Let's talk grazing on public lands...

[Idaho_Potato]

That’s a pretty broad generalization. To put it mildly there are a lot of very successful ranches around me. Most have not been struggling. At least not a until getting slammed with our current drought.

I can say for certain no one in my family comes from money. Those that still ranch are getting by just fine.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t accept the sob stories about poor ranchers as a justification for welfare in the form of government subsidized grazing.

Your microcosm of observation is in direct contrast to the reality of the industry. The cow/calf sector of the beef industry is in such dire trouble financially that they are working on CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION as we speak to promote fair prices paid to the cow calf guys. If we lose the base of small American ranchers the whole industry collapses. Do we want to be a net importer of protein as a country? Hell no. Should we raise the cost of doing business for the American rancher because you want a few more deer and elk tags so you don't feel scammed on your one week non-res hobby hunting trip to Montana? Hell no.

Grassley Commends USDA on Action to Address Anticompetitive Practices in the Livestock Industry | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

BUTLER COUNTY, IOWA – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today made the following statement after the U.S....

www.grassley.senate.gov

 

[Cowbell]

No comment on the Bighorn sheep aspect because I only have a general knowledge on the issue but sheep actually provide a service that cattle don't in that they prefer invasive species and weeds that cattle pass by.

But again, it's all about management, they have to be moved. So the question becomes whose job is it to manage our public lands? It certainly isn't the rancher.

Sheep actually compete with deer and elk for browse as well. Once sheep have grazed and area post mid summer, it is generally done for the year in terms of providing food for other wildlife (from my experience).

 

[Cowbell]

Your microcosm of observation is in direct contrast to the reality of the industry. The cow/calf sector of the beef industry is in such dire trouble financially that they are working on CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION as we speak to promote fair prices paid to the cow calf guys. If we lose the base of small American ranchers the whole industry collapses. Do we want to be a net importer of protein as a country? Hell no. Should we raise the cost of doing business for the American rancher because you want a few more deer and elk tags so you don't feel scammed on your one week non-res hobby hunting trip to Montana? Hell no.

Grassley Commends USDA on Action to Address Anticompetitive Practices in the Livestock Industry | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

BUTLER COUNTY, IOWA – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today made the following statement after the U.S....

www.grassley.senate.gov

Taking cattle off of public lands will have little impact on cow-calf operations on private land. In fact, I would argue that it would create more price competition between packers which would actually help our industry.

 

[gbflyer]

Didn’t read all the posts.

I think the land managers at BLM and USFS need to get their asses out of the office and go look at the ranges they supposedly manage. Where I grew up in W CO the goddamn cow punchers graze public down to the dirt clods. They are too proud to irrigate and fertilize their pastures on private because someone might confuse them with a farmer, (someone who actually pays to produce something) so they stay on public as long as they can and it takes all winter to “round up the strays”.

Also the whole landowner tag deal is quite the enterprise. Bitch about elk eating their feed, lock the gate and sell some tags.

On the other side, the feed lots do an excellent job of caring for their animals while buying and producing quality feed. Yeah, they stink. But they are not free grazers.

 

[Legend]

Not all acres are created equal. Where is that $25/$30 figure coming from? Probably a perfect pasture with tons of grass, good water and good fence, that can support a good sized heard in a small space.

It comes from real experience from a lifelong owner of a ranch. Sure fences can make life easier but amount of grass has nothing to do with calcating the cost of an aum. It is used to calculate how many aum's you can have on the given area. Clean water does make a big difference in weight gain and it also could be considered in price. But most elk areas on the forest service have high quality water....might be low volume.

Bottom line is the feds give grazing away for damn near free.

 

[gelton]

Taking cattle off of public lands will have little impact on cow-calf operations on private land. In fact, I would argue that it would create more price competition between packers which would actually help our industry.

I assume that you are familiar with the PRIME act sponsored by Thomas Massie? The monopoly created in part by the USDA of commercial packing operations is a big part of this problem and the PRIME act is a big part of the solution.

Transactions amongst free peoples should not require government intervention, regardless of processing regulations (USDA inspected facilities).

So once again, we have to look at the root of these problems, not the symptoms.

 

[Chucklehead]

I thought the point of this thread was that the game needs changed.

The players are more invested in crying that everything is fine look away, than the public at large is at saying what is with all this special interest fuckery happening with public lands.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

From a very specific peoples point of view, it needs changed. When talking about changing public policy you have to be specific. And that specific group requesting change is : Western Public land hunters. Or 0.01% (which is probably generous) of the population and even among those, it isn't 100% consensus of what needs to be changed or if it even needs to be changed.

If you think the public at large is concerned with this issue: Its not even in their top 100.

 

[realunlucky]

From a very specific peoples point of view, it needs changed. When talking about changing public policy you have to be specific. And that specific group requesting change is : Western Public land hunters. Or 0.01% (which is probably generous) of the population and even among those, it isn't 100% consensus of what needs to be changed or if it even needs to be changed.

If you think the public at large is concerned with this issue: Its not even in their top 100.

I dare say the number of people having an direct ability to retain any allotment is far less than the number that see the system for what it is.

I'd be interested to see the numbers of cattle grazed on public vs private and the effects it has on the market price.

Those bearing the full cost of a private cattle operations should be championing the reformation of public grazing practices into a much more competitive market.

 

[Chucklehead]

Taking cattle off of public lands will have little impact on cow-calf operations on private land. In fact, I would argue that it would create more price competition between packers which would actually help our industry.

So cut the producers off at the knees who graze on public becasue thats not what you do and would benefit your operation. Nice. Got it.

 

[GotDraw?]

"If the cost of beef goes up, so be it" Go tell that to the single mom who want to feed her kids hamburger helper for dinner and it costs $20 bucks for a package of ground... I'd re-think that mentality.

Some of your figures are fuzzy math, here is some of the reasons why:
-Not all acres are created equal. Where is that $25/$30 figure coming from? Probably a perfect pasture with tons of grass, good water and good fence, that can support a good sized heard in a small space.
-how much of that 6000 acres was good grass? Half? Third? Quarter? How much of the good grass is fenced in so the rancher doesn't have to pay for acres he doesn't use? Who pays for fence? Landowners, thats who.
- Think of how much more manpower and time it takes to check cows up on the mountains vs in a valley floor.
All this (and more) makes that public lease worth less than a prime private lease. Its just not as simple as you describe.

Is there room for discussion here? Probably. But when you tell an anecdotal story about how there was no elk in your spot and its the rancher fault and he isn't paying enough, it just comes off as sour grapes.

@Chucklehead -

Since you seem to imply I'm talking smack and that my "anecdotal" story comes off as sour grapes, I'll back my smack with with reality.

Here's two out of dozens pics I took around that drainage of the aftermath of that rancher abusing his grazing privileges. I took these approx Sept 9 at about 9,500ft and before the snow hit, the plants the cows would not eat were still green, no heavy frost yet. The only plants left in that drainage were the ones the cows couldn't graze lower than their lips or the plants they wouldn't eat-- and that's after they ate most of the low branches off the younger aspens. Cow pies everywhere.

Makes the concept of "land stewardship" a complete joke. Let me know if you need more pics or higher resolution...

I stand by what I said: The Grinch himself would have left more grass than this rancher. I ran into a handful of old timers out there on mules and they said they'd never seen that valley look so devastated-- and they had not seen a single elk either.

If you think I have sour grapes, the elk and mule deer must be beyond pissed.



I'd rather pay more for beef than see this done to our national forests. Not a single wildflower in the entire drainage.

JL

 

[Idaho_Potato]

So cut the producers off at the knees who graze on public becasue thats not what you do and would benefit your operation. Nice. Got it.

This. The problem is far beyond fixing with creating price competition by further hamstringing the small rancher. Packers have proven they will slow chain speeds and shutter plants because that's what controls the prices. Corporations are savvy enough to skirt around price competition to preserve profits. They didn't reach revenue in the billions by obeying market signals.

 

[Idaho_Potato]

@Chucklehead -

Since you seem to imply I'm talking smack and that my "anecdotal" story comes off as sour grapes, I'll back my smack with with reality.

Here's two out of dozens pics I took around that drainage of the aftermath of that rancher abusing his grazing privileges. The only plants left were the ones the cows couldn't graze lower than their lips or the plants they wouldn't eat-- and that's after they ate most of the low branches off the younger aspens. Cow pies everywhere.

Makes the concept of "land stewardship" a complete joke. Let me know if you need more pics or higher resolution...

I stand by what I said: The Grinch himself would have left more grass than this rancher. I ran into a handful of old timers out there on mules and they said they'd never seen that valley look so devastated-- and they had not seen a single elk either.

If you think I have sour grapes, the elk and mule deer must be beyond pissed.

View attachment 314074View attachment 314075

I'd rather pay more for beef than see this done to our national forests. Not a single wildflower in the entire drainage.

JL

Care to post a date and elevation on those pics? This is meaningless without that information.

 

[Chucklehead]

It comes from real experience from a lifelong owner of a ranch. Sure fences can make life easier but amount of grass has nothing to do with calcating the cost of an aum. It is used to calculate how many aum's you can have on the given area. Clean water does make a big difference in weight gain and it also could be considered in price. But most elk areas on the forest service have high quality water....might be low volume.

Bottom line is the feds give grazing away for damn near free.

I'd have to disagree only because I've seen the contrary. Where would you like to run 100 head cattle if you had to? On 500 acres just up the road or 2000 up over a mountain? You don't think guys pay a little more to have their animals on a smaller/higher quality piece of ground vs a larger/lower quality piece of ground?
Time is money in ag. Especially for BTOs. If its less of a hassle, guys are willing to pay premium for the convenience. Just my experience....

 

[GotDraw?]

Care to post a date and elevation on those pics? This is meaningless without that information.

Just added that info.
JL

 

[gelton]

@Chucklehead -

Since you seem to imply I'm talking smack and that my "anecdotal" story comes off as sour grapes, I'll back my smack with with reality.

Here's two out of dozens pics I took around that drainage of the aftermath of that rancher abusing his grazing privileges. I took these approx Sept 9 at about 9,500ft and before the snow hit, the plants the cows would not eat were still green, no heavy frost yet. The only plants left in that drainage were the ones the cows couldn't graze lower than their lips or the plants they wouldn't eat-- and that's after they ate most of the low branches off the younger aspens. Cow pies everywhere.

Makes the concept of "land stewardship" a complete joke. Let me know if you need more pics or higher resolution...

I stand by what I said: The Grinch himself would have left more grass than this rancher. I ran into a handful of old timers out there on mules and they said they'd never seen that valley look so devastated-- and they had not seen a single elk either.

If you think I have sour grapes, the elk and mule deer must be beyond pissed.

View attachment 314074View attachment 314075

I'd rather pay more for beef than see this done to our national forests. Not a single wildflower in the entire drainage.

JL

There should definitely be recourse to something like this, but whose job is it to enforce it? Raising grazing fees will not solve this problem.

 

[Legend]

I'd have to disagree only because I've seen the contrary. Where would you like to run 100 head cattle if you had to? On 500 acres just up the road or 2000 up over a mountain? You don't think guys pay a little more to have their animals on a smaller/higher quality piece of ground vs a larger/lower quality piece of ground?
Time is money in ag. Especially for BTOs. If its less of a hassle, guys are willing to pay premium for the convenience. Just my experience....

Well sure.....but you are talking about a buck or two difference for convenience. I am talking about market rate going for 1,500% to 2,000% more. There really isn't an argument to be had....rancher welfare. And I am a rancher.

 

[Customweld]

It’s time for a change. Strays left on the hill until snow pushes them out. Crew cab ranch trucks full of kids and cow elk tags behind closed gates “looking” for strays in November. Retire the grazing allotments and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Legend]

There should definitely be recourse to something like this, but whose job is it to enforce it? Raising grazing fees will not solve this problem.

Shouldn't the grazing fees at least cover the cost to manage the land?

 

[Chucklehead]

Well sure.....but you are talking about a buck or two difference for convenience. I am talking about market rate going for 1,500% to 2,000% more. There really isn't an argument to be had....rancher welfare. And I am a rancher.

I just don't think its an apples to apples comparison, but agree to disagree i suppose.

 

[cnelk]

Last I heard the FS charges approx $2.50 / cow/calf pair for grazing.

That may vary on different allotments