Cattle and Mule Deer?

[307]

Beef prices would go up significantly which affects the majority of the country and would affect all of us in one way or another.

Ranchers were very effective in predator control before bureaucrats and the ESA took away that control. The only wolves that are killed in Wyoming are due to issues with cattle and the most significant pressure to remove wolves and bears from ESA comes from the ranching industry.

I, personally, don't like to see cattle where I'm hunting but I'm not so selfish to say that they don't have a right to be there.

 

[b0nes]

A right? It's like me saying I should be able to store my boat on public land for 1.30 per month. I don't usually buy beef so that's kind of a moot point for me. I'm not totally against cattle on public land but when it affects my hunting and my and your deer and elk herds it's a problem. Do the ranchers have more of a right to ruin clean water sources than I have a right to drink out of them? I now have to pack water in instead of filtering it because there's so much cow $hit in them that it's no longer drinkable, so much to the point that water pools up behind it. That seems like over usage by cattle to me.

 

[bohntr]

Wow.....pretty selfish by some here. Perhaps many have forgotten their history on how the west became inhabitable and sustainable for our early settlers. Ranchers have been in the west for a long time........it's part of our western history. I have no problem with rancher's cattle on public land providing they have the proper grazing permits (BLM or Forest) and range oversight is done to ensure proper rotations occur. Many of the grasses that cattle eat are those that deer and elk will not........there's a benefit. Having said that, it can be frustrating when they're in "your" area......hunt smarter and you'll be able to get it done.

 

[WRO]

I'll add that for evidence that properly managed cattle rangeland can be productive mule deer habitat I'm sure that just about all major private ranches in the west that are leased by outfitters for mule deer hunting and are managed for quality bucks still have cattle ranging on them. It's just a matter of proper management with both species in mind. I would figure a rancher with both cattle production and deer production in mind would employ different grazing practices on his own land than a rancher paying $1.30/head/month on BLM land looking to maxmize profits in a short grazing season.

Not really, it's all about rotation and range conditions. The 1.30 number (many are higher) is in large part because it's a much higher expense wise to graze public than private. Most forest service leases are for 5 months or less, there are a lot of transport, round up, and predator loss expenses that one wouldn't deal with on private.

 

[mcseal2]

I've hunted some western areas where ranchers developed water sources that game uses. Having that water can increase usable habitat for the game animals, letting them utilize areas that were previously much drier. Not sure about all game but around home whitetail benefit from where ranchers put out salt and mineral supplements for their cattle too. The deer will sometimes dig hole in the ground over the winter where the mineral tub or salt block was the last grazing season. Also with less cattle there would be much less alfalfa and other feed in the low ground for game to use during harsh winter months.

I'm not all that familiar with the laws or issues with public grazing. I live in the Midwest and we have to own or rent all the land we graze so I'm no expert on the situation out West, just sharing some of what I have seen.

Overgrazing can certainly be an issue. I've seen overgrazed pastures damaged many times. My family recently bought a pasture that had been abused for years because it bordered our land. We rented it 20 years ago and it was a nice pasture, then the owner sold some other ground and started using it himself. He kept selling more land and putting more cattle in this pasture each year until he finally sold it also. We left it sit empty for the first year to rest and re-seed, this year we are using it very lightly and have used both controlled burns and spraying to eliminate some of the noxious weeds. It will take years of careful management to bring it back fully. I would certainly say the government doesn't always do the best job of managing the lands they own around home. They own an area nearby where they require the rancher renting it to burn 1/3 of the pasture each year, but don't cross-fence the pasture. The cattle graze the burned portion into the roots and leave the rest nearly untouched. Our grass can't handle being grazed that hard, the old ranchers always say leave at least 1/3, some say half. The grass needs to have nutrients left over from growing its stalk and leaves to preserve over the winter, that's it's start for next growing season. Without this start in the grass will become stressed and begin to die out. Over time this is turning a good pasture into weeds. It is a walk-in hunting area and the people who use it are finding the game has moved out to areas with better cover. Just an example I've seen where the fault lies with the government not the rancher, the rancher has tried to reason with the managers without results.

 

[FreeRange]

Not really, it's all about rotation and range conditions. The 1.30 number (many are higher) is in large part because it's a much higher expense wise to graze public than private. Most forest service leases are for 5 months or less, there are a lot of transport, round up, and predator loss expenses that one wouldn't deal with on private.

I've always heard the argument thrown around that grazing rights on public should cost the same as they do for private land but that never made much sense to me for a lot of the reasons you mentioned as it's not really an apples to apples comparison. There are a lot of hassles in dealing with public land including what seems to be the impossible task of getting the public to keep gates closed.

I do still think that a ranching operation striving to manage for quality deer herds is going to manage differently than a rancher looking to maximize profits on land they don't own, that's just plain human nature. That's where I'd hope the USFS, BLM and F&G department could step in to implement some sort of rotation and grazing density plan. Guaranteed the area I was in gets grazed all summer every year with zero thought to rotation because no one is asking them to.

 

[307]

A right? It's like me saying I should be able to store my boat on public land for 1.30 per month. I don't usually buy beef so that's kind of a moot point for me. I'm not totally against cattle on public land but when it affects my hunting and my and your deer and elk herds it's a problem. Do the ranchers have more of a right to ruin clean water sources than I have a right to drink out of them? I now have to pack water in instead of filtering it because there's so much cow $hit in them that it's no longer drinkable, so much to the point that water pools up behind it. That seems like over usage by cattle to me.

So, you only float that boat on private water, correct?

 

[b0nes]

Valid point 307.

 

[b0nes]

I understand it's the ranchers land as much as mine, my recent experience just has me frustrated about the subject.