2023 BLM GRAZING RATES

[WV Mountaineer]

It’s important to understand that a lot of this ground isn’t premiere. And, isn’t worth what fertilized and maintained private grasslands are worth. A lot of the private is hay pasture as well. You can’t ranch without winter feed.


I have zero problems with low grazing rates on federal grounds. My problem lies when they are allowed to keep them on these lands when they are supposed to be gone. It foils up a lot of hunting. And, it’s a tactic that ranchers use to push game into their land to sell hunts. Fair is fair.

I like cheap beef and lamb chops. What I don’t like is helping them out to only have federal employees turn their back on the fleecing of everyone else’s interests.

Colorado usfs employees won’t even explain why these abuses aren’t being addressed. I imagine it has something to do with a place to hunt private for these people. It’s got to be something. Because they act as if a hunter has no right to expect their grazing contract commitment be obliged in order to enjoy a hunt without running domestic stock all over the mountains and basins so their hunting clients experience a great hunt.

 

[Idaboy]

You don't have to be an industry expert to understand supply and demand. Demand for the ground is already high. Remove a giant chunk of subsidized supply and the price of the remaining ground increases. -- I never said there was a huge surplus of vacant grazing land.

That said, I have done some work for the National Grazing Land Coalition and UC Davis Ag extension specifically regarding allotment decreases due to wild horses. So while far from an expert on the subject I do have some foundational knowledge. In the places I've examined, AUM allotment decreases actually mean reductions in pairs because in the short term there is zero elasticity of supply. -- I just have a hard time thinking it's all doom and gloom, at some point the price of the land that is available would get to a point that there would be land use shifts or producers would expand how far they are willing to travel to graze. These businessmen aren't stupid, they will adapt. There would be winners and losers, like there always is.

In fact I'm not even advocating for anything. My feelings on the subject are pretty neutral. I'm more just interested in pointing out the irony of the government subsidizing you the producer while competing with your neighbor the guy that leases land for grazing.

That's interesting insight, wasn't accusing anything, just didn't understand the point you were making. So when you say "remove a giant chuck" you mean don't lease any federal/state lands?....or just what exactly would you change in the current system?..because obviously it isn't perfect.

 

[Newtosavage]

Think about how much more private land owners could charge to graze in summer months if they weren't competing with the government undercutting their prices....

Think about how many more head are run on public land at those rates than on private, and the long term ecological damage they have done.

 

[Newtosavage]

It’s important to understand that a lot of this ground isn’t premiere. And, isn’t worth what fertilized and maintained private grasslands are worth. A lot of the private is hay pasture as well. You can’t ranch without winter feed.


I have zero problems with low grazing rates on federal grounds. My problem lies when they are allowed to keep them on these lands when they are supposed to be gone. It foils up a lot of hunting. And, it’s a tactic that ranchers use to push game into their land to sell hunts. Fair is fair.

I like cheap beef and lamb chops. What I don’t like is helping them out to only have federal employees turn their back on the fleecing of everyone else’s interests.

Colorado usfs employees won’t even explain why these abuses aren’t being addressed. I imagine it has something to do with a place to hunt private for these people. It’s got to be something. Because they act as if a hunter has no right to expect their grazing contract commitment be obliged in order to enjoy a hunt without running domestic stock all over the mountains and basins so their hunting clients experience a great hunt.

Those employees would be the first ones to do something about it if they would be backed up by their bosses and the local elected officials. But you know what the chances of that are.

 

[Newtosavage]

Just imagine for a minute if public land was the most desireable grazing lands that demanded the highest fees because it was so well rested and consisted of highly desireable native grasses.

Now why is it we are willing to settle for less than that as the owners of that public land?

We've been conditioned to believe that BLM and FS and other public lands "aren't worth" any more. Ever wonder why? Overgrazed for over a century, burned out and eroded (while those who graze it rest their private lands) it's easy to imagine it's not worth as much if you've never seen it in good condition.

 

[Banded_spooney]

That's interesting insight, wasn't accusing anything, just didn't understand the point you were making. So when you say "remove a giant chuck" you mean don't lease any federal/state lands?....or just what exactly would you change in the current system?..because obviously it isn't perfect.

Ya, I was making a hypothetical if we stopped or reduced grazing on federal/state lands it would remove a giant chuck of the supply.

I'm not advocating for that or anything. I don't have the answer and I'm not all that emotionally invested. There are a lot of public land issues that elicit an emotional response from me (sale or corning crossing for example), this one isn't high on my list. -- I don't worry a lot about a guy working hard just trying to make a living, even if he is getting a subsidy that directly devalues the land of others. I think I'd care more about the ecological impact than I do about the economic one, I just don't know that side of the equation the way I know the economic side.

But, like I said, I just think it's kind of ironic, especially given the libertarian leanings of most of the folks taking advantage of the subsidy. Mostly I just hate the government meddling with the pricing structure, but that's not new nor is it unique to the cattle industry.

 

[Newtosavage]

Ya, I was making a hypothetical if we stopped or reduced grazing on federal/state lands it would remove a giant chuck of the supply.

I'm not advocating for that or anything. I don't have the answer and I'm not all that emotionally invested. There are a lot of public land issues that elicit an emotional response from me (sale or corning crossing for example), this one isn't high on my list. -- I don't worry a lot about a guy working hard just trying to make a living, even if he is getting a subsidy that directly devalues the land of others. I think I'd care more about the ecological impact than I do about the economic one, I just don't know that side of the equation the way I know the economic side.

But, like I said, I just think it's kind of ironic, especially given the libertarian leanings of most of the folks taking advantage of the subsidy. Mostly I just hate the government meddling with the pricing structure, but that's not new nor is it unique to the cattle industry.

"the gubment" isn't meddling with the pricing structure. The local elected officials are. They would have the heads of the BLM employees if they even so much as suggested fewer AUM's or higher fees. And then there's the grazers who just ignore what they owe altogether but I guess that's another subject.

I'm mystified why all of us who are the owners of these public lands, are willing to accept anything less than well managed, productive lands that support and abundance of native wildlife and IF there is a surplus of forage, then MAYBE domestic livestock too. But it's completely the other way around and has been for 100+ years. Why our native wildlife doesn't come before privately owned livestock on public lands is beyond me. It is indefensible.

 

[Fatcamp]

My favorite is the fence lines that divide denuded land from healthy grasslands, same herd grazing on both.

I see it all over the west, and it's not a mystery which side is private.

 

[Banded_spooney]

"the gubment" isn't meddling with the pricing structure. The local elected officials are. They would have the heads of the BLM employees if they even so much as suggested fewer AUM's or higher fees. And then there's the grazers who just ignore what they owe altogether but I guess that's another subject.

I'm mystified why all of us who are the owners of these public lands, are willing to accept anything less than well managed, productive lands that support and abundance of native wildlife and IF there is a surplus of forage, then MAYBE domestic livestock too. But it's completely the other way around and has been for 100+ years. Why our native wildlife doesn't come before privately owned livestock on public lands is beyond me. It is indefensible.

While I don’t agree with you that local government officials have all the say in federal land management…. Even if they did, That’s still the government

 

[100percent]

"the gubment" isn't meddling with the pricing structure. The local elected officials are. They would have the heads of the BLM employees if they even so much as suggested fewer AUM's or higher fees. And then there's the grazers who just ignore what they owe altogether but I guess that's another subject.

I'm mystified why all of us who are the owners of these public lands, are willing to accept anything less than well managed, productive lands that support and abundance of native wildlife and IF there is a surplus of forage, then MAYBE domestic livestock too. But it's completely the other way around and has been for 100+ years. Why our native wildlife doesn't come before privately owned livestock on public lands is beyond me. It is indefensiblecurious

Are these lands not up for lease to the public? I know most state school sections are up for lease every few years to the highest bidder. Curious how capitalism isn’t determining the value or rate…

 

[Pony Soldier]

In our country, grazing rights are owned by the original grantees or whomever has since purchased those rights. I'm not aware of those rights ever being available to the general public. Nor am I aware of any grazing rights for horses. If they are out there - no one owns them. If someone does - they are gone.

I don't get too excited about grazing. Most of it is sagebrush or heavy tree cover with a long distance to water. A couple of studies done locally showed if the cows were off the range around the 1st of October, the elk prefered the emerging green tender grass of the fall rains to the dry dead vegetation. My complaint is the lack of range riders to assure the beef is off the range when they need to be or when the feed is below the acceptable limit.

 

[Newtosavage]

My favorite is the fence lines that divide denuded land from healthy grasslands, same herd grazing on both.

I see it all over the west, and it's not a mystery which side is private.

Exactly. It's all the evidence anyone needs to figure out what's going on, and it's everywhere across the west.

 

[Newtosavage]

Are these lands not up for lease to the public? I know most state school sections are up for lease every few years to the highest bidder. Curious how capitalism isn’t determining the value or rate…

Spend some time talking to the employees who manage grazing leases and you'll get it.

I'll say it again, this shouldn't be about grazing fees. It should be about healthy grasslands that support all the things us hunters (and anglers) want to see when we go out to use OUR land. I don't want to see deeply eroded gullies where natural springs used to occur. I don't want to see trampled muddy streams that used to hold native trout. I wouldn't mind seeing a few more non-game species to give me company while I'm glassing, or cooking breakfast or hiking in to an area. Don't you? Who here enjoys hiking through a denuded moonscape filled with cow pies and deeply eroded ravines?

And if and only if the rest of those things are there, then we can discuss some sustainable grazing that doesn't degrade the system or diminish it's value to wildlife. That' should be the standard practice. Why is it that a select few people get so much say over land that's owned by millions of people? When do all the rest of us get a say?

We can have both healthy western grasslands AND some commercial grazing. The reason we all settle for less is that we've been brainwashed to believe a small group of people have some kind of "right" to treat our public lands in a way they would never treat their own.

To Fatcamp's point above, tell me a story about the last time any of you walked a boundary fence and the grasslands were better on the public side than the private. It almost never happens.

 

[KsRancher]

Think about how much more private land owners could charge to graze in summer months if they weren't competing with the government undercutting their prices....

I personally don't think it would affect one bit what private land would bring. The private land is already bringing as much as it can just based off of how much you can afford to pay in rent versus what the cattle are selling for

 

[Idaho_Potato]

"the gubment" isn't meddling with the pricing structure. The local elected officials are. They would have the heads of the BLM employees if they even so much as suggested fewer AUM's or higher fees. And then there's the grazers who just ignore what they owe altogether but I guess that's another subject.

I'm mystified why all of us who are the owners of these public lands, are willing to accept anything less than well managed, productive lands that support and abundance of native wildlife and IF there is a surplus of forage, then MAYBE domestic livestock too. But it's completely the other way around and has been for 100+ years. Why our native wildlife doesn't come before privately owned livestock on public lands is beyond me. It is indefensible.

If you took a little time to read history, it would be clear why wildlife is not prioritized over the domestic food supply. A lot of the leasing and natural resource extraction acts were put into place around World War 1 and 2. BLM was created in 1946, directly after World War 2.

Do you think people in that time period cared more about being able to hunt elk, or their kids not having to learn German?

Extraction of natural resources from public land is essentially mandated by the federal government in order to bolster our domestic food supply and economy. This is the same reason crops are subsidized by the feds, and everyone complains about that too. I personally think this is a good thing. If we were a net importer of food and entered into another world war….not good.

I don’t think we should forget that history just because we feel like cattle ranchers are getting a better deal than hunters. Hunting is recreation in the grand scheme of things.

When I was younger i thought there was no chance we ever enter into another world conflict, or land war with Russia or China. The last couple of years have proved that is certainly on the table with our senile grandpa in office.

 

[Jimbee]

I don't think grazing public land is important to our domestic food supply. It's another example of greed and profit of and for a few entitled folks over the good of the environment at the expense of the taxpayers

 

[S.Clancy]

Spend some time talking to the employees who manage grazing leases and you'll get it.

I'll say it again, this shouldn't be about grazing fees. It should be about healthy grasslands that support all the things us hunters (and anglers) want to see when we go out to use OUR land. I don't want to see deeply eroded gullies where natural springs used to occur. I don't want to see trampled muddy streams that used to hold native trout. I wouldn't mind seeing a few more non-game species to give me company while I'm glassing, or cooking breakfast or hiking in to an area. Don't you? Who here enjoys hiking through a denuded moonscape filled with cow pies and deeply eroded ravines?

And if and only if the rest of those things are there, then we can discuss some sustainable grazing that doesn't degrade the system or diminish it's value to wildlife. That' should be the standard practice. Why is it that a select few people get so much say over land that's owned by millions of people? When do all the rest of us get a say?

We can have both healthy western grasslands AND some commercial grazing. The reason we all settle for less is that we've been brainwashed to believe a small group of people have some kind of "right" to treat our public lands in a way they would never treat their own.

To Fatcamp's point above, tell me a story about the last time any of you walked a boundary fence and the grasslands were better on the public side than the private. It almost never happens.

Yea, we would be better served forgoing lease fees if grazers agree to good managment practices, ie very intensive, but short duration grazing.

 

[Newtosavage]

If you took a little time to read history, it would be clear why wildlife is not prioritized over the domestic food supply. A lot of the leasing and natural resource extraction acts were put into place around World War 1 and 2. BLM was created in 1946, directly after World War 2.

Do you think people in that time period cared more about being able to hunt elk, or their kids not having to learn German?

Extraction of natural resources from public land is essentially mandated by the federal government in order to bolster our domestic food supply and economy. This is the same reason crops are subsidized by the feds, and everyone complains about that too. I personally think this is a good thing. If we were a net importer of food and entered into another world war….not good.

I don’t think we should forget that history just because we feel like cattle ranchers are getting a better deal than hunters. Hunting is recreation in the grand scheme of things.

When I was younger i thought there was no chance we ever enter into another world conflict, or land war with Russia or China. The last couple of years have proved that is certainly on the table with our senile grandpa in office.

I'm probably more familiar with the history of public land law than you think.

Times have changed and what the public wants/requires from the land it owns has changed too. We no longer rely on national forests for our lumber supply for example.

I understand what you're saying, and the reasons behind it, but like a lot of things, the laws need to catch up with the current day needs.

At the very least, my question as to why we can't have both sustainable wildlife habitat and an appropriate amount of grazing is valid. Nobody wants to answer the question why our public grazing lands are getting raped while right across the fence the private has 3-4x the forage on it. It's an inconvenient question for those who are being subsidized and those who rely on their political support.

As for our "senile grandpa..." if you think he's more likely to get us into WWIII than his predecessor, you're smoking something.

 

[Billy Goat]

We didn't have enough toilet paper because a few people bought too much to stock up.

Then meat shelves started getting emptied.


I'm sorry but if anyone thinks millions of grazing acres being removed from the supply won't effect food resources in this country you are way removed.



I'll be the first to say some lease areas are abused, but y'all are taking anti gun tactics and using them. Look, this guy doesn't graze right, stop all grazing.


Or we can let supply and demand take over, wasn't it just a few months ago the thread was going about the grocery bill?

 

[Newtosavage]

I don't think grazing public land is important to our domestic food supply. It's another example of greed and profit of and for a few entitled folks over the good of the environment at the expense of the taxpayers

That opinion will get no traction with the crowd that is more loyal to their grazing pals/family than they are to the land they hunt and fish on.