through the roof if the grazing permits went up. Cattle are a commodity, and just like oil, any little thing they can use to raise the price they do. I don't think they should graze all the grass off if you have elk and bison that need it too, but in areas that don't have those animals, they need to graze it down every year. Our family has property in the mountains near Susanville California. I was a naysayer to the cattle eating all the grass off the place every summer. It made me mad. But it always grew back the same every year. Then a few years the cattle allotment went away and it didn't get grazed off. I thought great, until you could tell a significant decrease in the quality and amount of grass coming in every summer. Changed my mind about the cattle eating it all. It definitely helps to be grazed off every year around here.
 
The tree huggers wolf will get the last laugh. No grazing on public, no hunting on public, soon no recreating on public and nature will balance itself. They may establish some view areas and limited trail day use only. It will all he designated as wildlife restoration and preservation area. Meanwhile they are laughing to their toes watching arguments like this take place.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
My grandfather was a cattle rancher and I have fond memories of spending the summers on his ranch and "up on the mountain" where his cattle grazed in the summers. I really like most of the ranchers that I have come across over the years. Most of them are good people. As a sportsmenm, however, I have also been aggravated when cattle ranchers show up in large numbers at RAC and WB meetings to push for increased anterless tag numbers, lower herd numbers, increased depredation permits, increased crop/fence compensation, etc.

At the end of the day, I recognize that as sportsmen we have more in common with ranchers than that which divides us. I believe in multiple use, doing things in moderation, cooperation and respecting the views of others. You will always have a few crazy, loud mouths on boths sides of the isle but sportsmen and ranchers need to stand together against the threats and forces that threaten both of our ways of life.

-Hawkeye-
 
This is my gripe and I took heat for this from people on both sides. One day I asked on social media where I could get information on grazing permits for public land to try to structure an OTC elk hunt strategy to try to neck down where the elk would be vs where the sheep would be. And holy crap what a touchy subject that was I wanted to know what plots they would be grazing and what would be in the area. I had people jumping down my throat for asking that question. Which to me is complete BS all I did was ask a ? pertaining to ranching and it was like I had no right to know how many sheep they had and shouldn't even be up there. I on the other hand have met some good ranchers as well. As for the showing up in mass amounts to a WB meeting to act like children and being loudmouths that's what liberals do in this country. I do not want to see ranching or hunting disapear but we have to find common ground and fight the real problem of public land disapearing to the highest bidder for political interests.
 
Cattle will always be a part of me, Even 30 years after not owning a single head now, The effort that it takes to run cows on BLM and NF permits now days is huge. In bad weather years I know guys that paid the fee and never put a head of cows on the permit land. There are good ranchers And bad ones, Just like hunters some are SOB's other are salt of the earth type guys.
Fire control is a good thing.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
First I do indeed to own cattle, and I think there is a place for them to graze on public lands.

That said it is not the cattlemen that set the rules/costs for grazing. Yes, they may have influence, but they are another area of the public that has grown used to government hand outs, and that is what cheap grazing is on public lands.

So charge fair market value for grazing rights. Change it slowing over years if you have to. And someone needs to be sure that overgrazing doesn't occur, as it does in some areas.

If a cattleman can't make it financially with his own land and fair market grazing, then he needs to move on, even if "it has been that way for 50 years".

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
LAST EDITED ON May-24-17 AT 11:35PM (MST)[p]Txhunter58

You must understand that fair market value for public grazing is no where near the price of the average private lease. This is why
It starts with the Homestead act of the 1860's. For those of you that are unfamiliar with the Homestead act I will give a quick explanation. Prior to its passing it was relatively difficult for people with little money to get land. Nearly all the land west of the Mississippi was "owned" by the federal government. With the passing of the homestead act land now became available to even the poor. There was some stipulations but most people could stake a claim on 160 acres of land and once the homesteader proved up on the claim the government deeded them the land. From the 1860's up in until the 1930's thousands upon thousands of people used the homestead act to get some of the government land. Of course the the homesteaders claimed to the best land first. This is why the there is very little public land in the fertile plains of states like Nebraska, Kansas and North and South Dakota. It is also in states with a lot of public land most of the productive river and creek bottom land is private. The land that the homesteaders would not claim or could not prove up on remained public and is now BLM land.

In theory the best piece of BLM is worth less than the worst piece of private in a given area. If The BLM was worth more the last homesteader would have claimed the BLM instead of the private he or she claimed.

A good analogy is the NFL draft. Think of the players drafted as the private land. The players that are undrafted would be the public land. Asking a rancher to pay fair market value for government grazing lease would be like asking an NFL club to make a team entirely of undrafted free agents and pay third round price to all the players.

My family grazes cattle on both private and federal land. One group of cattle spends the summer almost entirely on private the other spends the summer on a federal lease. I often wonder if the federal lease is worth the current grazing fee.
Weening weights are always 25 to even 50 pounds less on dry years for the cattle on the federal lease. We have about 5% more open cows on the Federal lease even though we turn out an extra bull per hundred head of cows. There are lots of other hidden costs associated with a government lease. No rancher should look at a rancher grazing public land with envy. I once figured I could pay 15 dollars an AUM for our private and still make more money that I could from the federal lease and that was when steers were bringing a dollar a pound. I would bet at today's prices that figure would be north of 30 dollars an AUM.
 
Fair market value doesn't have to be in comparison to private property, especially since no private is identical to another piece of private and ditto for public.

Have an auction every 5 years for the next 5 year lease and highest dollar wins. No preferential treatment for legacy ranchers, just free market bids. And if an enviro group wins the bid with no intent to graze, that's free market protest and would be allowed as well. We all know Congress and the Supreme Court considers money akin to speech, so the enviros can protest by buying grazing allotments if they choose.

The Bundy clan would quickly by banned from bidding since they have outstanding balances.

Seems to ensure public gets top dollar, the most extreme welfare ranchers get weeded out, and nobody overpays for poor land since they can bid up to their desired amount.

Grizzly
 
>LAST EDITED ON May-23-17
>AT 01:11?PM (MST)

>
>From a study called, PUBLIC
>LANDS RANCHING JOBS AND THE
>ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
>PUBLIC LANDS RANCHING IN THE WEST

>by The Scholarly Forum @
>Montana Law
>
>-----------
>
>"Public lands ranching accounts for only
>three percent of United States
>
>beef production. Only two percent of
>livestock feed and seven percent
>
>of forage consumed by beef cattle
>in the contiguous states is
>supplied by
>the federal range."
>
>------------
>
>My problem isn't with that cattle
>industry itself, its the arrogance
>that comes with public land
>grazers that are a subsidized
>industry yet get on their
>proverbial 'high horse' saying that
>if they paid fair market
>value for public grazing then
>beef prices would soar. The
>numbers above prove that is
>not so, the far majority
>of beef never touch federal
>land. If they won't
>pay fair market value, then
>find somebody else that will
>or get the cattle/ sheep
>off public land.
>
>I have nothing against the cattle
>or the cattlemen, but the
>same way I want the
>average American to have a
>job and pay taxes like
>the rest of us, the
>cattle industry should compete in
>a fair market without government
>subsidies.
>
>Grizzly


See that number thrown around alot from the wild horse lovers, the problem with that static is that it comes from Albertsons. Now the question is, how many ranchers sell directly to them? Not many, most the beef sold in the US all goes to feedlots before going to stores or packing plants.
 
>See that number thrown around alot
>from the wild horse lovers,
>the problem with that static
>is that it comes from
>Albertsons. Now the question is,
>how many ranchers sell directly
>to them? Not many, most
>the beef sold in the
>US all goes to feedlots
>before going to stores
>or packing plants.

Here is a link to the article with sourced references. I can't find anything about Albertsons or wild horse lovers. Can you please provide your source? Thx.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggsMAY&usg=AFQjCNG3-Wvi0spsuHsDeP0_BzR8BSxNIQ

Grizzly
 
>My family grazes cattle on both
>private and federal land. One
>group of cattle spends the
>summer almost entirely on private
>the other spends the summer
>on a federal lease. I
>often wonder if the federal
>lease is worth the current
>grazing fee.
>Weening weights are always 25
>to even 50 pounds less
>on dry years for the
>cattle on the federal lease.
>We have about 5% more
>open cows on the Federal
>lease even though we turn
>out an extra bull per
>hundred head of cows. There
>are lots of other hidden
>costs associated with a government
>lease. No rancher
>should look at a rancher
>grazing public land with envy.
>I once figured I could
>pay 15 dollars an AUM
>for our private and still
>make more money that I
>could from the federal lease
>and that was when steers
>were bringing a dollar a
>pound. I would bet at
>today's prices that figure would
>be north of 30 dollars
>an AUM.
>


Well then don't graze your cows on federal land and stop showing up WB and RAC meetings demanding all the elk be killed off. A win win.
 
Grizz-

Taking you public auction step one step further, what if SITLA were to auction off the hunting rights to all SITLA lands? They are not far from that approach right now. Would the DWR (on behalf of public sportsmen) be able to compete with the bids from guides and outfitters looking to create CWMU's and highly valued landowner tags? What if heavily funded enviro and animal rights groups decided to bid in an effort to create non-hunting preserves throughout the state? Average sportsmen could find themselves on the outside looking in very quickly.

-Hawkeye-
 
I support Multiple Use. Two very telling words, Multiple and Use.

"Many" different users and "used" by many.

When anyone attempts to prevent the many or present use, My hair's on fire. Be it cattlemen, hunters, miners, timber men, back packers, or oil men.

Re-read Packout"s post: Equity creates harmony but equity is a moving target that requires wise managers to "divide the child".

When I see livestockmen over reaching, I oppose them, when I see sportsmen over reaching, I oppose them, when I see government over reaching I oppose them. Seems I'm always opposing someone. ??
 
grizzly,

I like aspects of your idea. I would offer a few changes. 5 year leases are too short. After all they are trying to run a business and planning your herd based on 5 year potential seems like it might be asking too much. I don't know much about ranching but seems like they would be making an extremely risky investment with the potential to loose their lease in 5 years. Maybe a 10 year lease with a price re-opener after 5 years? Something more long term to spread the investment over. Short term leases would also be more beneficial to the larger ranching operations vs. the smaller rancher. Not sure we want to encourage more industrial farming and ranching over smaller operations.

I also do not support the ability to not graze the land. I think there needs to be a production requirement. If the public doesn't want public land grazing then don't offer the lease but I don't like the idea of inviting more money into stopping what can be a reasonable use of public lands.
 
DWR is already paying $800,000/yr for us to hunt on SITLA land, so we're part way there.

The obvious difference with a CWMU designation would be tag allocation, not so much one of access.

The way to stop SITLA making a CWMU isn't at the 'access' threshold, but the tag allocation threshold. DWR just needs to write a CWMU requirement that SITLA can't meet, such as "wholly privately deeded property" or "land not controlled or managed by a state entity".

As it is, anybody can bid on sole access to a piece of SITLA land right now... the difference would be if there were designated tags that came with that property. That's where the problem sits, imo.

Grizzly
 
cjboz,

Where are these cattle ranchers you speak of that would allow my kids to hunt their alfalfa, pack out our deer, help with a drop off camp, and tell us where the big deer are? At best they grumble if we hunt near their property. With the amount of complaining they do about elk, I'm surprised they sell land owner tags instead of just giving them away.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-25-17 AT 03:17PM (MST)[p]Puff, I am a member of a RAC. I have never argued that elk should be removed form public. I have however argued that BLM should make changes that keep elk on public. I am supportive of many sportsman's positions. Like what a bad deal PLT is or for better balance with travel management.

Johny, I have done all those things you ask about many times. I enjoy meeting true sportsman in the field. Slobs not so much.
 
Seems as though, if the public is willing, and we are, to invite you folks to feed your live stock on public lands, you private land owners/grrazers would be inviting the public's elk to feed on your private lands in the fall/winter.

That's what's partnerships do. That's what you rGrand Dad's did. We worked well together in those days.

We each give a little, and see how quick attitudes change.

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON May-25-17 AT 08:56PM (MST)[p]>Fair market value doesn't have to
>be in comparison to private
>property, especially since no private
>is identical to another piece
>of private and ditto for
>public.
>
>Have an auction every 5 years
>for the next 5 year
>lease and highest dollar wins.
>No preferential treatment for legacy
>ranchers, just free market bids.
>And if an enviro group
>wins the bid with no
>intent to graze, that's free
>market protest and would be
>allowed as well. We all
>know Congress and the Supreme
>Court considers money akin to
>speech, so the enviros can
>protest by buying grazing allotments
>if they choose.
>
>The Bundy clan would quickly by
>banned from bidding since they
>have outstanding balances.
>
>Seems to ensure public gets top
>dollar, the most extreme welfare
>ranchers get weeded out, and
>nobody overpays for poor land
>since they can bid up
>to their desired amount.
>
>Grizzly

I can certainly agree that a competitive auction would be the best way to set fair market price. However an auction may not work like you think.
There are lots of leases that there would be only a one bidder.
My family has leases on five separate tracts of BLM. The cattle that graze the BLM are almost totally dependent on water on our private.No other cattle owner would bid against me and I could pick up those leases of less than I pay now. Lack of water, fencing and access would eliminate competition from many leases.
There certainly would be many leases were the bid would be competitive. Some of those leases would bring a lot of money. My bet is that many cattle men would pay too much. Now that the ranchers would only be guaranteed the lease for five years many would ride that lease like a rented mule. Having a auction every five or even ten years would give the livestock owners with little concern for the environment and advantage over those that are concerned about the environment. Right now there is incentive to keep the lease in good shape for the next generation. Under an auction system the the incentive would be to get the lease, use it to make as much money as possible over the life of the lease and move on when the lease is done.
The BLM and forest service currently don't have enough law enforcement to police the bad apples there are now. The Government would need to spend a lot more on law enforcement and monitoring in an auction system. It is unlikely that any additional revenue brought in by higher grazing fees would cover the increase in costs for law enforcement and monitoring. It is also likely that the environmental cost of an auction system would be high.

Again I would not want hunting rights on public land auctioned to the highest bidder. Start demanding that grazers pay at auction others will soon start demanding that hunters should also pay a market price determined by auction.
 
I agree to some of it. I hate it that ranchers get to have their cattle in places like the Copper Basin at 9000' ele and lake basins are destroyed.
They can't be happy with all the lower areas and have to ruin alpine lakes to feed their cows.
 
I used to run an allotment but now days I'm only on private. private is much more expensive whether you own it or rent it but it's much easier too. this accounts for some of the insanely low fees on public land.

Perfect harmony with cattlemen and the public will never exist. it's a matter of compromise on both sides and the honesty to admit we all need each other.


Seeing both sides I can assure you the public grazing programs are a rip off to the tax payer, and that's only part of it. not only are the fees a fraction of market value but if conditions exist that make that cheap feed unavailable public money for assistance is given. to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars some years. check it out it's public record. this is why the Malheur fiasco ticked me off so bad the truth about well ranchers are assisted by the feds needs to be known.


On the other hand, the public can help by not being such winey little biatches. cows aren't well trained animals that do as their told. it's like they want to cause problems. as long as the allotment holder is doing his best cut him some slack and get over it. I'll bet cattle do less damage to public lands than ATV's.


I wish more public land ranchers would admit they're not much different than the welfare mother. and I wish more of the public didn't resent the ranchers because they're jealous. too many chips on too many shoulders.




Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
LAST EDITED ON May-30-17 AT 10:25AM (MST)[p]>I'll bet cattle do less
>damage to public lands than
>ATV's.
>

Have you not seen the damage a herd of 100+ cows does to the ground/plants when being driven into new areas to graze? I've never seen an atv do that much damage. Ever. Even when being driven off road, they don't tear up the ground and vegetation that bad

What about all the noxious weeds they have brought into our mountains? Those can create quite abit of destruction to the area as well... and that crap started way before atvs were ever beginning to be a problem.

The bottom line is, every time I've dealt with a cattle rancher on public land, it's been nothing but bad. They do feel like they have more right to be in the area than other groups do who use that same ground. There's no respect for others in the area, yet demand respect from the public. It's a very one sided issue. The louder they cry the more they get their way. The animals living there should have first call on that feed. If there's a surplus that isn't being utilized, then we have room for cattle to come in and take advantage of that. But for a group of cowboys to walk into a RAC or wildlife board meeting and demand that elk, deer and pronghorn numbers are to be reduced, sometimes by crazy amounts, on "their" units, because there isn't enough feed to go around for private livestock, is wrong.
 
So true deerkiller but when the Cowboys attend the RAC's and Wildlife Board they come prepared while the hunters stay home not giving their side of the story and then complain if the Cowboys win. Seems hunters don't care until something is passed against them.
 
For better or worse Rancher/Farmer are united under the Farm Bureau or the Cattlesmens Association, or the Wool Growers, and numerous other organizations.

Sportsmen demand independence and proudly proclaim they'll never put a nickel into a hunting organization and at the same time shell out millions to conservation organizations that refuse to take a position on big game management regulations, for fear of loosing their fund raising efforts. No one fights against habitat restoration, so those are the only sportsmens orgs that have any public hunters support.

And Tog............... I agree with you 100%.

DC
 
just an observation but some of these "sportsmen" are starting to sound like tree huggers. must be the new generation of "sportsmen" who live in the city and believe that the public land should only be for their use.
 
>just an observation but some of
>these "sportsmen" are starting to
>sound like tree huggers.
>must be the new generation
>of "sportsmen" who live in
>the city and believe that
>the public land should only
>be for their use.

Not much light in that narrow tunnel in which you view the world. You can't even see the hypocrisy in your own writing.

-------

On a related topic, I don't ever want to hear a public land rancher complain about somebody being on welfare until the public land ranchers start paying fair market value for grazing privileges and stop getting subsidies at every turn... then they can have an opinion about people on government assistance. Did anybody else notice that about Cliven's racist rant?

Grizzly
 
I'm just sick of the cows taking up all the space on my trail cam SD cards! :)

Hunt Hard. Shoot Straight. Kill Clean. Apologize to No One.
 
If the sportsman voice was heard and not given lip service the way the RAC has made them feel maybe the sportsman would start going to the RAC (SFW) meetings again.
Oops sorry for getting off topic...
 
Grazing fee increase proposals come up all the time in every administration. an independent study even came to the conclusion a bid based structure would be the best way to establish market value.

But even the Obama administration chose not to pursue it. with this administration who knows, maybe the Kremlin will provide guidance.


I'm against pulling allotments or overregulating to in effect make them useless. but I think fair a market value fee structure is long overdue, but I wouldn't hold my breath.













Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
It think we'd all be pretty hard pressed to demonstrate that everyone of isn't getting some benefit from Federal and/or State substitutes, be it, pubic grazers, Real Estate, road pavers, fat old retire guys like me, school teachers, law enforcement, biologists, independent ranchers and farmers rail road employees, oil field workers, guides and outfitters, engineers, Doctors, newspaper companies, miners, bankers, and timber cutters etc.

Did I miss anyone?

Our system has evolved into free enterprise with a foundation of stability with government substitutes internwoven , to keep the markets active and somewhat affordable for all of us.

So........ I resent no one or I'd have to resent everyone, I just try to insist on a dynamic balance. If any subsidy system is out of balance, I lean on it, as much as I can, to get it back on track. We have conflicts when any one system gets off tilt.

Ag says hunters and big game are over reaching, some of us believe Ag is over reaching.

Time for arbitration??????

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON May-31-17 AT 01:00PM (MST)[p]The fair market value for federal lands grazing is a variable formula based on market prices, private land grazing rates and other factors that have been used for years as the most fair way to charge federal lands grazers. It make look cheap on the surface but when you factor in all the variables it is fair to both the rancher and the taxpayer. His federal lands are utilized by a multitude of other uses i.e. hunting, wood cutting, recreating, bird watching and you name it. He has to cooperate up with all of those users in the same piece of land. He has a tremendous investment in range improvement, waters and which also benefit wildlife and hunters. He has to run on many more acres of arable land or seasonal high country and the amount of fence maintenance and infrastructure in corrals and improvements is a huge investment. Besides most of these ranches have their base deeded property which is necessary to hold a federal grazing permit and most of these ranches were settled in the late 1800's before the Forest Service and BLM came into being. The USFS didn't come into being until 1905 and they didn't start fencing and splitting up the federal estate to those priority homesteaders and settlers until about 1930.

Most federal lands ranchers have to manage their land as it is their own a to keep it healthy and productive. There are a few bad apples that give the majority of the ranchers a black eye.

To top this off the federal agencies have been drastically reducing grazing numbers the last thirty years with probably 30-40% less AUM's on the federal lands as there was say in the 1960-70's.

I absolutely am amazed at the opinions of several on here whom haven't researched or bothered to find out the real facts. I hate it when you all say the federal lands grazers are subsidized. that is total and unadulterated BS.

Another big fallacy is the bidding for the right to graze. The present federal lands ranchers have those federal land tied into an integral part of their deeded lands and ranch operations. They actually own the corrals and improvements on these federal lands and these permits are bought and sold on the open market with a fair value that is recognized by the major banks including the Federal Land Bank and Farmers Home Administration. How can an outsider come in and take over the present rancher's improvements on these federal lands. The highest bid system would be a total wreck with some livestock persons only interested in making a quick buck and not really taking care of the land or caring how they reap it. It makes not one bit of sense whatsoever.

The federal lands grazer is the most endangered species on the whole hit list of the enviro's and animal rightists. The hunter and the rancher should be working together and you guys whom hate these hard working families need to get out and meet some of these folks.

How do I know you might ask? I have owned 3 yearlong USFS grazing permits in NM and AZ and know first hand. I quit ranching and became an outfitter 31 years ago but all of my neighbors are federal lands grazers and believe me it isn't easy dealing with the Feds.

I firmly believe that if the doubters on here take an in depth look you will gain a whole new outlook on the federal lands rancher. Don't forget they also own deeded property in conjunction with their federal permitted lands.

If you all want to do something productive challenge the Wild Horse and Burro Act and learn what a wreck this program is not only for the horses and burros but the health of range land they are denuding.
 
I went back and re-read the original post. It doesn't say a thing about Utah, and it does not say anything specific to public lands. The OP asked about cattle and ranching. I live in Eastern Wyoming. Mostly private lands.

I can tell you this with any doubt. There are a helluva lot more deer because of ranching than there would be without. I've run cattle for 25-30 years. Not big numbers, but always cattle. I have passion for three things. Mule deer, cattle and family (not in that order). On our place, we've given up a lot to help deer, turkeys, ducks and wildlife in general. Most ranchers I know have that same philosophy.

Peace River Alberta country and south Texas are good examples, too. Without the farming in northern Alberta, deer numbers would be really low to nonexistent. And in SW Texas, without the ranchers developing water, there just could not be many deer. Same holds true for some country from Nebraska to California.

One of the biggest keys to help deer is the water development. In much of Wyoming, there was no water before wells and pipelines were developed. Ranchers paid to drill those wells and put in the pipelines (sometimes with government help). That opened up millions of acres in the great plains and mountain states to wildlife where they could not previously exist. Cattle too, but we know that.

Some mentioned alfalfa fields. That irrigated ground is a key to winter habitat in many areas. It created more food and more cover. Better for fawning too.

So yes, I think it is easily documented that livestock have been positive for wildlife. Even in areas I hunt in Nevada, stock water is often the key water source for mule deer.

Sure, there's a dumb side to it. We have an 8 acre BLM lease. It's a little chunk on our side of the county road. The BLM charges us for 2 AUM's per year. We pay them a few dollars. But they still do all of the planning, etc. Seems like a waste. It's part of an 80 and I have offered to buy it but the BLM is not interested. Too much trouble. Or they could trade it for some access in a decent area else where. Or auction it and use the proceeds for something important.

Bottom line is the world is not perfect. I drove a big loop through Wyoming last week. Home to Casper to Riverton, through Dubois to Jackson and the parks. Down through Afton, Cokeville, Kemmerer and to Elk Mountain. Then home again. I've been watching that country for 40+ years now. Much of the best winter habitat has been developed by land whores (sorry). Ranchettes and subdivisions everywhere. Do you guys really think we and our wildlife are better off with those ranchettes than with big ranching units? If you take away those federal permits, many to most of the ranches lose economic viability and then they are sold in parcels for developers. I was in Northern Idaho three weeks ago. Same situation from Spokane to Bonners Ferry, especially around Coeur D'Alene and Sandpoint. And it is true lots of other places.

We have a small place, but I'm going to try to put it in a conservation easement. I'll spin in my grave if there are bunch of houses along the river eating up what is now critical winter habitat for deer.

Tomichi and I are alike. we love cattle and the places where we live and have done some crazy stuff to stay where we are. Both of us and many more like us do everything we can to help mule deer and other wildlife.

This wasn't a question about Utah or public lands. It was about livestock and ranching. And most impacts from ranching have been positive. Life isn't perfect, as I wrote. But the positive impacts of ranching on wildlife are many. Look at the big picture.
 
Utah manages their deer and elk herds for maximum money.
Their is a difference here and it is not in the best interest of the commoner or the rancher.
Public lands are only the 2nd step in
the process.....
 
Your data states 3% of livestock graze on public lands. Yes the grazing fees are heavily discounted over what private market forces dictate per AUM. With that said, 97% of livestock are grazed at market rates and therefore maybe it's not an accurate or intelligent statement to say "subsided industry" when you agree the vast majority are produced on private lands. Out west there is simply more public land with public hunting so "cheap grazing" seems more prevalent than it actually is in the industry. Yes there are programs for severe drought and severe natural weather disasters that help ranchers when Mother Nature deals a nasty blow. Much like FEMA and other entities step in on communities devastated by hurricanes and tornados. They are voluntary programs that some people do take advantage of just like every program that has ever existed. Cattle Ranching as a whole though is not a subsidized industry, farming on the other hand has a plethora of price support, minimum production standards, govt. insured crop values, LDPs, and many others. Regardless, the facts are that your children's lemonade stand has a higher rate of return than agriculture. There's a reason that even with all this so called subsidation agriculture is rapidly becoming corporate or turned into recreational properties for the ubsurdly wealthy. The biggest problem is that American consumers put less value on quality food than they do their luxury or recreational spending, followed closely by the fact that this past year ranchers received approximately $1.50/lb for 600# steers, a 40%+ decrease from the previous year yet what has price of beef done in the supermarket? Who is making the majority of the money? Not the guy that works the hardest, cares the most about the animals and the range, and has the most to lose. One last thing, Just about every land grant university have done grazing studies that have all come to the same conclusion. Sustainable and responsible grazing improves wildlife habitat plain and simple. There's a reason fenceline hunting with gps landowner chips is so popular, private lands and privately grazed public lands are managed!
 
And yes, (farmers, ranchers, hunters of all weapon choice, fisherman, hikers, bikers, atv riders, dirt bikers, horse packers, outdoor enthusiasts, photographers, campers, natural resource developers, and anyone else that enjoys the great outdoors) all need to be on the same team and work together. There's a much greater threat out there to us all.
 
>Your data states 3% of livestock
>graze on public lands.
>Yes the grazing fees are
>heavily discounted over what private
>market forces dictate per AUM.
> With that said, 97%
>of livestock are grazed at
>market rates and therefore maybe
>it's not an accurate or
>intelligent statement to say "subsided
>industry" when you agree the
>vast majority are produced on
>private lands.

You should reread my statement, I clearly wrote... "My problem isn't with that cattle industry itself, its the arrogance that comes with public land grazers that are a subsidized industry"

I clearly said "public land grazers" are the "subsidized industry". By your moniker, I assume you are a rancher and I respect that, but don't claim my post wasn't accurate or intelligent when I was very specific in what I said.

Grizzly
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom