American Prairie loses grazing rights

[Sandhills]

Ok...
Didn't know usfws had them.
Most or all of MT is USFS or BLM
This thread is talking about BLM

Ranchers have to pay out of their own pocket for any fencing, water hole improvements, etc. The Taylor Grazing Act, which sets the price for BLM Allotments was passed in 1934. Lots of ranches have been grazing those areas since before the BLM even existed. A buck 73 or whatever the allotment fees are might seem cheap at a glance but really when you factor in the other costs it's not.

 

[Gila]

Please explain how the AUM price of the leases on public land is not welfare when: A) the BLM and USFS spend 3-5x more per year to administer the grazing programs than the revenue collected in lease fees; AND B) the free market AUM price on comparable private lands is consistently much higher than the fees charged by BLM/USFS, often +20x higher.

I'll wait.

Once you understand the system and why we have checkerboards to begin with, you won’t whine about lease fees. If cattle ranchers can’t lease BLM for reasonable fees, then the Gov’t will sell off BLM grazing lands to the highest bidder which will not include organizations like ARP. Public land activists like Newberg and BHA are shooting themselves in the foot with their stance to eradicate family owned cattle ranches and BLM grazing. And furthermore - Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota state legislatures will never allow conservation leases on cattle ranches either. I have said this before, not to be confused with the Conservation Reserve Program which has been a good thing for the landowner and hunter, angler.

 

[Marbles]

Ranchers have to pay out of their own pocket for any fencing, water hole improvements, etc. The Taylor Grazing Act, which sets the price for BLM Allotments was passed in 1934. Lots of ranches have been grazing those areas since before the BLM even existed. A buck 73 or whatever the allotment fees are might seem cheap at a glance but really when you factor in the other costs it's not.

Of course, fencing and water are free to the rest of us if we decide to raise livestock. Poor discriminated against ranchers, we should start a go-fund-me for them.

 

[Gila]

I would swing that sword the other way and see your posts as knowing misinformation to push an agenda. But, I really don't care enough to argue over it.

I have given you the facts and you are labeling it as mis-information for what purpose? My agenda and my only agenda, the same agenda I have held for 40 years — is to advance hunting and fishing opportunity. The first and most obvious AGENDA is to have a place to hunt: ON PUBLIC AS WELL AS PRIVATE lands. That correlates to the number of tags that are put into the public draw.

 

[Sandhills]

Of course, fencing and water are free to the rest of us if we decide to raise livestock. Poor discriminated against ranchers, we should start a go-fund-me for them.

That'd make you a rancher no? So you'ld have to pay the fee just the same as them.

I'm sure half the people who bitch about ranchers ruining public ground are doing so while wearing leather footwear, have leather furniture in the home, leather seats in their vehicles, and eat beef like it's M&Ms.... Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Axlrod]

Ranchers have to pay out of their own pocket for any fencing, water hole improvements, etc. The Taylor Grazing Act, which sets the price for BLM Allotments was passed in 1934. Lots of ranches have been grazing those areas since before the BLM even existed. A buck 73 or whatever the allotment fees are might seem cheap at a glance but really when you factor in the other costs it's not.

Thanks, i know how it works, my family has been ranching since my great grandfather started in 1918.

 

[Marbles]

I have given you the facts and you are labeling it as mis-information for what purpose? My agenda and my only agenda, the same agenda I have held for 40 years — is to advance hunting and fishing opportunity. The first and most obvious AGENDA is to have a place to hunt: ON PUBLIC AS WELL AS PRIVATE lands. That correlates to the number of tags that are put into the public draw.

My assumption is you set the standard as you want it applied to you.

See, you started labeling the arguments of others as knowingly false information, you set the standard that rather then seeing this as a complex discussion that can be approached from many angles, those who disagree with you are evil.

Your "facts" and extrapolation from them don't hold up as indisputable. Several good counterpoints have been made by others.

 

[earrow]

Out of curiosity, does the ARP pay local county taxes on their deeded land?

 

[Gila]

My assumption is you set the standard as you want it applied to you.

See, you started labeling the arguments of others as knowingly false information, you set the standard that rather then seeing this as a complex discussion that can be approached from many angles, those who disagree with you are evil.

Your "facts" and extrapolation from them don't hold up as indisputable. Several good counterpoints have been made by others.

Your circular logic only tends to show your ignorance about the issue.

 

[WRO]

That'd make you a rancher no? So you'ld have to pay the fee just the same as them.

I'm sure half the people who bitch about ranchers ruining public ground are doing so while wearing leather footwear, have leather furniture in the home, leather seats in their vehicles, and eat beef like it's M&Ms.... Hypocrisy at its finest.

Less than 3% of the US beef supply comes from public land ranching.

You can still have concerns and see the bull shit around it and have leather seats and enjoy steaks without being a hypocrite.