The Welfare Cattle Empire That Controls Your Public Lands: article

[KsRancher]

I am a proponent of grazing state and federal land. But I think it should be a bid program. Kansas does it on state land. They put out a notice. It has how many animal units, the dates it can be grazed and how many years the contract is for.

Those big high desert pieces would need to have a longer term contract. 5yr minimum with a 10yr probably being better. And something like a percentage increase every so often based off of what the county averages have done.

What some of those ranches pay for a cow/calf pair is practically nothing. Now I understand why its cheaper than some good grass that you can put a cow/calf on 5 acres. Your cost would be higher on things like bull to cow ratio, higher percentage of opens, higher percentage of death loss, cattle not found, etc. So a bid process would make it bring market value

 

[menhaden_man]

What are we paying private banks to service our debt now? $1T annually?

I get the argument here but the whole damned thing is swirling the drain. Until we get corporate dollars out of politics it’s going to be tough sledding on anything that’ll cut spending.

 

[Chris in TN]

I am a proponent of grazing state and federal land. But I think it should be a bid program. Kansas does it on state land. They put out a notice. It has how many animal units, the dates it can be grazed and how many years the contract is for.

I think that's a great idea.

I'd do the same thing with western hunting. Access should be done at market rates. Or, to be clearer - there should be trespass fees to access public lands and those fees ought to be based on what private land of similar quality goes for. No more freeloading. We're simply beyond the point where access can be free as there are too many hunters and not enough land, for that. Instead of having 800 hunters chasing after maybe 200 bulls per year in a typical Colorado unit, have 200 hunters - each paying $3000 in today's dollars - and suddenly you have less pressure on the elk, better experiences for the hunters, everyone wins.

If paying a premium for that experience doesn't result in enough harvest, make a late season cow hunt with traditional access rules.

 

[Wrench]

I think that's a great idea.

I'd do the same thing with western hunting. Access should be done at market rates. Or, to be clearer - there should be trespass fees to access public lands and those fees ought to be based on what private land of similar quality goes for. No more freeloading. We're simply beyond the point where access can be free as there are too many hunters and not enough land, for that. Instead of having 800 hunters chasing after maybe 200 bulls per year in a typical Colorado unit, have 200 hunters - each paying $3000 in today's dollars - and suddenly you have less pressure on the elk, better experiences for the hunters, everyone wins.

If paying a premium for that experience doesn't result in enough harvest, make a late season cow hunt with traditional access rules.

The south has always had a problem with the north's freedom principles.

I strongly protest your plan.

 

[WCB]

Interesting that even advocates of subsidized public land grazing cling to the few arguments they have. I can assure you - not a lot of the nations cattle spend anytime on public land - and anyone saying double digits should try and prove it with real numbers.

Subsidies are the death of efficiency and the birth of dependence. Certainly on display here.

Its a different system but...Canada.

 

[Chris in TN]

The south has always had a problem with the north's freedom principles.

I strongly protest your plan.

The fact that you’d attempt to paint that in north v south terms is a strong indicator that there’s no point in pretending to discuss it.

The civil war wasn’t about whether we’d have slavery; it was about which type we’d have. Chattel lost (and good riddance to a reprehensible system - it deserved to lose and die); what won is federal system that enslaves every last person then tells them they’re free because they get ‘free’ hunting. Or socialized medicine. Or whatever.

But, again, the fact that you’d pick a north v south argument out of this thread makes it clear that there’s no point in discussing it.

 

[Chris in TN]

Subsidies are the death of efficiency and the birth of dependence. Certainly on display here.

Substitute elk for cows and it’s still true.


ETA: To be clear, my position is still and always will be what I said on page one: leave well enough alone.

It's downright foolish for one group of 'freeloaders' to be mad at another group of 'freeloaders'.

 

[jkoehle1]

Substitute elk for cows and it’s still true.

Really?

Spend 30 seconds - compare and contrast what state game agencies are paying for elk damage to blm lease rate and get back to me.

 

[Chris in TN]

Really?

Spend 30 seconds - compare and contrast what state game agencies are paying for elk damage to blm lease rate and get back to me.

That's a useless side-quest distraction from the main and underlying issue.

The reality is, we all - every one of us who uses public lands - have came to think we 'deserve' something for 'free', and as always happens, tragedy of the commons, it is incredibly easy for us to find ways to pretend we have the moral high ground and 'they' do not......whoever they may be. Hikers hate hunters as much as hunters hate cattlemen, and cattlemen hate hikers. The only way to truly fix this is to either get serious about finding and charging market rates for all types of access, or selling off 'public' lands and letting private enterprise do that work for us.

Anything short of that won't make a wrong right, it'll just shift the balance of favor away from one group and towards another, and that's a fool's errand IMO.

 

[jkoehle1]

That's a useless side-quest distraction from the main and underlying issue.

The reality is, we all - every one of us who uses public lands - have came to think we 'deserve' something for 'free', and as always happens, tragedy of the commons, it is incredibly easy for us to find ways to pretend we have the moral high ground and 'they' do not......whoever they may be. Hikers hate hunters as much as hunters hate cattlemen, and cattlemen hate hikers. The only way to truly fix this is to either get serious about finding and charging market rates for all types of access, or selling off 'public' lands and letting private enterprise do that work for us.

Anything short of that won't make a wrong right, it'll just shift the balance of favor away from one group and towards another, and that's a fool's errand IMO.

Why is simply accessing something you own the utter same as using it for a commercial use to make a living?

Seems to be a reoccuring theme in the thread.

 

[Chris in TN]

Why is simply accessing something you own the utter same as using it for a commercial use to make a living?

Seems to be a reoccuring theme in the thread.

I value elk hunts. Cattlemen value growing cattle so they can make money to be spent on things they value. Recreation and commerce both have value and it's absurd to think you 'own' land in a sense that entitles you to a particular use of it.

Like I just said:

it is incredibly easy for us to find ways to pretend we have the moral high ground and 'they' do not......whoever they may be

You think you have the moral high ground because you want to get away from it all and have solitude and be the bro with the trophy elk, and they're inferior to you because they just want to *checks notes....* make a living. How dare he make a living growing food.

See how easy that was for you?

 

[KurtR]

That's a useless side-quest distraction from the main and underlying issue.

The reality is, we all - every one of us who uses public lands - have came to think we 'deserve' something for 'free', and as always happens, tragedy of the commons, it is incredibly easy for us to find ways to pretend we have the moral high ground and 'they' do not......whoever they may be. Hikers hate hunters as much as hunters hate cattlemen, and cattlemen hate hikers. The only way to truly fix this is to either get serious about finding and charging market rates for all types of access, or selling off 'public' lands and letting private enterprise do that work for us.

Anything short of that won't make a wrong right, it'll just shift the balance of favor away from one group and towards another, and that's a fool's errand IMO.

I dont think every one hates each other as much as you think. Its the people that are the loudest make it seem that way