BLM and Forest Service GRAZING Rates for 2023 have been SET

W

WyoResident

Member
Messages
28
$1.35 a Month for a Cow & Calf pair (4.5 cents Per Day) on both B.L.M. and USFS lands. Administration costs per month by the BLM & Forest Service average around $8 per pair. Animal Units for Sheep is 7 sheep so....that equals 6/10th of a cent per sheep per day.

Next time you find that your favorite public land fishing hole has cattle standing in it, pizzing and sheeting and stomping down the banks or that vast meadow where you plan to hunt deer or elk has been grazed down to rocks, stumps and strewn with livestock sheet, realize that the grazer holding the lease is allowed to do this to public land for almost free and your government is losing about $8 per animal unit per month
 
Last edited:
hossblur said:
What do you suppose your grocery, and more important your kids school lunch price looks like without that subsidy?
Click to expand...
In the big picture, public land-grazed livestock are barely a drop in the bucket for total beef production.
So..to answer your question: "looks like" almost nothing
And, Einstein, dont' forget the $8/month administrative cost bore by the taxpayers
 
WyoResident said:
In the big picture, public land-grazed livestock are barely a drop in the bucket for total beef production.
So..to answer your question: "looks like" almost nothing
And, Einstein, dont' forget the $8/month cost bore by the taxpayers
Click to expand...

The big picture being domestic production?
 
hossblur said:
The big picture being domestic production?
Click to expand...
You know, Hossblur, judging by your 1,000's of internet posts, discussing/arguing issues with you is like pizzing on an emotionless and non thinking electric fence. A complete waste of time and of no benefit.

I'm just stating the facts concerning 2023 public land grazing rates, twist it however you feel
 
It was an honest question, but since you wanted to be insulting.

Now do the cost to the taxpayer by unit per month for

Education

Military

Police

Social services

National parks.

Not to mention. Like it or not, but for those who didn't learn during the COVID crisis, domestic production of livestock/farm products, is a bit of a national defense issue as well.

Being dependent on imports is not just stupid, it's suicidal.

That no way means that better range riding, better policing of grazers can't be done, but it does mean, that outside of the intermountain region, where there is little public land, folks prefer beef to mule deer.

Further. Skiing creates more revenue in my state than hunting. So imagine, if we just go to highest bidder, or biggest revenue producer.

As for sheep. Wool is still a thing. And, you might want to trace WHO is eating those sheep
 
WyoResident said:
You know, Hossblur, judging by your 1,000's of internet posts, discussing/arguing issues with you is like pizzing on an emotionless and non thinking electric fence. A complete waste of time and of no benefit.

I'm just stating the facts concerning 2023 public land grazing rates, twist it however you feel
Click to expand...

You offered zero facts.

You bitched about grazers.
 
Hoss, are you trying to say that we would be broke without the benefits of the public land welfare programs so many enjoy?
 
Bluehair said:
Hoss, are you trying to say that we would be broke without the benefits of the public land welfare programs so many enjoy?
Click to expand...


I'm saying show me someone who doesn't enjoy a welfare program. Then, show the price per person per month to pay for that program. I ask as I sit in a public school watching a robot tournament. I know what this school cost.

I have family with grazing permits. I hunt on land owned by folks who HAD permits. It's not the money maker that some folks think it is.

I wonder how much the OP pays in trespass fees to hunt private. What do you suppose the cost per month is for G&F? And what benefit does his killing a deer give the landowning trust(the public)?

Starting pissing matches with livestock producers is a stupid idea. The public at large gets ZERO benefit from hunting. They do get reduced meat costs from ranching.

While ranching isn't the dominant industry it once was, neither is hunting.

In your system and mine, skiing is
 
And.

It's funny to me to read about mule deer decline from the years of the "golden age".

The golden age came about because the producers shot, trapped, poisoned, predators, and used there huge lobbying position to keep them pushed down.

Not much bitching about the much larger numbers of livestock on public, then, vs now.

As to the OP.

What price per animal is acceptable?

Is it the price? Or your total distain for the practice?
 
The cost of beef if we don’t allow this pillaging to continue argument has been shown to be false over and over again.

I’m not against public land grazing, per se. I think many ranchers have become more responsible with it. But there are things that still bother me about it.

And to answer your question about cost of meat- I’d prefer more elk in the hills and I’ll just fill my freezers with that. I’d prefer never buying beef again except for the occasional ribeyes to cook up. And they already charge me way too much for those ribeyes anyway!

Comparing public land grazing handouts to police and education is a terrible analogy. These things are not even close to the same thing.
 
But same question.

Are we(hunters) bitching about the animals presence?

Or cost of gov (taxpayer) to run it?

Because I paid a grand total of zero dollars AUM for the deer in my freezer. Nor the ducks/geese in there either.

And the way I see it, hunters are special users of the land same as timber, grazers, extractors.

It's a stupid fight to go after the grazers as a whole.

Folks like the Bundy's, absolutely. But they are the minority.
 
Let me make a slight correction.
a Sheep Animal Unit is 5 animals, so that equates to about 8/10 of a cent per day.

Regarding Hossblur......I'll just sit back and let his own mouth show how ignorant and chronically argumentative this internet badazz is on issues that he's usually about 99% on the wrong side of

Fire away, Hossblur!
 
Vanilla said:
The cost of beef if we don’t allow this pillaging to continue argument has been shown to be false over and over again.

I’m not against public land grazing, per se. I think many ranchers have become more responsible with it. But there are things that still bother me about it.

And to answer your question about cost of meat- I’d prefer more elk in the hills and I’ll just fill my freezers with that. I’d prefer never buying beef again except for the occasional ribeyes to cook up. And they already charge me way too much for those ribeyes anyway!

Comparing public land grazing handouts to police and education is a terrible analogy. These things are not even close to the same thing.
Click to expand...
Problem is, public land is owned by folks who vastly disagree with more elk in your freezer.

And. You and I both know, that $50 tag didn't pay for the cost of that elk, or the various gov agencies and programs that run it.

Op doesn't like cows in a meadow.

Lots of folks, don't like me there with a weapon either.


We need be cautious about what fight we pick
 
WyoResident said:
Let me make a slight correction.
a Sheep Animal Unit is 5 animals, so that equates to about 8/10 of a cent per day.

Regarding Hossblur......I'll just sit back and let his own mouth show how ignorant and chronically argumentative this internet badazz is on issues that he's usually about 99% on the wrong side of

Fire away, Hossblur!
Click to expand...
What price is ok then, since you keep pointing to price, oh internet genius, as you are making corrections.

Did you research where the vast majority of those sheep go?

And. What did YOU PAY per deer/ elk you killed? Is Your subsidy an ok subsidy?
 
And. As I drive around I see a chit ton of deer, elk on ranch land. Land owned by guys I know have grazing permits. What do they charge the hunter for that per animal, per month? And NO, they aren't there because mountain Meadows got grazed, they are there because those meadows are buried in snow.

Just that other part that we as hunters forget about when bitching about grazers.
 
Just for shiggles, here's the "cost" per elk per year at current BLM/USFS grazing rates, with an elk being .5 AUM: 12 x $1.35 x 0.5 = $8.10

Sure seems less than the $50 license, which also brings in 3:1 matching in federal PR funds that are sourced primarily by hunters and anglers.

Public grazing is a welfare parasite and the numbers just don't lie. If public grazing rates were made comparable to the market price for equivalent forage quality I'd be much more tolerant. But as it is cattle and sheep take up wild, public resources that provide essentially zero benefit to the public and tax payers pay for the privilege of this infection.
 
I'm not going to trade tit for tat with the internet badazz....ain't goin' to read the book and will just wait for" Hossblur - the Movie" to come out :) It could be one of those lifetime movies, maybe that college entrance scammer Lori something could play the rancherette

Hopefully to keep things on track here, which was first? Elk/Wildlife or European Cattle?

Where/who did Brucellosis get introduced?

With Elk/wildlife historically an animal of the plains and foothills, who ran them off the lower ground?

Taxpayer wise, how can $8 admin costs per month be compensated and sustained by $1.35 animal unit monthly payments?

What is the cost of degraded public lands/stream beds?

With the huge grazing 4.5 cents/day subsidy provided to the welfare rancher by the taxpayer, why is a ribeye at Krogers $13.99 a lb?
 
Last edited:
johnnycake said:
Just for shiggles, here's the "cost" per elk per year at current BLM/USFS grazing rates, with an elk being .5 AUM: 12 x $1.35 x 0.5 = $8.10

Sure seems less than the $50 license, which also brings in 3:1 matching in federal PR funds that are sourced primarily by hunters and anglers.

Public grazing is a welfare parasite and the numbers just don't lie. If public grazing rates were made comparable to the market price for equivalent forage quality I'd be much more tolerant. But as it is cattle and sheep take up wild, public resources that provide essentially zero benefit to the public and tax payers pay for the privilege of this infection.
Click to expand...

Ya? So do our licenses pay for all the research work being done in state universities? All the habitat work? Mdf just got a $65 million dollar partnership with gov. Did that come from licenses? Are the collar studies paid for by licenses? How about CWD research?. Wildlife underpasses? Nope. All subsidized by tax payers for a pursuit, hunting, that is shrinking, and frankly, becoming less approved of by the public at whole, and they also share that public resource, the land.

And, like I said. What do WE pay for "our" animals on ag land?


Point in case. I hunt with a guy who gave up his permit because hay pays lots better than cows.

As the sheep transition off mtn, on way to desert, they feed on his fields, for which he is paid.

There are 4-5 dozen deer that have been there for 3months. 50 or so elk.

Do WE compensate him? Or others like him, including his neighbor who still does have a permit at an animal per day rate?

Do we compensate the destruction of winter wheat by the same animals, as well as the hundreds of geese.? Again at an animal per day rate?

We get pretty high and mighty as hunters about "damage to our lands", then watch as wildlife invade their land.

They are pretty tolerant, most could just kill them all.

Take your AUM, multiply by the number of elk wintering private, and figure out who is losing in the deal.
 
Lol, there are multiple programs and lots of taxpayer dollars paid to private agriculture operations to address wildlife damage to crops. It's never going to be dollar for dollar, but that is just the cost of doing business.

As for those studies, DWR budgets, projects, etc., a huge percentage of them are funded through sportsmen's dollars. But it's pretty clear that facts are irrelevant to you on this issue.
 
WyoResident said:
I'm not going to trade tit for tat with the internet badazz....ain't goin' to read the book and will just wait for" Hossblur - the Movie" to come out :) It could be one of those lifetime movies, maybe that college entrance scammer Lori something could play the rancherette

Hopefully to keep things on track here, which was first? Elk/Wildlife or European Cattle?

Where/who did Brucellosis get introduced?

With Elk/wildlife historically an animal of the plains and foothills, who ran them off the lower ground?

Taxpayer wise, how can $8 admin costs per month be compensated and sustained by $1.35 animal unit monthly payments?

What is the cost of degraded public lands/stream beds?

With the huge grazing 4.5 cents/day subsidy provided to the welfare rancher by the taxpayer, why is a ribeye at Krogers $13.99 a lb?
Click to expand...


Oh dear GAWD.

Now your a "nature" guy?

How's that working out for wolves and grizzlies? You good on letting them be at pre European levels too? Rattlesnakes? Scorpions? Mosquitos?

Or, is it just the handful of things you want to shoot?

Elk carry brucellosis, yet YOUR state regulates Bison as non wildlife because of it. Both deer and elk carry CWD.

You ran elk deer of lower ground. YOU. A decendent of the Europeans who chased Manifest destiny. YOU, you are responsible, as I'll assume your house isn't above the treeline, and is located in the flats or a foothill. YOU, built railroads. Harvested timber. Damned rivers, built highways, introduced chest grass, introduced bark beetles, introduced quagga muscles. You did that. Same as me.

What's killed more deer/elk. Grazing, or I-80?



Again, your all for the "natural" system, as long as it YOUR system.

Which came first? Really. I'll bet I can find some darker skinned folks that wonder the same damn thing.



Why does a ribeye cost $13.99 lb?

Because there are only a small amount of packing plants that control the market. Ever heard of con agra?

Feel free to read an actual ag report.

If you are truly a no gov subsidy guy, then great. But don't drive past pivot lines, feed your kids school lunch, then ***** about them damn grazers on your way to the expo in Utah, or a Wyoming football game, in a vehicle burning gas.

We feed 330 million people because ag producers produce, and we subsidize.

We tried that market hunting deal, didn't work so good
 
johnnycake said:
Lol, there are multiple programs and lots of taxpayer dollars paid to private agriculture operations to address wildlife damage to crops. It's never going to be dollar for dollar, but that is just the cost of doing business.

As for those studies, DWR budgets, projects, etc., a huge percentage of them are funded through sportsmen's dollars. But it's pretty clear that facts are irrelevant to you on this issue.
Click to expand...


Yeah, your right, sportsmen do a great job, better than any other user group. But pretending we aren't subsidized directly by the taxpayer is just wrong.

And that doesn't include the indirect subsidy, like gov trappers, dept of reclamation, etc.

"The cost of doing buisness"?

We have areas in this State(Utah) where they just shoot deer/ elk. It's private land, and no, we don't make them whole. We ask, and hope they, the rancher, will be accommodating, and most are.

But, IF you kick them off grazing, suddenly that alfalfa field, increases in value "hugely", to quote Trump, making it less likely they will be so accomidating.

Moreover. Hay production takes a ton of water. I like waterfowl. And I like fish.
 
johnnycake said:
Just for shiggles, here's the "cost" per elk per year at current BLM/USFS grazing rates, with an elk being .5 AUM: 12 x $1.35 x 0.5 = $8.10

Sure seems less than the $50 license, which also brings in 3:1 matching in federal PR funds that are sourced primarily by hunters and anglers.

Public grazing is a welfare parasite and the numbers just don't lie. If public grazing rates were made comparable to the market price for equivalent forage quality I'd be much more tolerant. But as it is cattle and sheep take up wild, public resources that provide essentially zero benefit to the public and tax payers pay for the privilege of this infection.
Click to expand...


I watched thousands of geese on a winter wheat field last Sunday.

Which do you suppose is worth more on open market, wheat, or yellow grass on the mtn in Aug/Sept?

Ever looked at hay prices? Same question.
 
hossblur said:
Elk carry brucellosis, yet YOUR state regulates Bison as non wildlife because of it. Both deer and elk carry CWD.
Click to expand...
Where did that brucellosis in elk/deer/bison come from again?

Right. Livestock.

Don't even get me started on the devastation to wild sheep from livestock pathogens. Look up how many wild sheep were estimated to be in Utah pre Mormon settlers.

Considering the millions of just sheep (and who knows how many bison, elk, deer, and pronghorn) that have died since the westward expansion from diseases and starvation as a result of livestock on public lands, yeah it probably is higher than the numbers of those animals killed by cars on I-80 since inception. Maybe even higher than all big game vehicle fatalities on all roads in the west combined. But that's a whataboutism similar to what I've seen you cry foul on many posts by Tristate and others over the years.
 
hossblur said:
Oh dear GAWD.

Now your a "nature" guy?

How's that working out for wolves and grizzlies? You good on letting them be at pre European levels too? Rattlesnakes? Scorpions? Mosquitos?

Or, is it just the handful of things you want to shoot?

Elk carry brucellosis, yet YOUR state regulates Bison as non wildlife because of it. Both deer and elk carry CWD.

You ran elk deer of lower ground. YOU. A decendent of the Europeans who chased Manifest destiny. YOU, you are responsible, as I'll assume your house isn't above the treeline, and is located in the flats or a foothill. YOU, built railroads. Harvested timber. Damned rivers, built highways, introduced chest grass, introduced bark beetles, introduced quagga muscles. You did that. Same as me.

What's killed more deer/elk. Grazing, or I-80?



Again, your all for the "natural" system, as long as it YOUR system.

Which came first? Really. I'll bet I can find some darker skinned folks that wonder the same damn thing.



Why does a ribeye cost $13.99 lb?

Because there are only a small amount of packing plants that control the market. Ever heard of con agra?

Feel free to read an actual ag report.

If you are truly a no gov subsidy guy, then great. But don't drive past pivot lines, feed your kids school lunch, then ***** about them damn grazers on your way to the expo in Utah, or a Wyoming football game, in a vehicle burning gas.

We feed 330 million people because ag producers produce, and we subsidize.

We tried that market hunting deal, didn't work so good
Click to expand...
It all makes sense now why you’re so upset. Beef prices are up and your freezer is empty. You work for wages so times are tough.

I’m sorry I’ve been busting your balls. I didn’t know you were going through tough times. Hang in there, PM me I’ll like to help. I have 3 full freezers and never have to buy beef.
 
hossblur said:
I watched thousands of geese on a winter wheat field last Sunday.

Which do you suppose is worth more on open market, wheat, or yellow grass on the mtn in Aug/Sept?

Ever looked at hay prices? Same question.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes, let's talk about the grotesque water rights and wastage by growing alfalfa in Utah to sell overseas. That one is probably a more egregious subsidization of a small group of private landowners than even the public grazing.
 
johnnycake said:
Where did that brucellosis in elk/deer/bison come from again?

Right. Livestock.

Don't even get me started on the devastation to wild sheep from livestock pathogens. Look up how many wild sheep were estimated to be in Utah pre Mormon settlers.

Considering the millions of just sheep (and who knows how many bison, elk, deer, and pronghorn) that have died since the westward expansion from diseases and starvation as a result of livestock on public lands, yeah it probably is higher than the numbers of those animals killed by cars on I-80 since inception. Maybe even higher than all big game vehicle fatalities on all roads in the west combined. But that's a whataboutism similar to what I've seen you cry foul on many posts by Tristate and others over the years.
Click to expand...


You know what else wasn't here prior to westward expansion?

How did market hunting of wildlife turn out? Should we ask bison?

Who does those evil ranchers sell their products to?

Do any of the other 330million folks in the country that own public land get a say, or just the tiny minority who hunt?

How do you suppose that will go for us?
 
johnnycake said:
Ahh yes, let's talk about the grotesque water rights and wastage by growing alfalfa in Utah to sell overseas. That one is probably a more egregious subsidization of a small group of private landowners than even the public grazing.
Click to expand...

They own the water rights. And I agree, it's a bad idea. But it's the result of open markets. Would you prefer the gov subsidized producers to not do it?
 
SS! said:
It all makes sense now why you’re so upset. Beef prices are up and your freezer is empty. You work for wages so times are tough.

I’m sorry I’ve been busting your balls. I didn’t know you were going through tough times. Hang in there, PM me I’ll like to help. I have 3 full freezers and never have to buy beef.
Click to expand...
Yup, since the shed hunt shut down I down to no other income source. I branched out to smedium camo shirts and flatties, but, again, the shed hunters have no current income so they cant support my business.

What do you think about maybe a supplement company. I'm sure your balls deep in your mtn ops, but if I marketed one and called it "Ultimate bro fuel", complete with dudes doing 2000ft elevation changes with 90lbs of tog chews on their pack, would you switch brands?

I just don't know what I'll do working for wages and all. The tax man says I need to take a loss somewhere, but at min wage, it just tough.

Momma says we can hold out until may1, but as we all know, those dark browns bring the best price, and after a couple weeks, the downgrade will be devastating.
 
Multiple Use is an inspired concept, it is what has kept public access accessable when, without it, it most like would have been inaccessible to the non-land owner…. decades ago. Life stock graving is a huge part of the multiple use concept and without it, I fear most public land would become private, very quickly.

I’m not a public grazer, never have been or has any of my family, but I see the value in using livestock to help keep our public lands free from fire, water shed control, etc.

My frustration is, we have the same problem with government livestock management as we do with government wildlife management. The bureaucracies do a terrible job managing the system.

When there is over grazing, abuse of water resources, etc and there almost always is, somewhere on every Forest Service and BLM land that is involved in leasing to livestock operations. On State’s land, maybe it’s even worse management. That is not to say that every allotment is over grazed or abused. Including the Bundy mess……… definitely not all public land grazers, are abusers, but on every Forest, BLM land mass, it seems we encounter allotments that are being abused by a lessor or two, and the “paid over seers” who’s are ultimately specific responsibility for the prevention of abuse…….. are not doing their job properly. Therein lies the abuse, not just of the land by these leesers but because they threaten the entire survival of the multiple use concept itself.

If Multiple Use is ever terminate or significantly altered, my personal opinion is, it will not be because of public land grazers but it will be because the “over seers” haven’t done their job. Not a lot different than if we loose our big game herds to sport hunting….. it will not be because of the hunters, it will because of mismanagement by the paid “over seers”.

Tell me where I’m wrong………
 
SS! said:
We are here for you hossy. It’s ok to be angry. It’s ok not to answer questions. It’s ok to be wrong.

Let us help you!
Click to expand...

Could you try harder? I mean you used to be clever, crass, but clever. Reading your stuff is like reading Tristates.

Branch out. Dudes who talk about "not working for wages" are like dudes with small units talking about their oral game. It's all just compensating. I know. Your unit is HUUUUGFEEE.


But come on man!!! If your gonna "come for me", at least make me laugh.
 
2lumpy said:
Multiple Use is an inspired concept, it is what has kept public access accessable when, without it, it most like would have been inaccessible to the non-land owner…. decades ago. Life stock graving is a huge part of the multiple use concept and without it, I fear most public land would become private, very quickly.

I’m not a public grazer, never have been or has any of my family, but I see the value in using livestock to help keep our public lands free from fire, water shed control, etc.

My frustration is, we have the same problem with government livestock management as we do with government wildlife management. The bureaucracies do a terrible job managing the system.

When there is over grazing, abuse of water resources, etc and there almost always is, somewhere on every Forest Service and BLM land that is involved in leasing to livestock operations. On State’s land, maybe it’s even worse management. That is not to say that every allotment is over grazed or abused. Including the Bundy mess……… definitely not all public land grazers, are abusers, but on every Forest, BLM land mass, it seems we encounter allotments that are being abused by a lessor or two, and the “paid over seers” who’s are ultimately specific responsibility for the prevention of abuse…….. are not doing their job properly. Therein lies the abuse, not just of the land by these leesers but because they threaten the entire survival of the multiple use concept itself.

If Multiple Use is ever terminate or significantly altered, my personal opinion is, it will not be because of public land grazers but it will be because the “over seers” haven’t done their job. Not a lot different than if we loose our big game herds to sport hunting….. it will not be because of the hunters, it will because of mismanagement by the paid “over seers”.

Tell me where I’m wrong………
Click to expand...


Nope. You are 100% correct. And, as usual, better worded than I
 
hossblur said:
Could you try harder? I mean you used to be clever, crass, but clever. Reading your stuff is like reading Tristates.

Branch out. Dudes who talk about "not working for wages" are like dudes with small units talking about their oral game. It's all just compensating. I know. Your unit is HUUUUGFEEE.


But come on man!!! If you’re gonna "come for me", at least make me laugh.
Click to expand...
be a man hossy. Get the help you need. You have an amazing support network here that you chose to ignore. You’ve made a lot of mistakes no doubt, but being a drywaller isn’t the end of the road. You can always take another path. But posting a bunch of misleading and in most cases incorrect information is not going to get you on the right path. You need help, it’s ok trust me, we all need help once in awhile.
 
2lumpy said:
Life stock graving is a huge part of the multiple use concept and without it, I fear most public land would become private, very quickly.


Tell me where I’m wrong………
Click to expand...
I mean I can't tell you that you are wrong about what you say your fears are... But I can tell you that your fears are completely irrational.

Public grazing is in no way what keeps public lands public. The fear that doing away with public grazing would turn most public land into private "very quickly" is like somebody's being afraid that Elvis will reveal himself as not just still alive, but an interdimensional being hellbent on eradicating humanity through a toxic nerve gas derived in his large intestine after consuming peanut butter, bacon, and marshmallow sandwiches, and the weapon will be deployed tomorrow morning.

Sure, under the multiverse theory and the view of infinity being the time it takes for all possibilities to occur that might actually happen. But realistically it has the same chance as your fear of ending public grazing being the doom of public lands.
 
johnnycake said:
And just for an added sphincter cherry on this fecal sundae, in Utah alone there are +600,000 AUMs permitted annually. But the Henry's bison herd had better not exceed 325... And gotta keep the statewide elk herd under 78k animals...
Click to expand...
Where's those elk wintering? I saw couple hundred this week. Not a single one on BLM/FS land.

Seems "our" land is covered in snow.
 
johnnycake said:
I mean I can't tell you that you are wrong about what you say your fears are... But I can tell you that your fears are completely irrational.

Public grazing is in no way what keeps public lands public. The fear that doing away with public grazing would turn most public land into private "very quickly" is like somebody's being afraid that Elvis will reveal himself as not just still alive, but an interdimensional being hellbent on eradicating humanity through a toxic nerve gas derived in his large intestine after consuming peanut butter, bacon, and marshmallow sandwiches, and the weapon will be deployed tomorrow morning.

Sure, under the multiverse theory and the view of infinity being the time it takes for all possibilities to occur that might actually happen. But realistically it has the same chance as your fear of ending public grazing being the doom of public lands.
Click to expand...


Now do what happens if hunting goes away on public land
 
hossblur said:
Now do what happens if hunting goes away on public land
Click to expand...
Same thing. Zero impact on public lands staying public, but with far less funding hitting the ground.

But that's about as realistic a concern as Evil Elvis. Regulated hunting is overwhelming supported by even the non hunting public in the US.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Perceptions of Hunting and Hunters by U.S. Respondents

An online survey of 825 U.S. residents was conducted to determine their views on hunting, hunters, and hunting practices within the United States. Overall, 87% of respondents agreed that it was acceptable to hunt for food. However, only 37% agreed that ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

American's Attitudes Toward Hunting - Inland Northwest Wildlife Council https://www.inwc.org/americans-attitudes-toward-hunting/
 
johnnycake said:
Same thing. Zero impact on public lands staying public, but with far less funding hitting the ground.

But that's about as realistic a concern as Evil Elvis. Regulated hunting is overwhelming supported by even the non hunting public in the US.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Perceptions of Hunting and Hunters by U.S. Respondents

An online survey of 825 U.S. residents was conducted to determine their views on hunting, hunters, and hunting practices within the United States. Overall, 87% of respondents agreed that it was acceptable to hunt for food. However, only 37% agreed that ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

American's Attitudes Toward Hunting - Inland Northwest Wildlife Council https://www.inwc.org/americans-attitudes-toward-hunting/
Click to expand...

For food.

3 million Utahns. 78k elk. Seems like maybe ag is a net positive. Considering how many elk there were during market hunting times.

Yes, yes, I know, let the rancher pay for feed. It won't raise your food price a dime, they will just swallow the cost.

Or, conversely, they will do what they are doing now, culling their herds. Selling the ranch to developers, who I turn create miny ranchettes full of lots of folks who really love hunters?

The system is by no means perfect.

But lumpy hit it.

They can only do, what the agency PAID to control them, let's them.

Which goes full circle back to my challenge of the OP. The loss of $8 dollars, is a loss because it pays for nothing, or close to nothing.

Grass is a renewable resource. Yes, cows compete with elk, for about 4 months, on public land. Then elk, invade private ground from opening weekend of elk season(BYU study) to green up sometime in late April.

Where I hunt, animals come off last week of Sept.

Utah, likes kids. Kids, build houses, land gets developed.

Our problems with deer herds and elk herds have little to do with grazers, and mostly to do with old habitat(old sage, dead zones from beetle kills, etc), predators(historically controlled by ag department), and loss of winter ground.

Kick off every sheep, every cow, none of that changes.

What does change is the cozy relationship OUR ELK/deer have with private ranch ground. That private ground becoming far to valuable as either pasture, or housing to leave it for elk/deer.

It's not a zero sum game
 
Last edited:
johnnycake said:
I mean I can't tell you that you are wrong about what you say your fears are... But I can tell you that your fears are completely irrational.

Public grazing is in no way what keeps public lands public. The fear that doing away with public grazing would turn most public land into private "very quickly" is like somebody's being afraid that Elvis will reveal himself as not just still alive, but an interdimensional being hellbent on eradicating humanity through a toxic nerve gas derived in his large intestine after consuming peanut butter, bacon, and marshmallow sandwiches, and the weapon will be deployed tomorrow morning.

Sure, under the multiverse theory and the view of infinity being the time it takes for all possibilities to occur that might actually happen. But realistically it has the same chance as your fear of ending public grazing being the doom of public lands.
Click to expand...
With respect for your opinion, I simply disagree. I am too old to live long enough to know which of us will prove to be correct, should the powers to be, take that course of action.

When it comes to influence, with public land government policies……. do not under estimate the power of the “Farm Bureau”, on both the Federally and State level.

Big picture, how much longer is coal going to have an influential voice at the table? Oil production? Sportsmen? (Who have hardly a seat at the table already.). Just who the hell is going to justify keeping public land out of the government’s hungry property tax collector’s access. Private property funds GROWING western States public schools/universities, police and fire departments, sewer systems, swimming pools, roads, bridges, etc etc. Western State that are under 50% private, see public lands as NOT contributing their “their fair share” to the State’s operating expenses, who but the “Farm Bureau” is going to hold together Multiple Use……. It dang sure isn’t going to be a bunch of disjointed hunter/sportsmen who general can’t stand to be in the same room together, let along bring forward a cohesive united front to tip the scale in favor of Multiple Use, if multiple use is no longer viable for anything but recreation.

I hope you right, I’d wager your wrong.
 
2lumpy said:
With respect for your opinion, I simply disagree. I am too old to live long enough to know which of us will prove to be correct, should the powers to be, take that course of action.

When it comes to influence, with public land government policies……. do not under estimate the power of the “Farm Bureau”, on both the Federally and State level.

Big picture, how much longer is coal going to have an influential voice at the table? Oil production? Sportsmen? (Who have hardly a seat at the table already.). Just who the hell is going to justify keeping public land out of the government’s hungry property tax collector’s access. Private property funds GROWING western States public schools/universities, police and fire departments, sewer systems, swimming pools, roads, bridges, etc etc. Western State that are under 50% private, see public lands as NOT contributing their “their fair share” to the State’s operating expenses, who but the “Farm Bureau” is going to hold together Multiple Use……. It dang sure isn’t going to be a bunch of disjointed hunter/sportsmen who general can’t stand to be in the same room together, let along bring forward a cohesive united front to tip the scale in favor of Multiple Use, if multiple use is no longer viable for anything but recreation.

I hope you right, I’d wager your wrong.
Click to expand...


You're living it right now.

Look at N Utah. Hunting became private. Ranchers sold to outfitters.

Colorado is, as we speak, pushing public land used for affordable housing.

Utah has a multimillion dollar war chest, and attorneys on retainer to sue the feds for state control, lead by a senator who wants to disavow all public land.

State trust lands are sold for highest profit, which isn't hunting.


You are living it right now Lumpy.

What's astounding to me, is how closely the antis sentiment and that of the anti grazers are.

We simply don't have enough hunters to protect public, and we are closer to agreement with grazers, than skiers, or any other user.

It's unbelievably short sighted to start a fight with that group. First, we'd most likely loose, but even if we did win, we would be standing alone, guilty of yet another self inflicted wound.
 
hossblur said:
Take your AUM, multiply by the number of elk wintering private, and figure out who is losing in the deal.
Click to expand...
I missed this one. It's pretty funny. Let's assume every single elk in Utah winters 100% on private land from October-April. And let's assume that UDWR is wrong about the being about 78k elk in the state, and that there really are 100k. Remember, it takes 2 elk to equal 1 AUM. And if private animals on public lands pay $1.35, turnabout is fair play. So where do these numbers shake out?

100,000 x $1.35/AUM x 0.5 x 6months = $405,000 grazing "cost" suffered by private landowners from elk.

And contrast this with an $8 cost to implement the public grazing program for every $1 brought in by the permit fees. A net loss of $7. So, $1.35/AUM x 600,000 AUM = $810,000 in grazing revenue at a total cost of $6,480,000. So the public is losing $5,670,000 on public grazing annually. More than 10x the cost of those overinflated hypothetical costs to the landowners from every single elk spending 6 months a year on their private land.

You know, it is pretty easy to figure out who is losing in this deal
 
2lumpy said:
With respect for your opinion, I simply disagree. I am too old to live long enough to know which of us will prove to be correct, should the powers to be, take that course of action.

When it comes to influence, with public land government policies……. do not under estimate the power of the “Farm Bureau”, on both the Federally and State level.

Big picture, how much longer is coal going to have an influential voice at the table? Oil production? Sportsmen? (Who have hardly a seat at the table already.). Just who the hell is going to justify keeping public land out of the government’s hungry property tax collector’s access. Private property funds GROWING western States public schools/universities, police and fire departments, sewer systems, swimming pools, roads, bridges, etc etc. Western State that are under 50% private, see public lands as NOT contributing their “their fair share” to the State’s operating expenses, who but the “Farm Bureau” is going to hold together Multiple Use……. It dang sure isn’t going to be a bunch of disjointed hunter/sportsmen who general can’t stand to be in the same room together, let along bring forward a cohesive united front to tip the scale in favor of Multiple Use, if multiple use is no longer viable for anything but recreation.

I hope you right, I’d wager your wrong.
Click to expand...
State owned public lands in the west are dwarfed by federally owned public lands. And the feds have long since stopped pretty much all disposal of public lands into private ownership. And there's really not a credible threat to the whole "turn fed lands into state lands" push.

It ain't gonna happen anytime in the next century, and I would wager a lot that I'm right.
 
johnnycake said:
I missed this one. It's pretty funny. Let's assume every single elk in Utah winters 100% on private land from October-April. And let's assume that UDWR is wrong about the being about 78k elk in the state, and that there really are 100k. Remember, it takes 2 elk to equal 1 AUM. And if private animals on public lands pay $1.35, turnabout is fair play. So where do these numbers shake out?

100,000 x $1.35/AUM x 0.5 x 6months = $405,000 grazing "cost" suffered by private landowners from elk.

And contrast this with an $8 cost to implement the public grazing program for every $1 brought in by the permit fees. A net loss of $7. So, $1.35/AUM x 600,000 AUM = $810,000 in grazing revenue at a total cost of $6,480,000. So the public is losing $5,670,000 on public grazing annually. More than 10x the cost of those overinflated hypothetical costs to the landowners from every single elk spending 6 months a year on their private land.

You know, it is pretty easy to figure out who is losing in this deal
Click to expand...


If only elk were on private, you'd have a point.

Now add deer, antelope, moose, bison, geese, ducks, swans, pheasants, quail, crane, rabbits, and whatever other wildlife eats on private, then remember, you want to talk value, alfalfa and wheat are worth a ton more on the open market that mountain weeds.


See that's the rub.

You want to say the graze is worth far more, but then turn and want to compare it to much more valuable crops.


And, ill need to see your sourcing, be ause I'm betting g that price is averaged including wintering done on the desert, meaning you want to compare sage brush to alfalfa or wheat.
 
johnnycake said:
State owned public lands in the west are dwarfed by federally owned public lands. And the feds have long since stopped pretty much all disposal of public lands into private ownership. And there's really not a credible threat to the whole "turn fed lands into state lands" push.

It ain't gonna happen anytime in the next century, and I would wager a lot that I'm right.
Click to expand...
We call this camels nose under the tent I believe. Yup its state, today.

apnews.com

Colorado considers using public land for affordable housing

DENVER (AP) — Police officer Andy Sandoval lives in one the most beautiful places in the world near Vail, Colorado, where world-famous ski resorts are nestled between Rocky Mountain peaks.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
hossblur said:
If only elk were on private, you'd have a point.

Now add deer, antelope, moose, bison, geese, ducks, swans, pheasants, quail, crane, rabbits, and whatever other wildlife eats on private, then remember, you want to talk value, alfalfa and wheat are worth a ton more on the open market that mountain weeds.


See that's the rub.

You want to say the graze is worth far more, but then turn and want to compare it to much more valuable crops.


And, ill need to see your sourcing, be ause I'm betting g that price is averaged including wintering done on the desert, meaning you want to compare sage brush to alfalfa or wheat.
Click to expand...
Let's see some sources to back up any of your claims in this thread first. I've provided reliable sources about the favorable public opinion of hunters.

And of course $1.35/ AUM is an unfair price for private grazing. It's also an unfair price for public grazing that is not actually based on realistic market prices for comparable forage. So as long as the injustice is used to benefit private grazing on public lands, I'll happily support price parity in hypothetical comparisons of harms to private landowners by wildlife.

And yeah, I'd wager the total costs by all wildlife related damages to private land agriculture in Utah are financially smaller than the subsidization of public grazing (the combined direct, actual losses of the program and the unrealized losses from grossly underpriced grazing fees).
 
Here's proof. Walk outside, look at the mtn. That white stuff is snow. It's covering FS land. Ain't no elk there. Where do you suppose they are?

Btw. That survey you shared, changes greatly when "trophy hunting" is included.


And AGAIN. Who sets the AUM? The rancher? Or the gov?

Seems your irritation is misplaced.

And I'll take your bet. Acre for acre, mountain grass vs alfalfa, on open market.

Btw. Just stopped for gas in Morgan.

Counted over 200 deer from Layton to Morgan. 76 elk.

Not one on fa or BLM.
 
Alfalfa hay is about triple price of grass hay.

Mountain grass isn't even the same as grass hay, but even if it was, roughly 3:1 price.

I'd have to dig for corn and wheat comparisons.
 
Nice attempt to dodge, but look at the definition of "trophy hunting" used in those surveys and you'll see that it is illegal for most animals in most states that are hunted. Salvage of the edible meat is a pretty large requirement for hunting basically everywhere in the US except Texas.

And the government sets that rate and the ranching lobby advocates viciously to keep it that low and let the subsidy flow going. Here's an analysis from 2019 that gives an accurate history of the program and shows how the formula for the grazing rate is completely disconnected from a fair market value. It's not even designed to be break even cost to the government costs of running the program. That is patently absurd for a subsection of the industry that is absolutely non critical to food security in the country.

Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf
 
johnnycake said:
Nice attempt to dodge, but look at the definition of "trophy hunting" used in those surveys and you'll see that it is illegal for most animals in most states that are hunted. Salvage of the edible meat is a pretty large requirement for hunting basically everywhere in the US except Texas.

And the government sets that rate and the ranching lobby advocates viciously to keep it that low and let the subsidy flow going. Here's an analysis from 2019 that gives an accurate history of the program and shows how the formula for the grazing rate is completely disconnected from a fair market value. It's not even designed to be break even cost to the government costs of running the program. That is patently absurd for a subsection of the industry that is absolutely non critical to food security in the country.

Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf
Click to expand...

IMG20230218165436.jpg
IMG20230218165504.jpg
 
Up the road from a house I was bidding in Henefer. Old boy has horses he's feeding hay to. 43 elk, over 40 deer, bunch of turkeys.

Now, since "we" are so up in arms about grazers getting a cut rate, what do "we" owe this guy for feeding our animals good hay?

Are "we" deadbeats?
 
Grazed or overgrazed...yada yada yada. What this thread has exposed is YOU, Hossblur, your obsession with the internet. Here it is, Saturday, a fun day but yet you've spent all of it (and I'm sure you will stay at it all night) with this subject on these interwebs. Oh my gawdddddd, someone is wrong on the internet!

C'mon man, it must be something deep, much deeper that's ailing you. For you, Sir, public lands grazing should be waaaaaay down your list of priorities.

Get help, offline, because surely, the world of online is doing you no favors
 
Last edited:
Wildlife was here first. Everything else should be second.
This has been a great read for the past hour.
Missed in the argument:
CWMU TAGS, those sell for a pretty penny, has to offset some cost of grazing,
Pound for pound consumption of grazing between wildlife and cows.
Winter range is winter range. No changing that. Maybe the rancher needs to ranch in Mexico, Nebraska, or anyplace in between. If you choose to develop on winter range the wildlife come with it. Kinda like extra baggage.
Personal note.
We have kept 150 head on private property 100 percent of the time owing them, roughly 20 years. We do have to buy hay to feed but only 70 ton.
What I don't see is other grazers improving the ground they lease from the state/blm. Never one time have I seen a cowboy fix a spring that has been stomped in by cows for water. (Utah only) my understanding is most grazers believe it is the governments job to fix them for the grazer due to the grazer leasing the AMU.
School lunches, fellas my wife's a teacher and beef only shows up a couple times a month.
Granted I may not have the knowledge or age (45) of other guys in this thread. But to me this is rational. If you want to use something EARN IT.

I put on a lot of miles and cover a lot of country though. It's hard for me not to pull for the wildlife when everything else is against it.
 
WyoResident said:
Grazed or overgrazed...yada yada yada. What this thread has exposed is YOU, Hossblur, your obsession with the internet. Here it is, Saturday, a fun day but yet you've spent all of it (and I'm sure you will stay at it all night) with this subject on these interwebs. Oh my gawdddddd, someone is wrong on the internet!

C'mon man, it must be something deep, much deeper that's ailing you. For you, Sir, public lands grazing should be waaaaaay down your list of priorities.

Get help, offline, because surely, the world of online is doing you no favors
Click to expand...


Robot tournament.

Daughter drives 1 min, then 40 other teams drive x 6

Thanks for trying, but I guarantee I saw more elk, than you did today.
 
johnnycake said:
State owned public lands in the west are dwarfed by federally owned public lands. And the feds have long since stopped pretty much all disposal of public lands into private ownership. And there's really not a credible threat to the whole "turn fed lands into state lands" push.

It ain't gonna happen anytime in the next century, and I would wager a lot that I'm right.
Click to expand...
Not trying to nit pick your rational but according to this data set State owned public lands do not dwarf fed. Public lands.

I guessed when I said over 50% was federal land, but not by much. The average comes out to approximately 46.7% of the 11 western States are federally owned.

So…… more or less, by individual State, 50% or if we’re going to split hair, in a general statement 46.7 % federally owned. Not hardly drawfed in any since of the term. This means, on average the western States are only collecting property taxes on half the land in their State bouncers.

They are going to take another run at it, in your life time. I’m guessing sooner, than later, as the westerns State’s populations continue to grow.

Regardless, you youngsters need to fight to keep Multiple Use in place as it currently exists, and if you have an issue, individually or collectively with a livestock lesser, go after the lack of incompetent management by the federal agencies. They are the only ones who have the responsibility to hold the lesser accountable, and they dang well should do their job.

StateFederal land acreageTotal state acreagePercentage of federal land
Arizona28,077,99272,688,00038.6%
California45,493,133100,206,72045.4%
Colorado24,100,24766,485,76036.2%
Idaho32,789,64852,933,12061.9%
Montana27,082,40193,271,04029.0%
Nevada56,262,61070,264,32080.1%
New Mexico24,665,77477,766,40031.7%
Oregon32,244,25761,598,72052.3%
Utah33,267,62152,696,96063.1%
Washington12,192,85542,693,76028.6%
Wyoming29,137,72262,343,04046.7%
 
I agree. If you want something, EARN IT.

WHEN did dudes from Wyoming becomes such a pile of whining cry babies? It's the NR fault. It's the sheep's fault. Good lord. If your chasing sheep, hunting deer, your doing it wrong. Ain't the sheep's fault, they've been there nearly 200 years. It's yours.

I watch Wyoming thread because I hunt close to the border, and we "share" elk. But JEEEZUS, the daily whine and ***** out of the "cowboy" state has gotten off the charts.

The AUM is set by gov. I keep reading, a certain gov employee in Laramie, has influence. Like it or not there were cows and sheep here LONG before recreational hunting, and were there during the "golden age". Stop whining on a forum, pick up the phone, and go hang with Buzz and fix it
Themaddness said:
Wildlife was here first. Everything else should be second.
This has been a great read for the past hour.
Missed in the argument:
CWMU TAGS, those sell for a pretty penny, has to offset some cost of grazing,
Pound for pound consumption of grazing between wildlife and cows.
Winter range is winter range. No changing that. Maybe the rancher needs to ranch in Mexico, Nebraska, or anyplace in between. If you choose to develop on winter range the wildlife come with it. Kinda like extra baggage.
Personal note.
We have kept 150 head on private property 100 percent of the time owing them, roughly 20 years. We do have to buy hay to feed but only 70 ton.
What I don't see is other grazers improving the ground they lease from the state/blm. Never one time have I seen a cowboy fix a spring that has been stomped in by cows for water. (Utah only) my understanding is most grazers believe it is the governments job to fix them for the grazer due to the grazer leasing the AMU.
School lunches, fellas my wife's a teacher and beef only shows up a couple times a month.
Granted I may not have the knowledge or age (45) of other guys in this thread. But to me this is rational. If you want to use something EARN IT.

I put on a lot of miles and cover a lot of country though. It's hard for me not to pull for the wildlife when everything else is against it.
Click to expand...
 
2lumpy said:
Not trying to nit pick your rational but according to this data set State owned public lands do not dwarf fed. Public lands.

I guessed when I said over 50% was federal land, but not by much. The average comes out to approximately 46.7% of the 11 western States are federally owned.

So…… more or less, by individual State, 50% or if we’re going to split hair, in a general statement 46.7 % federally owned. Not hardly drawfed in any since of the term. This means, on average the western States are only collecting property taxes on half the land in their State bouncers.

They are going to take another run at it, in your life time. I’m guessing sooner, than later, as the westerns State’s populations continue to grow.

Regardless, you youngsters need to fight to keep Multiple Use in place as it currently exists, and if you have an issue, individually or collectively with a livestock lesser, go after the lack of incompetent management by the federal agencies. They are the only ones who have the responsibility to hold the lesser accountable, and they dang well should do their job.

StateFederal land acreageTotal state acreagePercentage of federal land
Arizona28,077,99272,688,00038.6%
California45,493,133100,206,72045.4%
Colorado24,100,24766,485,76036.2%
Idaho32,789,64852,933,12061.9%
Montana27,082,40193,271,04029.0%
Nevada56,262,61070,264,32080.1%
New Mexico24,665,77477,766,40031.7%
Oregon32,244,25761,598,72052.3%
Utah33,267,62152,696,96063.1%
Washington12,192,85542,693,76028.6%
Wyoming29,137,72262,343,04046.7%
Click to expand...
This data set only shows what percentage of each state is federal land. It says nothing about private land and state land ownerships.

This breaks out state owned and federally owned lands in each state, and yes, in the west federal lands dwarf state owned lands. It's not even close.

Public Land Ownership by State - Natural Resources Council of Maine https://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf
 
johnnycake said:
This data set only shows what percentage of each state is federal land. It says nothing about private land and state land ownerships.

This breaks out state owned and federally owned lands in each state, and yes, in the west federal lands dwarf state owned lands. It's not even close.

Public Land Ownership by State - Natural Resources Council of Maine https://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf
Click to expand...
Today.

Don't forget Nevada sold most of there's. Utah is over 2/3 I believe. Same as other states.
 
hossblur said:
Today.

Don't forget Nevada sold most of there's. Utah is over 2/3 I believe. Same as other states.
Click to expand...
State owned lands have always been for the states to choose what to do with--that was literally the whole point of granting state land ownership at statehood and each Western state negotiated how much and which sections.

Show me how much federal land has been converted to state lands without a reciprocal land swap post statehood for any state. I'll wait.

Yep, Evil Elvis is a more credible threat than losing federal public lands.

And this last post of yours shows that you aren't understanding the difference between federally owned public lands and state owned lands. Utah is roughly 63% federal lands and 7% state owned lands. Even if the state of Utah sold all of it's lands that would leave the vast majority of public lands in Utah still public, because the feds aren't privatizing lands anymore.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to continue this to the ridiculous level but I think you may have misunderstood the mean of the labels. Either that or I did.

Actually, I think …… this data breaks out the federal land from all other State land.

Note the heading, Total State Land, meaning all land in the State.

All State Land category includes Private, State, and Federal.

To get the percentage shown they divided the Total State Land acres into the the Federal acres. Example: Wyoming has 29,000,000 of Federal, the Total acres in Wyoming (including the Federal acres) 62,000,000 which equals approximately 46.7%.

29, 000,000 / 62,000,000 = 46.7%

This might add some clarity to our nit picky discussion.

Federal land ownership by state

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
ballotpedia.org ballotpedia.org
 
Last edited:
2lumpy said:
Not trying to continue this to the ridiculous level but I think you may have misunderstood the mean of the labels. Either that or I did.

Actually, I think …… this data breaks out the federal land from all other State land.

Note the heading, Total State Land, meaning all land in the State.

All State Land category includes Private, State, and Federal.

To get the percentage shown they divided the Total State Land acres by the the Federal acres. Example: Wyoming has 29,000,000 of Federal, the Total acres in Wyoming (including the Federal acres) 62,000,000 which equals approximately 46.7%.

29, 000,000 / 62,000,000 = 46.7%

This might add some clarity to our nit picky discussion.

Federal land ownership by state

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
ballotpedia.org ballotpedia.org
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the percentage of federal public lands within a state. But the state governments are the ones that do still transfer ownership of certain state owned lands to private ownership under various programs. The feds have not been disposing of federally owned public lands to private ownership for decades--and even longer for converting federal lands to state lands. So the threat of losing public land access (which was the fear you first expressed that I engaged with you on this thread over) is pretty much only an issue for state owned public lands. Which are a small percentage of public lands in the western states (Nevada is 80% federal 0.18% state and 19.82% private with the lowest percentage of state owned lands; Alaska is 60% federal 30% state and has the highest percentage of state owned lands in the west).
 
johnnycake said:
State owned lands have always been for the states to choose what to do with--that was literally the whole point of granting state land ownership at statehood and each Western state negotiated how much and which sections.

Show me how much federal land has been converted to state lands without a reciprocal land swap post statehood for any state. I'll wait.

Yep, Evil Elvis is a more credible threat than losing federal public lands.

And this last post of yours shows that you aren't understanding the difference between federally owned public lands and state owned lands. Utah is roughly 63% federal lands and 7% state owned lands. Even if the state of Utah sold all of it's lands that would leave the vast majority of public lands in Utah still public, because the feds aren't privatizing lands anymore.
Click to expand...


State trust lands aren't the only state owned lands.

Federally leased lands may be federally owned, but off limits to public.

Feel free to jump the razor wire on federally owned Dugway, or HAFB, see how quick your "public" ownership gets challenged. Try to hunt oil leases, mines, timber sells, etc.

63% on paper, isn't 63% on actuality.

But neither have Jack to do with AUM set by federal land managers.

I'll ask for the 4th time?

Are you pissed at the price? Or the presence of livestock period?

They are 2,separate issues
 
johnnycake said:
Lol, there are multiple programs and lots of taxpayer dollars paid to private agriculture operations to address wildlife damage to crops. It's never going to be dollar for dollar, but that is just the cost of doing business.

As for those studies, DWR budgets, projects, etc., a huge percentage of them are funded through sportsmen's dollars. But it's pretty clear that facts are irrelevant to you on this issue.
Click to expand...
Btw.

The vast majority of PR funding comes from target and competitive shooters, NOT hunters. Facts that are irrelevant to you I guess
 
johnnycake said:
Yes, that is the percentage of federal public lands within a state. But the state governments are the ones that do still transfer ownership of certain state owned lands to private ownership under various programs. The feds have not been disposing of federally owned public lands to private ownership for decades--and even longer for converting federal lands to state lands. So the threat of losing public land access (which was the fear you first expressed that I engaged with you on this thread over) is pretty much only an issue for state owned public lands. Which are a small percentage of public lands in the western states (Nevada is 80% federal 0.18% state and 19.82% private with the lowest percentage of state owned lands; Alaska is 60% federal 30% state and has the highest percentage of state owned lands in the west).
Click to expand...
I concede Johnny……. Again, sure hope you’re right.
 
hossblur said:
I'll ask for the 4th time?

Are you pissed at the price? Or the presence of livestock period?

They are 2,separate issues
Click to expand...
hossblur said:
Btw.

The vast majority of PR funding comes from target and competitive shooters, NOT hunters. Facts that are irrelevant to you I guess
Click to expand...
Reread my earlier post #19. I already answered you after the first time you asked it. I can explain it to you, and I have, but understanding it is your job.

Notice how I never said hunters are the source of PR funds? Those are your words. I said sportsmen, which generally is understood to include hunters, anglers, and shooting sports.
 
johnnycake said:
Reread my earlier post #19. I already answered you after the first time you asked it. I can explain it to you, and I have, but understanding it is your job.

Notice how I never said hunters are the source of PR funds? Those are your words. I said sportsmen, which generally is understood to include hunters, anglers, and shooting sports.
Click to expand...


"Sure seems less than the $50 license, which also brings in 3:1 matching in federal PR funds that are sourced primarily by hunters and anglers."

Your words, quotes exactly.

Anglers don't fund PR. They find Dingell Johnson.

PR is funded primarily from target and competitive shooters, which are not necessarily hunters.


I quoted you EXACTLY, and your wrong on both occasions. Your "understanding" isn't correct
 
hossblur said:
"Sure seems less than the $50 license, which also brings in 3:1 matching in federal PR funds that are sourced primarily by hunters and anglers."

Your words, quotes exactly.

Anglers don't fund PR. They find Dingell Johnson.

PR is funded primarily from target and competitive shooters, which are not necessarily hunters.


I quoted you EXACTLY, and your wrong on both occasions. Your "understanding" isn't correct
Click to expand...
You know what, you are right on that point. I did incorrectly say hunters and anglers in that post and sportsmen in others. As they say even a blind pig manages to find the occasional truffle, gold star buddy!

Did you finally manage to understand my answer in #19 to where my problem lies with private livestock being a burdensome parasite on public lands? Or are you still dodging that reality?
 
hossblur said:

Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act explained - Wildlife for All

Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act was passed in 1937 and established a program of matching federal grants to the states for wildlife restoration projects.
wildlifeforall.us wildlifeforall.us
Click to expand...
Funny enough though, the Southwick Associates whitepaper used to draw the conclusion that target and competitive shooters provide the bulk of PR funds does not address the overlap. It counts my purchase of ammo for my 10mm (and the gun itself) as non hunting related ignoring the reality that I am still a hunter and if I weren't I wouldn't have that pistol anyway. It's a less cut and dry differentiation with a smaller margin in reality I'm sure
 
2lumpy said:
Not trying to nit pick your rational but according to this data set State owned public lands do not dwarf fed. Public lands.

I guessed when I said over 50% was federal land, but not by much. The average comes out to approximately 46.7% of the 11 western States are federally owned.

So…… more or less, by individual State, 50% or if we’re going to split hair, in a general statement 46.7 % federally owned. Not hardly drawfed in any since of the term. This means, on average the western States are only collecting property taxes on half the land in their State bouncers.

They are going to take another run at it, in your life time. I’m guessing sooner, than later, as the westerns State’s populations continue to grow.

Regardless, you youngsters need to fight to keep Multiple Use in place as it currently exists, and if you have an issue, individually or collectively with a livestock lesser, go after the lack of incompetent management by the federal agencies. They are the only ones who have the responsibility to hold the lesser accountable, and they dang well should do their job.

StateFederal land acreageTotal state acreagePercentage of federal land
Arizona28,077,99272,688,00038.6%
California45,493,133100,206,72045.4%
Colorado24,100,24766,485,76036.2%
Idaho32,789,64852,933,12061.9%
Montana27,082,40193,271,04029.0%
Nevada56,262,61070,264,32080.1%
New Mexico24,665,77477,766,40031.7%
Oregon32,244,25761,598,72052.3%
Utah33,267,62152,696,96063.1%
Washington12,192,85542,693,76028.6%
Wyoming29,137,72262,343,04046.7%
Click to expand...
I deleted my snarky post objecting to this table but I see reading on that the “nitpicky” correction was made.

I would argue with hoss about the BUREAU of Reclamation and how their projects are typically reimbursed, but who has that much time?

You guys got this :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Once in awhile I read things in here that are absolutely "amazing"

The OP,@WyoResident and @johnnycake keep throwing out stats and numbers.

Because i can read, and do pay attention, i recognized immediately where those "stats" came from.

Both of them are quoting, nearly word for word a "study" commissioned by non other than the Center for Biogical Diversity.

Grazing

www.biologicaldiversity.org www.biologicaldiversity.org


Now, perhaps neither guy realized WHO they are quoting, to be fair. But for those not quite up to date, The Center is a lively group of extreme "environmentalists", and "extreme" anti hunters, who spend their time suing the government on everything from Grizzly delighting, wolf delighting, to grazing. They, SUE YOU, the taxpayer, and take YOUR MONEY to end access to hunting, fishing, and land use. So it's kind of ironic, two members are complaining about a loss "of taxpayer money" related to grazing, while quoting and using a Center fir Biological Diversity study, paid for by lawsuits against the taxpayer.

I'll let you carry on with your personal attacks on hossblur and lumpy, but at least now, the light has been shed on where you 2 are coming from
 
johnnycake said:
Yes, that is the percentage of federal public lands within a state. But the state governments are the ones that do still transfer ownership of certain state owned lands to private ownership under various programs. The feds have not been disposing of federally owned public lands to private ownership for decades--and even longer for converting federal lands to state lands. So the threat of losing public land access (which was the fear you first expressed that I engaged with you on this thread over) is pretty much only an issue for state owned public lands. Which are a small percentage of public lands in the western states (Nevada is 80% federal 0.18% state and 19.82% private with the lowest percentage of state owned lands; Alaska is 60% federal 30% state and has the highest percentage of state owned lands in the west).
Click to expand...
Ehh, not exactly true. The fed’s frequently engage in “swaps” to clean things up in the checkerboards or high-profile recreational areas.

You really don’t need to own BLM - in most cases they let you use it for damn near nothing.
 
The answer is not to eliminate grazing on multiple use land because like 2lumpy noted, that's a slippery slope. The answer is to set rules and enforce them. You can't expect the Feds to notice a few cow pies in the creek when they can't even notice a cartel grow or a half inch of powdery dust on a closed road. There has never been a more incompetent bunch of land managers anywhere. The Rangers are probably still working from home after the pandemic.
 
eelgrass said:
The answer is not to eliminate grazing on multiple use land because like 2lumpy noted, that's a slippery slope. The answer is to set rules and enforce them. You can't expect the Feds to notice a few cow pies in the creek when they can't even notice a cartel grow or a half inch of powdery dust on a closed road. There has never been a more incompetent bunch of land managers anywhere. The Rangers are probably still working from home after the pandemic.
Click to expand...

Not probably. Many FS employees are. How else do you think guys like @Buzz have "full time" jobs but can spend day upon day in hearing and meetings.
 
eelgrass said:
The answer is not to eliminate grazing on multiple use land because like 2lumpy noted, that's a slippery slope. The answer is to set rules and enforce them. You can't expect the Feds to notice a few cow pies in the creek when they can't even notice a cartel grow or a half inch of powdery dust on a closed road. There has never been a more incompetent bunch of land managers anywhere. The Rangers are probably still working from home after the pandemic.
Click to expand...
For sure. I bet there’s a bunch of retired dudes here that spend more time with boots on the ground than many of the “professionals “.
 
Meanwhile the “home place” is lousy with wildlife. And rather than let people on to hunt a few of them, they want more money when they get into the haystack.
 
@WyoResident

Regarding Hossblur......I'll just sit back and let his own mouth show how ignorant and chronically argumentative this internet badazz is on issues that he's usually about 99% on the wrong side of

Fire away, Hossblur!


Thats one you probably want back after using a bio diversity study to show you're on "the right side".

Thanks @Keystone.

I checked out the links. Seems to @WyoResident , just tossing out something that sounds "official" means he's "an internet badazz".

What's next, a PETA study? Something from the WWF?

Using Center for Biological Diversity study data and talking points to pad your grazing *****, is pretty priceless?????
 
Keystone said:
Once in awhile I read things in here that are absolutely "amazing"

The OP,@WyoResident and @johnnycake keep throwing out stats and numbers.

Because i can read, and do pay attention, i recognized immediately where those "stats" came from.

Both of them are quoting, nearly word for word a "study" commissioned by non other than the Center for Biogical Diversity.

Grazing

www.biologicaldiversity.org www.biologicaldiversity.org


Now, perhaps neither guy realized WHO they are quoting, to be fair. But for those not quite up to date, The Center is a lively group of extreme "environmentalists", and "extreme" anti hunters, who spend their time suing the government on everything from Grizzly delighting, wolf delighting, to grazing. They, SUE YOU, the taxpayer, and take YOUR MONEY to end access to hunting, fishing, and land use. So it's kind of ironic, two members are complaining about a loss "of taxpayer money" related to grazing, while quoting and using a Center fir Biological Diversity study, paid for by lawsuits against the taxpayer.

I'll let you carry on with your personal attacks on hossblur and lumpy, but at least now, the light has been shed on where you 2 are coming from
Click to expand...
Look at post #58 and reread the Congressional Report I linked to. More than one source can use the same information, especially when it is the official source to be relied on.

Bluehair said:
Ehh, not exactly true. The fed’s frequently engage in “swaps” to clean things up in the checkerboards or high-profile recreational areas.

You really don’t need to own BLM - in most cases they let you use it for damn near nothing.
Click to expand...
I got lazy and didn't always write it out exactly with every nuance but look at post 69 and you'll see I did address the swaps. Point still stands that feds don't convey fee title to states or private without a reciprocal trade for comparable lands (however that may be determined).
 
johnnycake said:
Look at post #58 and reread the Congressional Report I linked to. More than one source can use the same information, especially when it is the official source to be relied on.


I got lazy and didn't always write it out exactly with every nuance but look at post 69 and you'll see I did address the swaps. Point still stands that feds don't convey fee title to states or private without a reciprocal trade for comparable lands (however that may be determined).
Click to expand...


A 2015 study by the Center for Biological Diversity identifies BLM, FS, and
other federal programs that might fund indirect costs of livestock grazing. The study also identifies potential nonfederal
costs, such as at the state or local level. The study, entitled Costs and Consequences: The Real Price of Grazing on
America’s Public Lands,” 2015, is available at https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/
pdfs/CostsAndConsequences.


It's even cited in the report you listed.

CBD IS the source for your report. To be fair, one of the sources.

The public land council is cited as well. But the numbers/data you and Wyo spewed came directly from CBD.
 
Does that mean the AUM is high or low?

Depends on who you talk to, where they graze, and what year it is.

But blindly taking a study COMMISIONED by one of, if not the most anti grazing orgs in the country, citing it in a report, that putting it out on this forum as gospel, is short sited, on your behalf, which you seem open to discussions.

WyoResident "internet badazz" rant, shows a different intent.

I guarantee if I started a grazing thread using a study from the wool growers association as my data source, you'd be not inclined to trust it, or me, internet badazz or not.
 
That CBD study got interjected into all sorts of government reports. It's old, but I remember years ago reading it, then seeing/reading it all over as if it was gospel.

How do you price dry arid places like Arizona, Nevada, Utah deserts, there isn't private pasture that is similar so no value, or at least any reputable value can be found. Since much of public land is in these types areas, right off the bat you can see the flaw.

Dig through it, see which economists they used and their political slants, and real quick It's just garbage.

If I remember right, several "environmental" groups got caught using it as well
 

Similar threads

P
rejoice, fans of public lands grazing
Replies
8
Views
452
Utahlefty
Utahlefty

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

864EB8E4-B197-4DE3-B6AD-18A709484140.jpeg
5D062188-84A7-47A8-A95F-9176542A7940.jpeg
IMG_1899.png
IMG_0858.jpg
IMG_3740.jpg
thumbnail_image2.jpg
deer 2.jpg
826BBD0F-52A3-4688-A8EE-79118805D988.png
96C70127-BA5D-4874-9316-D5A0D31D85D6.jpeg
IMG_1241 2.JPG
D7ABA35A-F9A3-4AC6-8D5C-674E453F949D.jpeg
HUNT3345 - Copy.JPG
Back
Top Bottom