Question about cattle grazing

[diamondl73]

I am a Rancher, Fisherman, and Hunter. I belong to the Sportsman for FIsh and WIldlife and would just like to find what the opinions are of other members and hunters as to their feelings about ranchers using BLM and Forest Service lands for Cattle Grazing.

 

[MartinHunter]

I do not mind it if the rancher is a nice guy. I had one incident when a "local" rancher from out of state drove from his property, across BLM land (no road) in his Hummer, and told my father, uncle, cousin, and myself to get the hell off his land. It was a long time ago but I remember distinctly that this guy had a pistol on his lap. My uncle gave him a good chewing and told him if he ever tried to kick us off of BLM land again he would shoot every one of his cows in sight. They guy has given us no crap on that land since (but a few of his "pals" has.) That's just one guy though I guess.
Michael

 

[ELKMASTER101]

NOT A PROBLEM,
I just wish i was one of those guys,

 

[Bambistew]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-16-04 AT 06:55AM (MST)[p]I really don't have that big of a problem with it if they take care of it, but a large portion don't. The only real problem that I have is what they pay for grazing... why should they only pay 10% of what private leased grass goes for? Raise the prices, so they are competive and help pay for restoration of the riparian habitat that has been destroyed by the cows.

 

[Blueoak]

I think it should be stopped or cut back. I had a 3600ac ranch in SW Idaho that was bordered on two sides by forest ground. I took the cows off and the elk and deer came back. They came back in a big way, it was amazing. I have now done the same thing on my ranch in Ca. Same results. In fact, it has drawn the attention of the USDA and the state. The regeneration of browse and new oak trees is unreal, and they say cows don't compete with deer. That is BS. I understand its a way of life for a lot of people, but there should be better control. Maybe a conservation easement program that would compensate the rancher for reduction on his units. They do this with rice farmers all the time, why not for cattle guys? This just an opinion, I am not looking for a fight.

 

[dakotakid]

Blueoak,

I understand what you are saying but another subsidy is the last thing the American rancher/farmer needs. Dont get your self all spun out here, I am a farm boy myself. This topic in general will raise some very spirited discussion I have a feeling.

Mike

 

[Blueoak]

Ya I know. I thought about that. I just wanted to share my observations not argue. So I won't!

 

[Hawkk33]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-16-04 AT 10:24AM (MST)[p]I think that the cattle rancher leasing public land should remember that the Federal Government is doing them a favor by allowing them to graze that land at reduced AUM rates (if the lease is an old one) that grazing alllotment is still public land.

I have read horror stories both in real life and on here about rancher's who have very beligerent attitudes about the allotments they lease and their right to keep people off "their lands."

I also don't get the cattle folks who piss and moan about this predator or that predator impacting their livlihood knowing full well that the US Govt provides subsidies and offsets to those impacts.

One more thing I never quite understood is: are grazing leases increased or decreased to address inflation or market fluctuation in the beef industry?

Ok back to my original point

I used to despise seeing cattle all over the forests I worked in, in the streams tearing up riparian areas, but with the job I have now I have had to rethink the useful attributes cattle can provide if managed properly.

We use cattle in small numbers to remove grasses off meadows and what not that haven't been grazed for a few years but we know that we have to time their removal to allow for regrowth that will benefit deer, elk and other wildlife on our properties.

I guess the impacts on the resource depends on the intention of the person running cattle on that resource. A respectful person will manage respectfully and the rest will abuse it.

Just .02 from me

 

[larrbo]

I think that it important that cattle ranchers should be required to provide access to BLM land across their property if they have a BLM lease. I found myself in a situation several years ago in Wyoming when we had hiked the long way into hunt some BLM land. About 4 miles in I killed my buck. We were only about 1/2 mile from a road on the other side of the mountain, only it had a 200 yard frontage of private land. The rancher that owned the land also ran cattle on the BLM land. I walked down and asked permission to drag my deer to the road over his property. He said no, hell no, and i sould have you arrested for crossing my land to ask me. This is why access points should be mandated.

 

[TCR1]

This is a great topic!

I don't mind cattle grazing on public lands (except for wilderness areas, which is a whole different topic). For the most part, BLM property is located on rangeland. This property would offer very little socio-economic benefit if it was not used for ranching. However, as indicated in other posts, I feel that the fees levied to use these lands should be increased (say to 75% of private land leases in the general area or develop some sort of habitat model by which to compare to local lands so that a percentage could be determined with 75% being the max.). Also, enforcement of the number of animals utilizing the range should be considered. I believe leases are based on AGU's (animal grazing units). Consideration should be given to the wildlife population in the area (I think deer are 0.5 au's). It has been a little while since my rang managment class, but this is my thinking.

As for the Wyoming landowner...doesn't suprise me. I spent 6 years going to school (BS and MS) at U of Wyoming. Heard similar incidents pretty much every hunting season. the sad part is, you only hear about these incidents because they are bad. The people in Wyoming have all been very good to me and I really miss the state (even though I get back about once a month!).

 

[ELKMASTER101]

LARRBO,
that does bring up a very vallid point,
does any one know the diffrence between leasing goverment land and renting it.
where i'm hunting there is a guy that has leased some land and put up a fence, then he charges 100 bucks to cross it,
i'm not sure if this is legal,
but its not to far of a hike to go around.
I guess if you needed a truck to access back there it might be the thing.
but i agree with if your running your cows on OUR LAND and you adn your neighbors have it land locked or the accessable side land locked there should be an easment thru your property for the general public to access,

 

[30inchbuck]

I don't have a problem with cattle grazing. What I have a problem with is that everything seems to be overgrazed. Most of the time it is the rancher that has too many cows. But I also suspect that in some areas it is part of the BLM fault too.

They also should educate that hunter access is required it is not their land to restrict access. We ran into a issue in NM were the rancher had locked fences going into the BLM land. Contacting the local Game and Fish we got those locks removed.

So, cattle ranchers that have grazing rights should be required to follow the rules. Just like everyone else. If they don't I think that the grazing rights should then be forfieted. At least for some time frame. This might get their attention.

 

[Hunterted]

Here in Utah the ranchers once owned much of what is now Forest Sevice and BLM land. In the late 1800's the government made a deal with them to free up the land. Part of that agreement was that the grazing would continue.

Many studies have shown that cattle and sheep grazing, done properly, is good for the range and improves the habitat for deer and elk.

I had to do a research study in college that presented both sides of this argument and that convinced me that there is a benefit to the range when cattle and sheep grazing are done correctly.

 

[NMRaptor]

I agree with Larrbo's comments. Same thing happened to me on an elk hunt. Access should be allowed to land locked taxpayer land.
-Raptor

 

[BCummings]

Grazing cattle and sheep on BLM or public lands done correctly can be a good land management tool as others have pointed out. The problem that I have with it, is when a rancher with ajacent lands will use the animals to push deer and elk onto their property. For instance, in the area I bowhunt for deer and elk, the rancher that owns the land below the public lands will graze his sheep on the public to the point that the forest looks like a bulldozer has gone through it, just so the deer and elk will move to his land. Then he can charge a premium fee for hunting his property. Worse yet, the local game biologists acknowledge what the rancher is doing, but are helpless to prevent it. To me, this is wrong.

 

[400bull]

For the most part I do not have any problem with ranches being allowed to graze there animals on BLM or Forest service land. I do have a problem with it when it gets to mid-November and the ranchers have not bothered to gather up there heards yet. I personaly think that if the rancher does not get his cattle off the mountion by the first part of Oct. (like they are scheduled to) they should be fined for leaving the aniamls on the mountian.

400bull

 

[jkhunterid]

The ranchers here get charged with a trespass fee if they are not off the land by the designated date. There has also been a lot of emphasis on fencing riparian areas and moving cattle more frequently between allotments. I think that when we get through this drought the improvements in the range will be suprising.

 

[cohntr6]

As long as it is done right no problems here. I hate seeing cattle parked in riparian areas for long periods of time, that is not good. Actually grazing can be beneficial to wildlife if it is done right, tons of studies to back that .
Jeff

 

[hunterofelk]

I'd rather have the big cattle ranches than the 20-acre developments going up everywhere out west.

 

[2_Point]

HunterofElk- That is a good point. Many of the areas that concern people are the mountain, summer grazing areas. Many ranchers own their land in the valleys which tends to be winter range and not suitable for summer grazing. If these ranchers loose their Forest grounds which provide the summer pastures, then they are forced to sell their own ground (winter range) and that is how the winter range gets developed. Any developement of these ranches has a negative effect on the wildlife populations.

 

[diamondl73]

Thanks everyone these have been good posts... As to the cost of grazing on BLM.. It isn't as cheap as some might think. Just looking at the fee makes it look that away, but we are also responsible for maintainig all of the fences in our alotment plus any water development and maintanance. It works out to about 10 to 15 dollars a head. Good irrigated pastures will cost from 15 to 20. As far as access I don't think we should have to allow someone to cross our land, (would you want people walking across your lawn to get to the store on the next block) although we don't stop anyone from crossing our private land or state leases. In Wyoming about 70% of the ranches use BLM land, and about 90% of these would go out of business if the cost gets much higher or we couldnt use the BLM at all. And it has been proven by the game and fish that wildlife would rather graze on grass in the winter that has been grazed in the summer by cattle. It is more nutritious. I will agree that there are some ranchers who need to change there management practices and how they use the BLM. We use a rotaion pasuter system and I does the range more good than just one pasture. There are also bad hunters and recreationists, I cant tell you how many times we have people hunting, camping and fishing on our 2100 acres of private land without asking. ANYONE can look at a BLM map and figure out it is private..... THanks again for all of the good posts.

 

[freedivr2]

I don't have any problems with it as long as the rancher is conscienceous enough to rotate the herds to new pastures before there's nothing but roots left on the feed. In central Calif, some of the ranchers don't do that soon enough and all we see sometimes is miles and miles of "moonscape".

 

[Bambistew]

Now you got me confused... You say it costs so much to graze BLM, but you would go out of bussiness if you couldn't graze it??? How much do private leases cost? The ones I've looked into cost about the same price or less as you quote for your BLM leases... What about the other 97% of cattle producers in the US that make it just fine with out grazing public land??? They seem to stay in business just fine. Public leases go for about $12-20 and thats what you "quote" for your BLM lease.

Got any links for the grazing is good for the wildlife? What about all the other animals besides deer and elk you say that grazing "improves" thier habitat? What about say Sage and sharp tial grouse that need the cover that is not available due to grazing? Or the trout that need silt free and cow ##### free streams to lay thier eggs in? Or what about all the other birds and small animals??? Thier's more to destruction caused by grazing than what little benifit a few elk or deer may make... What about the forage that just one cow takes away from wildlife??? One cow eats as much as FOUR deer a month, or almost as much as TWO elk... How is grazing good for the animals??? You're going to have a hard time convincing me that grazing is good for the environment... the problems it creates is far worse than any it helps.

Your subdivison remarks have some merrit but not much. Most of these ranchers sell out because they are sick of the lifestyle and income. How bout you name a few ranches that sold out to developers because they lost their lease... All of them will sell out sooner or later its just a mater of time... it really has nothing to do with being able to graze BLM or forest. IF they want to stay in bussiness they can graze private land... from what diamondl73 says its about the same price anyway or cheaper...

I bet the elk and deer come running to this peice of grazed land to get all the nutrients they need... note one side grazed and the other not. Which do you think wildlife would prefer?

The fish love this type of habitat...

The deer come running to this place...

Grazed (some one tell all the deer and elk to come to this place)

UNGRAZED (same habitat NO cattle)

How about some mountain habitat... no cattle grazing (means poor forage for deer and elk)

THIS is were the deer and elk flock to... much better nutrients in the grass here...

Is that a deer in the back gound? No wait its just dirt...

Typical stream with grazing (notice one side is nice and lush, while the other is basically devoid of plants to stabilize the banks)

Cows

NO cows

These are pictures from all over the west from AZ to OR to MT and ID... Public lands ranching appears to be really great for wildlife. Check out this link for more fantastic public lans ranching "stewardship". For ranchers and non-ranchers alike this is a very informative page. Biased as it may seem, the facts are the facts. Its up to you to decide!

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/

 

[Blueoak]

Thanks for the pictures. I have seen the results of no cows first hand myself on my ranches. The best thing for wildlife is the illimination of cattle on public ground, or sharp reductions.

 

[diamondl73]

Hey, I am not trying to start and agrument here.. But there is alot that needs to be explained on these pictures. Where they are, what type of grazing system is used, yearly precip. You cant just show pics and thats proof. If you just want to show pics and not have all the facts or details I can show you all kinds of pics from my part of wyoming where there are cows that have grazed and you cant tell a difference between the regrowth and what hasnt been grazed, pictures dont prove anything alone. As to grazing private land, I dont know where you are but if we grazed our private land then where do we raise the hay teo feed our cows? OBVIOUSLY you didnt read my whole post you just try to bash grazing. With proper pasture rotation none of those pastures would look that bad.

 

[Smiley]

Diamond dont take it personel , it sounds like you are doing a good job and unfortunately all ranchers are being lumped in together , just like ranchers do to the majority of hunters being grouped in with slob hunters , I cannot count on one hand how many ranchers have put locked gates keeping the public out of public property becouse some idiot left the gate open , which is wrong . From my own experience in southeastern Idaho the majority of cattle men practice poor management of the lands the use but there are a few that do ok. There needs to be a check and balance with the ranches that use public land and I am guessing it would be pretty exspensive to implement it correctly but if we the public were to see miss management it should be reported and something done , maybe a warning first then fines ect... something has got to change becouse most of the ranching community are not doing anything about it .

 

[Bambistew]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-04 AT 01:10PM (MST)[p]I'm not trying to bash you personally... these are mine and your public lands... "Managed" by ranchers... this is not some area managed by a convict in mexico, but ranchers who claim to be "taking" care of our lands... they'er taking care of em all right... right to the dirt! These pictures are from various pastures across the west. CA, ID, MT, AZ etc... Does it really matter. Its public land!

Sure you can show us places where it doesn't look like cows have grazed... and so can I, and I applaud you for your efforts, but according to the BLM that would account for about 20% of the public range. The point I'm trying to make is according to the BLM 60% of the range is in this type of condition... "managed" by ranchers for the public. Why should any of these pastures look like this?

Also according to the BLM, it would take over 300 years to bring all public pasture into a condtion that would be even remotly close to pre-grazing conditoins with propper management... but the "proper" management seems to have been rape and pillage for the last 100 years!

I know for a fact that I could go out and find pretty much every pasture that I know of on public lands and they would all look like this, to one extent or another.

Like I said, ranchers need to wake the hell up before their public lands ranching days are over. There is no excuse what so ever for these condtions to exist anywhere! I could post pictures from a 100 pastures if you like! I could see a few bad apples... but 60% of the pastures are in such bad condition that they can't possibly get any worse... only 20% are in good contition and 20% in "fair" condition...

 

[diamondl73]

I still have a problem with the numbers you keep posting aabout the BLM lands. I have vistited with our BLM range con and his numbers he has given me are quite a bit different than the ones you have from the BLM. As far as the rancher managing the land we arent. Ultimantly the BLM is. If they think things are that bad and can prove it they should be doing something to fix it. I dont think ranchers should be taking advantage of the BLM lands.
In the long haul it isn't that expensive or any harder to use the range properly so there can be biodiversity and MULTIPLE USE which is why BLM lands where saved. Even if all ranchers where to do it right there would still be extreme enviromental groups that still wouldnt want the cows out there, and some ranchers who think they should get to do what they want,, it's human nature. But we can post all the numbers and pics we could come up with and this would never end. Thanks for all the good discussion!!

 

[Bambistew]

Sure I know we could go round and round? but what I'm trying to point out is the condition our BLM lands are in with a direct link to grazing. Something needs to be done!

Here is a link for the condition of wetlands and riparian areas on BLM? Notice the first column, it states the areas that are in proper working condition! Notice how most all of them are in that 40% or less range? For 2001, sure you could argue that the degradation of these areas are not all a direct result of cattle grazing? but the vast majority are!

http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls01/pls2-2_01.pdf

For 2003

http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls03/pls2-2_03.pdf

Here is another map that shows riparian areas at risk by field office.

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/200/nap/NAP_sections/Western_US/rip_cond_unacc.pdf

Here is a list of areas broken down by percentage of ?natural? vegetative state for 2003. Notice how the potential natural area by percantate (100-76%) is in the single digits in most all states? The majority of the lands fall in the 75-25% range (late to mid seral). The upper end is not the problem it's the majority of the range that's in a condition of less than 50% of its original or potential condition. The part that is really disturbing is the states that have areas in the high 20?s in the early seral (25-0% of natural) So from just that small example you can see that BLM range land as a whole consists of mostly areas that are in a condition of less than 50% of their natural state. Should that be considered acceptable?

http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls03/pls2-1_03.pdf

Are you saying that since the BLM is in charge then its ok for ranchers to degrade the land? I'm confused again? I thought the ranchers knew more about the range than the BLM, so wouldn't that mean that they should take their cows off an area before they eat it down to dirt? Or should they just leave the cows in until the lease is up, even if it means that they would graze dirt for another month? Some ranchers do this because the BLM can't enforce everyplace. I'm glad to hear that you don't practice this type of ranching and again I applaud you for your efforts. If all ranchers took that initiative they wouldn't be under the assault of the anti grazing crowd. Once again I don't mind grazing as long as it's not screwing up everyone?s land at the profit (what little they make) of a rancher.

The 60% I quote was generated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service which is a part of the USDA. I couldn't find the link, but I know its out there, I've seen it!

 

[LairBear]

Nice discussion, don't stop now.

You will find my personal views at http://rangenet.org/directory/walkerl/ , but that is not my purpose for joining in.

Since I haven't seen it mentioned, I thought that you folks might like to be aware of voluntary permit buyout legislation that has been introduced in Congress:

"Two bills have been introduced in Congress to pay federal grazing permittees/lessees $175 per animal unit month to voluntarily retire their permit or lease and end grazing on the associated grazing allotment(s) permanently. This legislation would provide grazing permittees/lessees with another option for their permit or lease, while relieving public lands from continued livestock grazing wherever the buyout option is exercised. "

While the taxpayer would pick up the tab, those of us who support the legislation view it as a one-time subsidy to replace a perpetual subsidy. There are supporters from elements of both the public lands ranching and the environmental communities.

There are links to the bills and additional information at http://www.permitbuyout.net/