BLM grazing rules up for comment

[WRO]

BLM Grazing Overhaul Would Give Ranchers More Grass and Perks, But Could Force Elk Off Public Range

Newly proposed BLM grazing rules would give ranchers plenty of flexibility for grazing livestock, while limiting public input.

www.outdoorlife.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MtnW]

Sounds like the way it is written, only the entitled ranchers with these cheap basically non inspected and monitored grazing leases and a government agency will determine the outcome. Typical fox in the henhouse scenario.
Who is big enough to fight this?

 

[Legend]

Put whatever 4 legged creature you want out there to graze. But could we please stop the ranching subsidy? $1.69 per animal unit month.....that isn’t even a bad joke. The is F....ing ridiculous!

Cattle prices are at record highs and we still give ranchers almost free grazing. No one knows why, but we do.

And I own a ranch and can claim to be a rancher. I think I would feel guilty if I had a federal grazing lease.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Put whatever 4 legged creature you want out there to graze. But could we please stop the ranching subsidy? $1.69 per animal unit month.....that isn’t even a bad joke. The is F....ing ridiculous!

Cattle prices are at record highs and we still give ranchers almost free grazing. No one knows why, but we do.

And I own a ranch and can claim to be a rancher. I think I would feel guilty if I had a federal grazing lease.

The feds give free access to hunters. Compared to the price for trespass fees and leases on private ground, it's basically welfare for hunters.

 

[ndmarine]

The feds give free access to hunters. Compared to the price for trespass fees and leases on private ground, it's basically welfare for hunters.

It’s public land welfare “cowboy”

 

[IdahoBeav]

It’s public land welfare “cowboy”

Except they actually do pay something to the feds for use of the land. We pay nothing.

It's public land. The public includes everyone. Some like to hunt. Some like to hike. Some like to ranch. Most pople have absolutely no use for it but are still forced to send tax money to the entity that owns it.

 

[Legend]

Except they actually do pay something to the feds for use of the land. We pay nothing.

It's public land. The public includes everyone. Some like to hunt. Some like to hike. Some like to ranch. Most pople have absolutely no use for it but are still forced to send tax money to the entity that owns it.

The rancher welfare allows them to make an income on the backs of all of us taxpayers. And by taking vegetation that could support wildlife.

Your just playing devil's advocate for fun. I'm not buying that you believe this. Nice try.

 

[IdahoBeav]

The rancher welfare allows them to make an income on the backs of all of us taxpayers. And by taking vegetation that could support wildlife.

Your just playing devil's advocate for fun. I'm not buying that you believe this. Nice try.

With that logic, the entire western hunting industry is subsidized by taxpayers.

And FYI, there are scientific arguments for and against grazing.

You call it playing devil's advocate, but in reality, it's understanding that there are other people and interests beyond hunters.

 

[WRO]

With that logic, the entire western hunting industry is subsidized by taxpayers.

And FYI, there are scientific arguments for and against grazing.

You call it playing devil's advocate, but in reality, it's understanding that there are other people and interests beyond hunters.

We sacrifice our deer and elk herds, rapairian zones, and habitat for what benefit? I’m not against grazing but wfo won’t help hunters or other users at all, Managed is fine, what is being proposed is not.

 

[cwitt]

These are some unbelievably ignorant comments coming from someone who “can claim to be a rancher.”

Put whatever 4 legged creature you want out there to graze. But could we please stop the ranching subsidy? $1.69 per animal unit month.....that isn’t even a bad joke. The is F....ing ridiculous!

Would you prefer grazing price for AUMs to be higher? What’s a fair number in your eyes? Because that grass is a highly renewable natural resource. It either gets used or it sits there going to waste waiting to burn. Utilizing it to feed the country is a relatively good alternative, is it not? Who else is doing a better job paying their way for use on public lands?

Cattle prices are at record highs and we still give ranchers almost free grazing. No one knows why, but we do.

And I own a ranch and can claim to be a rancher. I think I would feel guilty if I had a federal grazing lease.

Cattle prices are at record highs because the US beef herd is at record lows. It’s supply and demand. You claim to own a ranch but it sounds like you don’t have any understanding of the cost of inputs to raise beef in America, which include these grazing permits. This is very long overdue correction in the market. And even now, there sure aren’t many ranchers getting rich off of it. If they were, family ranches wouldn’t be getting sold on a daily basis to corporations and wealthy individuals outside the cattle industry.

I, for one, would hate to see the effect it would have on beef prices if ranchers in the west suddenly could no longer graze on public lands and were relegated to private property. It would absolutely cripple domestic production. That would mean exponentially higher prices and an almost complete reliance on Brazil and Argentina for our beef.

All for what? So we can see a few more deer and elk around? Just because we are hunters doesn’t mean we can be that short sighted.

 

[WRO]

These are some unbelievably ignorant comments coming from someone who “can claim to be a rancher.”

Would you prefer grazing price for AUMs to be higher? What’s a fair number in your eyes? Because that grass is a highly renewable natural resource. It either gets used or it sits there going to waste waiting to burn. Utilizing it to feed the country is a relatively good alternative, is it not? Who else is doing a better job paying their way for use on public lands?


Cattle prices are at record highs because the US beef herd is at record lows. It’s supply and demand. You claim to own a ranch but it sounds like you don’t have any understanding of the cost of inputs to raise beef in America, which include these grazing permits. This is very long overdue correction in the market. And even now, there sure aren’t many ranchers getting rich off of it. If they were, family ranches wouldn’t be getting sold on a daily basis to corporations and wealthy individuals outside the cattle industry.

I, for one, would hate to see the effect it would have on beef prices if ranchers in the west suddenly could no longer graze on public lands and were relegated to private property. It would absolutely cripple domestic production. That would mean exponentially higher prices and an almost complete reliance on Brazil and Argentina for our beef.

All for what? So we can see a few more deer and elk around? Just because we are hunters doesn’t mean we can be that short sighted.

Less than 3% of the beef produced in the US comes from public lands, it would be negligible.

Is not wanting elk murdered on the winter range short sighted? Locally they get killed off every winter because all of the low blm ground is grazed to dirt creating negative private land interactions that could be offset by adequate food availability. How about increased stream health and healthy stream that support fish and cool water, is that short sighted? I like going to hunt areas that actually have enough cover to hold birds. A lot of allotments don’t even have enough cover to hunt because they’re nuked.

Ranches are getting bought up to shelter 1031 money, there’s no better tax shelter for cash than a large ranch. They appreciate well, have low tax burden, and can be used for write offs.

I don’t care to see it end, but WFO which is being proposed is not a viable solution.

Whether or not it’s grazed, it still burns.

 

[cwitt]

Less than 3% of the beef produced in the US comes from public lands, it would be negligible.

That is not accurate and I’d be interested to see where you saw that number. In Idaho, our BLM permits are used for grazing our cattle typically April-Nov. before feeding them at home, on private, during the winter. In states like Arizona and Nevada, they run some permits year round. To say it is only 3% is misleading. That maybe be looking at cattle that never step foot on private property but the percentage of beef produced in the US that at some point in time utilizes public land is much higher.

Is not wanting elk murdered on the winter range short sighted? Locally they get killed off every winter because all of the low blm ground is grazed to dirt creating negative private land interactions that could be offset by adequate food availability.

If it is grazed to dirt then it sounds like your specific BLM manager needs to look at the AUM numbers on those permits and reevaluate their allocation. There are thousands and thousands of acres of winter range across the west used for grazing that still supports wild life.

How about increased stream health and healthy stream that support fish and cool water, is that short sighted? I like going to hunt areas that actually have enough cover to hold birds. A lot of allotments don’t even have enough cover to hunt because they’re nuked.

In what way do cattle make the water warmer in streams? or destroy all this ground cover? Im not trying to be nit pick what you’re saying and I understand the sentiment. We would all like for everywhere in nature to look like a national park but that’s unrealistic.

Ranches are getting bought up to shelter 1031 money, there’s no better tax shelter for cash than a large ranch. They appreciate well, have low tax burden, and can be used for write offs.

Correct. My point was that the money made from running cattle by family ranches is not enough to compete with the parties looking to do this. It’s the sentiment that ranchers are getting filthy rich off the current cattle prices while also raking in all this welfare and taxpayer money that I am arguing.

 

[Legend]

These are some unbelievably ignorant comments coming from someone who “can claim to be a rancher.”

Would you prefer grazing price for AUMs to be higher? What’s a fair number in your eyes? Because that grass is a highly renewable natural resource. It either gets used or it sits there going to waste waiting to burn. Utilizing it to feed the country is a relatively good alternative, is it not? Who else is doing a better job paying their way for use on public lands?


Cattle prices are at record highs because the US beef herd is at record lows. It’s supply and demand. You claim to own a ranch but it sounds like you don’t have any understanding of the cost of inputs to raise beef in America, which include these grazing permits. This is very long overdue correction in the market. And even now, there sure aren’t many ranchers getting rich off of it. If they were, family ranches wouldn’t be getting sold on a daily basis to corporations and wealthy individuals outside the cattle industry.

I, for one, would hate to see the effect it would have on beef prices if ranchers in the west suddenly could no longer graze on public lands and were relegated to private property. It would absolutely cripple domestic production. That would mean exponentially higher prices and an almost complete reliance on Brazil and Argentina for our beef.

All for what? So we can see a few more deer and elk around? Just because we are hunters doesn’t mean we can be that short sighted.

I'll give it a chance...which comment was "ignorant?" Maybe I just hit a nerve with your lease rate?

The cost I shared is a fact. It is hard to argue that this isn't a rancher welfare/subsidy. There is a line of ranchers that are willing to pay a market price for grazing. Those costs could then be used to actually oversee and manage our public land. So grass isn't wasted or land abused. In no way am I arguing to remove grazing from the landscape.

Fair grazing would be $25 and up per AUM. I charge $27 while neighbors are high $30. Capitalism would set the rate if government would get out of the way.

 

[WRO]

That is not accurate and I’d be interested to see where you saw that number. In Idaho, our BLM permits are used for grazing our cattle typically April-Nov. before feeding them at home, on private, during the winter. In states like Arizona and Nevada, they run some permits year round. To say it is only 3% is misleading. That maybe be looking at cattle that never step foot on private property but the percentage of beef produced in the US that at some point in time utilizes public land is much higher.

If it is grazed to dirt then it sounds like your specific BLM manager needs to look at the AUM numbers on those permits and reevaluate their allocation. There are thousands and thousands of acres of winter range across the west used for grazing that still supports wild life.

In what way do cattle make the water warmer in streams? or destroy all this ground cover? Im not trying to be nit pick what you’re saying and I understand the sentiment. We would all like for everywhere in nature to look like a national park but that’s unrealistic.

Correct. My point was that the money made from running cattle by family ranches is not enough to compete with the parties looking to do this. It’s the sentiment that ranchers are getting filthy rich off the current cattle prices while also raking in all this welfare and taxpayer money that I am arguing.

I’m not good at the multi quote thing so humor me.

People look at the west and think we produce a pile of public land beef, yet it’s a drop in the hat compared to the mid west, tx etc for production. There’s a pile of articles that cite 1.5-2% of US beef from public lands.

It’s grazed to dirt all over the west, if you look locally (you mentioned your from Idaho) Bennett mountain down the flat gets nuked most years then the whining ensures about how the elk are going to eat them out of house and home. 41 and 42 which are mostly public lands have multiple late season cow hunts, not because there’s too many elk, but to save the range for cattle. There’s multiple places across the west where this occurs. I have a place i hunt in Oregon, 5k of blm thats great winter range with lots of feed in August, and it’s dirt by October most years. Coincidentally its otc cow hunts in that are to protect the ranchers.

Cattle have eaten riparian areas down all across the west, intact stream banks with willows and brush present, shade water and keep it cooler, mitigate evaporation, and have more biodiversity. There’s a reason NRCS and water shed councils pay private landowners to protect their streams. They have to water, they don’t have to destroy a whole drainage, water shed protection should at-least discussed, instead its a taboo subject.

 

[cwitt]

I'll give it a chance...which comment was "ignorant?" Maybe I just hit a nerve with your lease rate?

The cost I shared is a fact. It is hard to argue that this isn't a rancher welfare/subsidy. There is a line of ranchers that are willing to pay a market price for grazing. Those costs could then be used to actually oversee and manage our public land. So grass isn't wasted or land abused. In no way am I arguing to remove grazing from the landscape.

I addressed the comments I thought were ignorant already.

Yes, that cost you shared is a fact and that money pays the BLM to in turn manage and monitor those areas to ensure they’re not being overgrazed. I am sorry that you feel like they’re doing an inadequate job but what you described is currently in place.

Fair grazing would be $25 and up per AUM. I charge $27 while neighbors are high $30. Capitalism would set the rate if government would get out of the way.

“Capitalism would do _______ if government would get of the way.” Kind of a universal argument isn’t it? The government rarely if ever charges as much for its version of something compared to what the private sector provides so not sure I can get on board with you here.

 

[ndmarine]

Less than 3% of the beef produced in the US comes from public lands, it would be negligible.

Is not wanting elk murdered on the winter range short sighted? Locally they get killed off every winter because all of the low blm ground is grazed to dirt creating negative private land interactions that could be offset by adequate food availability. How about increased stream health and healthy stream that support fish and cool water, is that short sighted? I like going to hunt areas that actually have enough cover to hold birds. A lot of allotments don’t even have enough cover to hunt because they’re nuked.

Ranches are getting bought up to shelter 1031 money, there’s no better tax shelter for cash than a large ranch. They appreciate well, have low tax burden, and can be used for write offs.

I don’t care to see it end, but WFO which is being proposed is not a viable solution.

Whether or not it’s grazed, it still burns.

This

 

[jkoehle1]

It would absolutely cripple domestic production.

Do you have something that supports that claim?

Everything ive read says that grazing on federal public lands account for low single digit percentages of the production.

 

[cwitt]

I’m not good at the multi quote thing so humor me.

People look at the west and think we produce a pile of public land beef, yet it’s a drop in the hat compared to the mid west, tx etc for production. There’s a pile of articles that cite 1.5-2% of US beef from public lands.

Is the 1-2% they’re citing beef that is 100% raised on public land? Or is that beef that utilizes public land at some point in time? Because those are much different numbers and tell a different story.

It’s grazed to dirt all over the west, if you look locally (you mentioned your from Idaho) Bennett mountain down the flat gets nuked most years then the whining ensures about how the elk are going to eat them out of house and home. 41 and 42 which are mostly public lands have multiple late season cow hunts, not because there’s too many elk, but to save the range for cattle. There’s multiple places across the west where this occurs. I have a place i hunt in Oregon, 5k of blm thats great winter range with lots of feed in August, and it’s dirt by October most years. Coincidentally its otc cow hunts in that are to protect the ranchers.

I won’t put the specifics of what the elk in 45 do throughout the year but they spend almost all year on and off private property, i.e. eating private landowners grass while still being a public resource you and I can go hunt. They own that grass and use it to earn a living. They’re entitled to “whine”.

And those late cow hunts you referenced are hunting elk that migrate from neighboring units. 41 in particular would never support that number of elk year round, even if there were no cattle that ever graze it.

 

[WRO]

Is the 1-2% they’re citing beef that is 100% raised on public land? Or is that beef that utilizes public land at some point in time? Because those are much different numbers and tell a different story.

I won’t put the specifics of what the elk in 45 do throughout the year but they spend almost all year on and off private property, i.e. eating private landowners grass while still being a public resource you and I can go hunt. They own that grass and use it to earn a living. They’re entitled to “whine”.

And those late cow hunts you referenced are hunting elk that migrate from neighboring units. 41 in particular would never support that number of elk year round, even if there were no cattle that ever graze it.

Most of the elk in 45 except for the Bennett mountain herd come from 43/44/39 to winters after being in the National Forest most of the year.

They’re killing Nevada elk, 42, small resident 41, and some 40 elk on those hunts, not necessary except to appease the beef industry. It happens all over the west. 41/42 are almost entirely blm land.

The 2% number is very widely cited, less than 3% of ranchers even hold allotments or use public lands for grazing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Legend]

I addressed the comments I thought were ignorant already.

Yes, that cost you shared is a fact and that money pays the BLM to in turn manage and monitor those areas to ensure they’re not being overgrazed. I am sorry that you feel like they’re doing an inadequate job but what you described is currently in place.

“Capitalism would do _______ if government would get of the way.” Kind of a universal argument isn’t it? The government rarely if ever charges as much for its version of something compared to what the private sector provides so not sure I can get on board with you here.

So you feel that at $1.69 /aum they are already paying to hire the BLM employee to oversee their impact/benefits on public land?

If we assume that an entry level range tech costs the feds $100,000 in salary and benefits (to low) then it only takes about 60,000 AUM (cow calf pair months) to pay for their work. That doesn't pencil.