The Welfare Cattle Empire That Controls Your Public Lands: article

[jkoehle1]

Simple economics, you left out the one of the reasons part of my quote. There are a lot of other reasons, Drought is a big one, but less public grazing is also a reason, likely a small one, but still one of the reasons.

I agree - its a very small reason in terms of public grazing.

 

[KurtR]

All over the country where deer dogging is allowed. They trespass on everyone's land because their "dogs can't read property lines and no trespassing signs". Jerks

What states in the west allow that? If it’s east of the Mississippi I don’t care

 

[Sandhills]

Keep in mind, my comments are based on my experience with grazing in the mostly arid, western states. I understand the history of homesteading and the way it shaped grazing and land ownership through history . That’s why I’m saying, why keep grazing very marginal ground ? If it was worth grazing, it would’ve been homesteaded or bought up at some point. Grazing marginal ground has multiple problems. It’s risky for the ranchers, takes forage from wildlife that may already be living on the edge of survival , etc. Just saying, it doesn’t seem to be the “ best, highest use” of the land.

As far as my comment about the fire risk reduction: you’re right that it can help reduce fuels on rangeland ( although there is the issue with grazing promoting the spread of cheatgrass and potentially increasing potential for fire and/or the burn rate).

When I said that it’s a myth that grazing prevents fires, I was speaking more about forest fires, for which grazing does very little to nothing to prevent or reduce the intensity of these fires. Grazing doesn’t reduce the woody fuels that exist in the forest. Grazing the grasses and understory just isn’t enough unless maybe if it’s strategically, intentionally overgrazed to create a fire break of some kind in a targeted area...

My mom dad grew up in the Central Valley of California, on the edge of the coast range. He said all the ranchers summer ranged their cows in the high country and brought em down to the foothills and valley floor in the fall. The last ranch out would give the cowboys boxes of stick matches and they'd toss em over their shoulders lit as they trailed cows out. There was little manzanita or other brush back in those days. But lots of grass and lots of deer.

 

[KenLee]

What states in the west allow that? If it’s east of the Mississippi I don’t care

I don't know, cause if its west of Mississippi, I don't care.
Edit: a 5 minute Google showed deer doggin in north and south Mississippi.

 

[AHayes111]

I agree - its a very small reason in terms of public grazing.

I do think the ultra wealthy buying up ranches is starting to have a bigger effect. Many of these new owners are not that interested in cows. They for the most part are stocking at a lower rate if they have cows at all. Also we have taken quite a bit of ranch land and turned it into housing and ranchetts over the years,

 

[AHayes111]

Assuming you’re talking about region 7… I’d have to say correlation doesn’t equal causation. The deer herd in 7 has declined over 38% in the last 10 years. I’m sure that’s not because they’re grazing it less but probably explains why you’re subjectively seeing better habitat with less deer. It’s also supposedly receding from an “artificial high” prior to this 10 year period…

I probability worded my post poorly if you thought that I think the reduction in cattle on the Custer is the reason for the decline in mule deer. All I would say is that removing the cow is not going to bring mule deer back.
The decline of mule deer has been happening for a long time. I would say that it has been declining since the 80's. My father would say we have been declining since the 60's and my recently passed away 93 year old neighbor would argue the 50's were even better. I would gladly go back and hunt the poorest of years in the 80's or 90's over the best years of the last 10.

 

[KsRancher]

I do think the ultra wealthy buying up ranches is starting to have a bigger effect. Many of these new owners are not that interested in cows. They for the most part are stocking at a lower rate if they have cows at all. Also we have taken quite a bit of ranch land and turned it into housing and ranchetts over the years,

That is becoming a pretty big issue in my area. There are 10's of thousands of acres that are being bought for deer hunting and not a single hoof allowed on it. I am not talking small tracts either. The amount of 640-1800 pieces that hasn't had cattle in years would blow your mind. They wont burn, spray, mow or anything. Those pastures are turning into cedar choked, sand plum and sumac pieces. When a fire does get into one of them it absolutely torches it with all the fuel.

There was a lot more deer here when there wasn't a feeder every 80acres and cattle on it.

 

[KurtR]

I don't know, cause if its west of Mississippi, I don't care.
Edit: a 5 minute Google showed deer doggin in north and south Mississippi.

River bro river. So why are you on a thread about cattle on public land WEST of the Mississippi if you don’t care……

 

[Chris in TN]

River bro river. So why are you on a thread about cattle on public land WEST of the Mississippi if you don’t care……

He cares. We all care. He’s just responding to the guy saying he didn’t care what happened in the east.

People would do well to start by grasping that if we’re told it’s ‘our’ land, we all want to see it managed well. Expecting it to be productive isn’t unreasonable. That could be grazing, mining, hunting, hiking/camping, whatever.

The problem comes when you want to make a change for the better(?) but other people just want the change so they can catch some fresh money when the flow shifts. That’s the reality we have to live with.

I’ll still put forth that there are peaceful ways to make positive changes in the existing systems. Pooling resources to buy or fund a grazing allotment then undergrazing it, would work.

Another hack that would work:

Imagine if everyone who had a complaint about hunter numbers on western lands, would buy an extra tag every fall. Get tags for your wife or your mother in law (that doesn’t hunt). In a unit with 500 tags for a season on crowded land, imagine if everyone bought two tags - suddenly there’s only actually 250 hunters in that unit. The lack of a crowd would be glorious. The cost would be an extra $800 per actual hunter, at current CO rates. Colorado could even create a voluntary tag buy-down fund for this. Heck, we might even get anti-hunters to go along with buying up some of the tags.

 

[KurtR]

He cares. We all care. He’s just responding to the guy saying he didn’t care what happened in the east.

People would do well to start by grasping that if we’re told it’s ‘our’ land, we all want to see it managed well. Expecting it to be productive isn’t unreasonable. That could be grazing, mining, hunting, hiking/camping, whatever.

The problem comes when you want to make a change for the better(?) but other people just want the change so they can catch some fresh money when the flow shifts. That’s the reality we have to live with.

I’ll still put forth that there are peaceful ways to make positive changes in the existing systems. Pooling resources to buy or fund a grazing allotment then undergrazing it, would work.

Another hack that would work:

Imagine if everyone who had a complaint about hunter numbers on western lands, would buy an extra tag every fall. Get tags for your wife or your mother in law (that doesn’t hunt). In a unit with 500 tags for a season on crowded land, imagine if everyone bought two tags - suddenly there’s only actually 250 hunters in that unit. The lack of a crowd would be glorious. The cost would be an extra $800 per actual hunter, at current CO rates. Colorado could even create a voluntary tag buy-down fund for this. Heck, we might even get anti-hunters to go along with buying up some of the tags.

He’s the one wanting to make the changes and calling the grazing leases welfare.

 

[Chris in TN]

He’s the one wanting to make the changes and calling the grazing leases welfare.

Fair enough. I was just explaining the east of MS vs west of MS thing.

I don't see it as welfare. Like all government programs I think there's waste and fraud involved, but I have nothing but respect for the average rancher.

Growing up I was close friends with a guy who ran cows scattered over several thousand (eta: private, eastern) acres. We hunted with him in the fall then in the winter we'd help chop ice from his ponds, help run his trapline, help fix fences, help pull calves, help move cows or put out hay. In hindsight we should have helped him more - but we did enough to really respect what it meant to earn money. Fast forward to today and I have a couple of my own cows and they can be a huge pain. Makes you appreciate the value of a hamburger.

 

[jkoehle1]

I do think the ultra wealthy buying up ranches is starting to have a bigger effect. Many of these new owners are not that interested in cows.

Ive literally seen that very thing.

Thats why i get so confused about the uproar for APRs differences of ideas about wildlife and conservation than a traditional land owner. When that land is taken out of agricultural production - the pitchforks must be sharpened and torches lit. If the same land had been purchased to do the same thing (managed for the benefit of wildlife and reducing ag output) by a billionare for exclusive hunting there'd be no complaints.

In fact - the same people who wish the apr couldnt own land - would be chomping at the bit to figure out how to carve out special NR LO hunting opportunities for a billionare effectively doing the same thing.

 

[jkoehle1]

I’ll still put forth that there are peaceful ways to make positive changes in the existing systems. Pooling resources to buy or fund a grazing allotment then undergrazing it, would work.

I am going to point you to whats already been explained.

Generally agencies won't allow that. If it's not being grazed they can revoke the lease to a party that will graze it.

 

[Chris in TN]

I am going to point you to whats already been explained.

No need. I saw it and recognized it for what it was - a complete lack of understanding of how government works - when it was first posted. There are also real-life examples, not just in theory, where it *has* worked. At least one was already posted in the thread. You could always make the lease, half-stock it, and by the time the revocation made it way through the agency, years could go by. Especially if you had sympathetic people within the agency.

You really have to ask yourself, though, if you're actually looking for peaceful solutions, or just looking for excuses to ignore the ones that exist. It's absurd to think that 'oh there's a rule against that' is sufficient warrant to not even try a thing. Government entities all have rules. Most can be circumvented fairly easily. On some grazing allotments there's probably only one large outfit that wants the allotment anyway; pay them a bit to lose interest in it then the government might find away around those minimum grazing standard rules pretty easily if they really wanted the land grazed, but in reality, there's probably numerous employees who'd like to see the allotments go unfilled. It's virtually certain that could work in favor of a voluntary conservation initiatve.

But it would take the sort of people who wouldn't be stopped by 'oh there's a rule against that'. Those people are useless in activism.

 

[WRO]

Ive literally seen that very thing.

Thats why i get so confused about the uproar for APRs differences of ideas about wildlife and conservation than a traditional land owner. When that land is taken out of agricultural production - the pitchforks must be sharpened and torches lit. If the same land had been purchased to do the same thing (managed for the benefit of wildlife and reducing ag output) by a billionare for exclusive hunting there'd be no complaints.

In fact - the same people who wish the apr couldnt own land - would be chomping at the bit to figure out how to carve out special NR LO hunting opportunities for a billionare effectively doing the same thing.

They are, UPOM (United property owners of Montana) lobbied for lo tags.

When you get into how corrupt the APR situation is, it’s heinous.

Karen budd falen, who’s 3rd in power at the blm currently, started the law firm that represents the the Montana stock growers association and has cleared several pro grazing claims and lawsuits without trial since being appointed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KenLee]

What states in the west allow that? If it’s east of the Mississippi I don’t care

Any large scale screwing of hunters will eventually work itself up or down to the types of hunting you enjoy.

 

[Sandhills]

I don't know, cause if its west of Mississippi, I don't care.
Edit: a 5 minute Google showed deer doggin in north and south Mississippi.

California allows the use of dogs for deer

 

[KurtR]

Any large scale screwing of hunters will eventually work itself up or down to the types of hunting you enjoy.

What large scale screwing of hunters are you referring to?

 

[KenLee]

People cut off from BLM grazing land and corner crossings.
People who have dogs and dog hunters running all over land deeded to others because the cops, wardens and legislators are scared of the dog hunters

 

[KurtR]

People cut off from BLM grazing land and corner crossings.
People who have dogs and dog hunters running all over land deeded to others because the cops, wardens and legislators are scared of the dog hunters

Where are they cut off from blm grazing land? I have never had any one tell me i cant hunt blm. Corner crossing seems to be a state problem are you pissed that nr cant hunt wilderness in wyoming?

The dog thing has no bearing on land access so start a different thread to complain about that