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

 

[Legend]

I am a propent of managed grazing on public lands. But it must be managed. And that hasn't and won't happen with $1.69 grazing leases.

Good discussion thread. The more people talking about it, no matter what your opinion, the better.

 

[BluMtn]

Here's an idea for you guys. Since there are BLM and NF leases available, why don't some of you apply and lease some of this ground that is not being used at the AMU rate and then you can have your own hunting preserve. You can post no trespassing signs on it and that will solve you hunting problem. Then you can complain when people trespass and shoot all "YOUR" game. Just a thought.

 

[Chris in TN]

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

Oh, you're right.

Please understand - a lot of the arguments I'll make in threads like this are 'devils advocate' sort of stuff. My stance is still that our public land system(s) have all sorts of issues but I'd rather leave them alone, at least more or less, than to go off on the latest quest to 'fix' stuff that just creates a second, different set of issues. Or shifts the balance away from the current groups that the other groups think are getting too much free stuff, and ends up giving some other group, the same advantage.

But TBH one of the single most offputting aspects of western hunting is the reality that there's a perpetual battle for who gets the most benefit from 'our' land. The constant activism does *not* endear me to my fellow hunters, to put it mildly. Ideally I'd use hunting as a way to get away from the rat race of life, and I don't enjoy the people who insist on bringing those same struggles into my 'me time'.

 

[jkoehle1]

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?

Accessing it "isnt using it" the same way that raising commercial cattle is.

Im not demonizing anyone for turning a profit on a needed industry. You are simply conflating very seperate issues.

Would you feel the same way if it were fossil fuels getting subsidy? How about renewable energy? How about data centers? Why shouldnt we just give as much as possible away for as cheap as possible - how dare they make a living - doing something we all need right?

Im not here often - but if i had to guess youre a bitter NR who is upset with the system in place that allows state gov to manage game for the benefit of their residents. I have the wild thought that our gov shouldnt be picking winners and losers in the marketplace and companies should pay near market rates for using resources.

 

[AHayes111]

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

I agree with you that a bid process is the best way to determine market value. I see two big issues with this.
First there would be no competition on many of the public allotments. When the homesteaders arrived, they laid claim to all the water, when the homestead act was discontinued the land that was unclaimed became BLM. Many public allotments need to have access to the water on private land to be viable. Even if there is enough water on the public, you still need access to a corral and good luck getting the government approval for even a set of portable corrals. You could lose half the grazing season waiting for the approval. Forget about a set of permeate corrals You could be waiting years before this went through NEPA and the appeals appeals. Even if you do have corrals on the public, you do not want them. Rustling is still a thing on the accessable allotments where you are miles from anything. Not common but people will still load up a trailer load of cattle and take them east of the Missouri where you don't need brand inspections to sell them. A set of corrells just makes it easy for them. There would be no compeitive bidding on many allotments. You could remidy this with a minimum bid, but why set up a bidding process that would be sure to cost the goverment a bunch of money to administer and esentualy still have the same systom we have now.
The second reason I dislike a bidding systom is on allotments where there would be compition in the bidding, the winner would likely be the opporater that is going to skimp on maintaining the allotmernt and when it was getting close to the end of the lease, they would ride that allotmemt like the rented mule it is. The goverment simply does not have the man power or money to ensure that the allotment is treated well and even if they do try to enforce the rule on a bad opporator. by the time it goes through the appeals process the lease is up and the bad opporator is long gone.Change to a bidding systom and you change the permit from something you own to something you rent. People alway treat what they own better than what they rent. There is a reason range on public has been improving since the time we changed from the tragidy of the commons to the systom we have today where the opportors own the permit. Change to a bidding systom and all the incentive is to get as much out of the allotment as quickly as possable instead of haveing something for future generations. A bid syestom would be a bad deal for the health of puclic range.

 

[Sandhills]

Don’t forget ruts, grass fires etc

Or shooting cows.

 

[Sandhills]

Just tidbit of some ranching history: Without the help of some ranchers and cowboys from back in the day we probably wouldn't have the elk that we have in Arizona and New Mexico that we hunt today. If you didn't know the original Merriam's Elk were extirpated in AZ and NM in the late 1800's. A bunch of people got together to bring elk out of Montana back to AZ and NM in the early 1900's. 1913 was the first shipment to Winslow and they were released down towards the southern end of Chevelon Plateau on a ranch on leased land (if you'd like the exact coordinates I have them). Sometimes ranchers can do good things

If it wasn't for Henry Miller in California, Tule Elk wouldn't be around either.

 

[jkoehle1]

Or shooting cows.

Do you have some proof of that happening regularly?