American Prairie loses grazing rights

[PLhunter]

I know that ~ 3% of the total production is public land based, that’s a widely shown number by a lot of groups.

A lot of the west is relatively low production per acre, some areas over 100 acres per AUM.

I don’t know how blm in holdings play into those numbers either

Also, what percent of that percent is the number in question with the APR? It’s a back and forth debatable topic having cattle on public land period. But is it really debatable that the APR’s tiny percent of that tiny percent is relevant from any broader food security standpoint? Also, if we are really that worried about food security here anyone can dm me, I have some places to start that might be a bit more beneficial than cattle ranching if one is so passionate.

Sure, someone can go slippery slope with it but Clark Griswald’s saucer didn’t have enough lubrication to make a slope slippery enough where a meaningful percent of that 3% of cows would become Bison. After all, those things are unruly and vicious right?

 

[KurtR]

My only major problem with ranchers centers around the public discourse and overly romanticized portrayal of them. Whenever in a debate regarding cattle and rangeland health with ranchers or proselytizing pro rancher people they go the “Clayton Mortenson” or other “good actor” rancher route with their argument.

However, whenever I agree with the practices of the good rancher and ask how I can help them make those practices the law and the norm they wane. They tend to use the positive exceptions only to excuse the damaging norm and not as a motivation and catalyst for real change. I always ask, “Is there a bill or policy I can call and make comments on? Is there any action I can do to make the good actor ranchers practice the minimum? Because it sounds great! You’re right. I love it! Let’s do it!” They always balk at that.

I’m not inherently anti-ranching but I have a hard time seeing the industry as a whole as good allies when they claim to have found a better way but refuse to make it the rule and not the exception.

Addition: Also, one’s views of ranchers is hugely dependent on the ecotype they run around and hunt in. I’ve been in areas where the grass is thick, the soil hardy, and cattle roam. If that’s where one lives and hunts they might see the cattle as just benefitting the land and in those areas they may be right. I’ve run around mostly in the arid high desert Great Basin. Where soils are loose, grass sparse, invasives primed, and water holes vulnerable to sedimentation and erosion. There is no plus side to the species there. I have seen completely nuked landscapes and completely destroyed creeks devoid of any fish life. Just from livestock damage. They can be the cure or the poison. I just see the latter more and the rangeland health studies in my area show that as the norm.

It’s Clarence Mortenson and having the pleasure of getting to meet him and ride around he would probably agree with what you say more than not.

I believe the land should be multi use and there are regulations on it already it seems they are not enforced as they should be so I don’t know what any more regulations would do.

 

[PLhunter]

It’s Clarence Mortenson and having the pleasure of getting to meet him and ride around he would probably agree with what you say more than not.

I believe the land should be multi use and there are regulations on it already it seems they are not enforced as they should be so I don’t know what any more regulations would do.

Whoops should have looked it up.

True and it reminds me of my most recent discussion with a pro ranching friend. We had a lively debate and he sent a video like many do about a good acting rancher who was forced to stop their unique practices. In the end I agreed to call my representative (D) and say that I think that ranchers should be allowed more leeway for adaptive management practices, provided its for research or a scientifically supported practice. His end of the deal was to call his rep (R) and demand that funding and resources be provided to enforce the existing grazing laws and standards that are on the books.

I felt this was a very good win-win actionable conclusion. He refused to make the call.

 

[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.

i don’t know what the overheard costs are to administer the leases. It is certainly understandable that the AUM equivalent for a ranch-to-ranch lease would be more. How much do you think Warren Buffett pays for a coal mine lease in Western Wyoming? I don’t know the answer, but I doubt it is comparable to the profit. But the value of that coal produced is realized by the public.

Dont lump all ranchers are bad in one group because this moron does not speak for them. I know plenty that are good stewards of the land and wild life thrive on it. Some of them even have buffalo

you are the obvious moron. You keep like company!

 

[WRO]

i don’t know what the overheard costs are to administer the leases. It is certainly understandable that the AUM equivalent for a ranch-to-ranch lease would be more. How much do you think Warren Buffett pays for a coal mine lease in Western Wyoming? I don’t know the answer, but I doubt it is comparable to the profit. But the value of that coal produced is realized by the public.

Are you saying that bison and ecotourism have no value to the public?

@KurtR some of the best deer habitat I have ever guided is on a ranch in eastern Oregon where the rancher does a fantastic job protecting his habitat and doing restoration to the creek bottoms and wetlands. Working hand in hand with NRCS on that and other projects.

 

[KurtR]

i don’t know what the overheard costs are to administer the leases. It is certainly understandable that the AUM equivalent for a ranch-to-ranch lease would be more. How much do you think Warren Buffett pays for a coal mine lease in Western Wyoming? I don’t know the answer, but I doubt it is comparable to the profit. But the value of that coal produced is realized by the public.

you are the obvious moron. You keep like company!

you dont know the answer to any thing keep trying rainman

 

[PLhunter]

i don’t know what the overheard costs are to administer the leases. It is certainly understandable that the AUM equivalent for a ranch-to-ranch lease would be more. How much do you think Warren Buffett pays for a coal mine lease in Western Wyoming? I don’t know the answer, but I doubt it is comparable to the profit. But the value of that coal produced is realized by the public.

you are the obvious moron. You keep like company!

The entire premise of conservation is that it has a value that is realized by the public. It’s the principle of why it’s worth doing. The idea that to conserve has inherent value is a core indispensable tenant of wildlife conservation.

You don’t see that. You only see value in extraction and growth of individual wealth and consumption. You’ve shown that in example after example. You’re posting in the wrong thread and I wish you weren’t associated with the same lifestyle that I love.

 

[Gila]

The irony of the first and second sentences being seriously placed in the same paragraph made me grin.


I just pay my property taxes and don't dig into the assessment. Yours turned a
on an arguable point, not an actual error in assessment.

But, in the end, it is something you actually did, which specifically effects ranchers in your community and thus is related to the quest asked, which you have not answered, by the way.

Very amusingly, most of your arguments against AP actually are ad hominem attacks making wild claims and attacking people associated with the organization rather than addressing the alleged issue you started this thread to discuss or the much better arguments made against your grossly false assertions.

Which facts are you disputing? Blanket statements are worthless…

 

[PLhunter]

Just some bisonomics from the state where I’m most familiar with wild bison, Utah. Just did some quick napkin math. Gila loves his money, loves it. Looking at the numbers Utahns and nonresidents spend about $1,538,000 on general hunting licenses and application fees just for a chance to hunt Bison. (A disgustingly high number) The lucky few who do then spend $107,420 on tag cost. Annually. This money goes to UDWR.

The APR isn’t running this model and if they did it would be hugely profitable but they would face massive backlash for it. A damned if you do damned if you don’t situation.

However, what it does show is that the species can generate appreciable revenue on our public lands compared to the competition. These herds reside primarily on public lands. To compare you would need 1.22 million aum’s to generate the same revenue or the equivalent of 101,728 cow calf pairs grazing for a year to meet the same revenue as the 1300 huntable bison in Utah generate just in app and tag fees. One money flow goes towards conservation the other goes towards continuing infrastructure cost to keep the cattle on the landscape.

Now obviously should supply go up for Bison then per unit cost should come down. However, there is almost no scenario where the public, particularly the hunting public, doesn’t disproportionately benefit from Bison over cattle in this situation on public land. They simply generate more revenue. This isn’t even including the transport, lodging, gear, guiding, etc.. revenue generated from bison hunting. Which in a per unit basis would out generate the downstream economics of the cattle industry.

 

[Sandhills]

Since most people on here seem to forget, the rancher is the man (or woman) who feeds us all.

 

[PLhunter]

Since most people on here seem to forget, the rancher is the man (or woman) who feeds us all.

This overly romanticized nostalgia for the rancher. The public land rancher does not feed us all. Hell, the one I knew and helped drive cows for as a youth left trash everywhere, overgrazed, and beat his wife. I do recall getting sandwiches though so you may have a point. I was fed. In the end he became too fat too ride a horse. What a mean miserable man.

The other rancher I worked for had his cattle ranch just so he could get huge tax breaks on his luxury accommodations and recreational land. It was a tax sink for an ultra wealthy dude.

Ranchers don’t feed me. I’d get more food if they produced zero cattle and more wildlife on public land. This is a hunting forum after all. They have a role but they sure aren’t this idealized part of society like you shared. I’ve met some I like for sure. But on average I see their litter and damage more.

 

[Sandhills]

This overly romanticized nostalgia for the rancher. The public land rancher does not feed us all. Hell, the one I knew and helped drive cows for as a youth left trash everywhere, overgrazed, and beat his wife. I do recall getting sandwiches though so you may have a point. I was fed. In the end he became too fat too ride a horse. What a mean miserable man.

The other rancher I worked for had his cattle ranch just so he could get huge tax breaks on his luxury accommodations and recreational land. It was a tax sink for an ultra wealthy dude.

Ranchers don’t feed me. I’d get more food if they produced zero cattle and more wildlife on public land. This is a hunting forum after all. They have a role but they sure aren’t this idealized part of society like you shared. I’ve met some I like for sure. But on average I see their litter and damage more.

So two bad apples spoil the whole bunch?

I've seen plenty of hunters that litter. Just go to any public waterfowl area. Or come out and I'll show you all the trash the orange army leaves in the ditches and parking lots during 9 day rifle season in Nebraska. Cutting fences, driving in areas that are no vehicles allowed, camping where camping isn't allowed, hunting in closed areas or with a rifle in archery only areas, and trespassing on private property.

Ranchers feed most of the nation. That includes people who hunt. I hunt, love to eat wild game. But if you laid a hunk of backstrap down on a plate and a ribeye right next to it I'm gonna go for the ribeye and I'll bet 90 percent of the population would too.

Let's not also forget that the rancher along with the miners, loggers, Buffalo (bison, so I don't confuse the hoopleheads) hunters, Army, fur trappers and the railroads opened a lot of country out west so the sod busters and dudes from back east could live in the west.

Let's also not forget that the man who created the national forest system and National wildlife refuges was a rancher. Two of his ranches are now National Parks. Roosevelt established Forest reserves for small logging companies could have access to cheap timber and that small ranchers could have affordable grazing.

Log it, graze it or let it burn

 

[WRO]

So two bad apples spoil the whole bunch?

I've seen plenty of hunters that litter. Just go to any public waterfowl area. Or come out and I'll show you all the trash the orange army leaves in the ditches and parking lots during 9 day rifle season in Nebraska. Cutting fences, driving in areas that are no vehicles allowed, camping where camping isn't allowed, hunting in closed areas or with a rifle in archery only areas, and trespassing on private property.

Ranchers feed most of the nation. That includes people who hunt. I hunt, love to eat wild game. But if you laid a hunk of backstrap down on a plate and a ribeye right next to it I'm gonna go for the ribeye and I'll bet 90 percent of the population would too.

Let's not also forget that the rancher along with the miners, loggers, Buffalo (bison, so I don't confuse the hoopleheads) hunters, Army, fur trappers and the railroads opened a lot of country out west so the sod busters and dudes from back east could live in the west.

Let's also not forget that the man who created the national forest system and National wildlife refuges was a rancher. Two of his ranches are now National Parks. Roosevelt established Forest reserves for small logging companies could have access to cheap timber and that small ranchers could have affordable grazing.

Log it, graze it or let it burn

Whalers created many port cities and those things all happened 100's of years ago. Gold miner played as big of role as any group mentioned above.

There's bad apples in every group, hunters can be just as big of slobs as any group out there, our bad apples have created our own issues with access as well.

I've heard this log it, graze it, or let it burn, yet in the last few years we've seen hundreds of thousands of grazed and logged acres burn here in the NW.

We let them graze it to dirt locally, then all we get in return is lowered MO's and damage killed elk because the public land they could have fed on was "saved" from fire by the local rancher. There's a local valley here that all we hear about is the elk damage, yet the BLM in there has grass 2' tall in august and its grazed to 2" tall by October most years. 10,000 acres of winter range that could be used to reduce conflicts is instead not able to sustain many elk.

Ranching in its very nature isn't bad and I respect the people who do it, but it doesn't deserve the sainthood people want to put on it either, that being said its not just ranchers that give themselves undo sainthood, Contractors, Politicians, you name it all add some self importance to their given trade or skill set.

Public land cattle play a very small role in the nations food supply, yet a huge role in our politics and the policies that are put in place for land and big game management.

 

[PLhunter]

So two bad apples spoil the whole bunch?

I've seen plenty of hunters that litter. Just go to any public waterfowl area. Or come out and I'll show you all the trash the orange army leaves in the ditches and parking lots during 9 day rifle season in Nebraska. Cutting fences, driving in areas that are no vehicles allowed, camping where camping isn't allowed, hunting in closed areas or with a rifle in archery only areas, and trespassing on private property.

Ranchers feed most of the nation. That includes people who hunt. I hunt, love to eat wild game. But if you laid a hunk of backstrap down on a plate and a ribeye right next to it I'm gonna go for the ribeye and I'll bet 90 percent of the population would too.

Let's not also forget that the rancher along with the miners, loggers, Buffalo (bison, so I don't confuse the hoopleheads) hunters, Army, fur trappers and the railroads opened a lot of country out west so the sod busters and dudes from back east could live in the west.

Let's also not forget that the man who created the national forest system and National wildlife refuges was a rancher. Two of his ranches are now National Parks. Roosevelt established Forest reserves for small logging companies could have access to cheap timber and that small ranchers could have affordable grazing.

Log it, graze it or let it burn

See my previous post about the rancher exceptions being used to justify the norms. The reality is most of our public lands aren’t meeting rangeland health standards and cattle are a big huge part of why. Sure, there are good ones but I don’t see them introducing legislation or funding to hold those who give them a bad name accountable. If they did they’d have my phone call to my rep for sure. Also, I don’t say all ranchers just as I expect all hunters not to be lumped in. But on the average I see more harm than good in my travels.

Hunters can suck for sure. But I also don’t write or share romantic songs about how awesome I am either. Now, if you want to go after the bad hunters I’ll support taking those actions. I wish the good ranchers would return the favor in making meaningful change to address the bad ones.

The average American gets 5% of their calories from beef. What percentage of that comes from real “ranching” as we think of it is even smaller. Public land ranching even smaller still. Ranchers, beef ranchers, literally do not feed us all. They feed us hardly at all and take up a hell of a lot of real estate doing so. They give us another food option but let’s not pretend we’d starve without em. Where cows work well and wild animals don’t or can thrive with them, let’s have them, sure. I’ve been on cattle drives, slept under the stars, made Dutch oven meals burning greater sagebrush. It’s romantic as hell sometimes. But it’s not all Don Edward’s tunes. Most of the sod bustin that takes place is to feed and finish those very cows.

If I met Teddy Roosevelt the rancher I’d be all for it, hell, if I did he would probably be the person managing and advocating for the APR. A massive interconnected habitat with North America’s game on it? He’d love it. He’d be appalled at the allowance of ranchers to violate the health standards and today’s grazing rates. He’d be appalled that something much greater than the APR doesn’t exist and that more Great Plains wasn’t saved. Oh and those parks you speak of what is on em? Bison.

“Log it, graze it, or let it burn.”

lol, this saying.. The logic used requires one to say it with eyes closed.

If that statement were true you wouldn’t see living forest, but alas there they are and some hundreds or thousands of years old, how is that possible!!! It’s not logged or burned!? But still exist!? How???

It ignores that grazed and logged land still burns. And if it doesn’t burn because it’s grazed to dirt then the outcome is all the same. It ignores that healthy ungrazed land exist. By its logic it shouldn’t. How is this possible!? There are after all only three outcomes which you so kindly provided yet all these other states of land and plant life exist and are right there if one simply opens their eyes. Certain people sure do love a catchy slogan but don’t put much thought into its truth.

 

[Sandhills]

Whalers created many port cities and those things all happened 100's of years ago. Gold miner played as big of role as any group mentioned above.

There's bad apples in every group, hunters can be just as big of slobs as any group out there, our bad apples have created our own issues with access as well.

I've heard this log it, graze it, or let it burn, yet in the last few years we've seen hundreds of thousands of grazed and logged acres burn here in the NW.

We let them graze it to dirt locally, then all we get in return is lowered MO's and damage killed elk because the public land they could have fed on was "saved" from fire by the local rancher. There's a local valley here that all we hear about is the elk damage, yet the BLM in there has grass 2' tall in august and its grazed to 2" tall by October most years. 10,000 acres of winter range that could be used to reduce conflicts is instead not able to sustain many elk.

Ranching in its very nature isn't bad and I respect the people who do it, but it doesn't deserve the sainthood people want to put on it either, that being said its not just ranchers that give themselves undo sainthood, Contractors, Politicians, you name it all add some self importance to their given trade or skill set.

Public land cattle play a very small role in the nations food supply, yet a huge role in our politics and the policies that are put in place for land and big game management.

Funny, where I grew up they took most of the grazing allotments out of the woods and logging on public lands was severely reduced. 1 millions acres of national Forest with some private timber land. 90 percent of the county I grew up in has burned.

Go to a feed lot and pick out a steer that was raised entirely on private land and then pick out r that have been raised on public for 4-6 months at the most a year and the rest on private. I'll bet 25 dollars and a maple donut you can't tell one from the other.

 

[Sandhills]

See my previous post about the rancher exceptions being used to justify the norms. The reality is most of our public lands aren’t meeting rangeland health standards and cattle are a big huge part of why. Sure, there are good ones but I don’t see them introducing legislation or funding to hold those who give them a bad name accountable. If they did they’d have my phone call to my rep for sure. Also, I don’t say all ranchers just as I expect all hunters not to be lumped in. But on the average I see more harm than good in my travels.

Hunters can suck for sure. But I also don’t write or share romantic songs about how awesome I am either. Now, if you want to go after the bad hunters I’ll support taking those actions. I wish the good ranchers would return the favor in making meaningful change to address the bad ones.

The average American gets 5% of their calories from beef. What percentage of that comes from real “ranching” as we think of it is even smaller. Public land ranching even smaller still. Ranchers, beef ranchers, literally do not feed us all. They feed us hardly at all and take up a hell of a lot of real estate doing so. They give us another food option but let’s not pretend we’d starve without em. Where cows work well and wild animals don’t or can thrive with them, let’s have them, sure. I’ve been on cattle drives, slept under the stars, made Dutch oven meals burning greater sagebrush. It’s romantic as hell sometimes. But it’s not all Don Edward’s tunes. Most of the sod bustin that takes place is to feed and finish those very cows.

If I met Teddy Roosevelt the rancher I’d be all for it, hell, if I did he would probably be the person managing and advocating for the APR. A massive interconnected habitat with North America’s game on it? He’d love it. He’d be appalled at the allowance of ranchers to violate the health standards and today’s grazing rates. He’d be appalled that something much greater than the APR doesn’t exist and that more Great Plains wasn’t saved. Oh and those parks you speak of what is on em? Bison.

“Log it, graze it, or let it burn.”

lol, this saying.. The logic used requires one to say it with eyes closed.

If that statement were true you wouldn’t see living forest, but alas there they are and some hundreds or thousands of years old, how is that possible!!! It’s not logged or burned!? But still exist!? How???

It ignores that grazed and logged land still burns. And if it doesn’t burn because it’s grazed to dirt then the outcome is all the same. It ignores that healthy ungrazed land exist. By its logic it shouldn’t. How is this possible!? There are after all only three outcomes which you so kindly provided yet all these other states of land and plant life exist and are right there if one simply opens their eyes. Certain people sure do love a catchy slogan but don’t put much thought into its truth.

So all the old timers I grew up around who remember when the woods were logged and had more cattle and sheep in them are wrong when they say there was less fires and more game? Not to mention the schools were funded better because of timber receipt money?
Same goes for the folks from the Great Basin I know that say the heyday for mule deer and sage hens in modern history was when there were more cattle and sheep in public allotments? They're all liars?

 

[Sandhills]

So all the old timers I grew up around who remember when the woods were logged and had more cattle and sheep in them are wrong when they say there was less fires and more game? Not to mention the schools were funded better because of timber receipt money?
Same goes for the folks from the Great Basin I know that say the heyday for mule deer and sage hens in modern history was when there were more cattle and sheep in public allotments? They're all liars?

One thing I forget to mention in that post. Why all this talk about cows ruining public lands but no mention of shitters (feral horses)? Are you all anti cow but pro mustang?