I do think that 3% is low. But, I do not think that the real amount is high enough to matter for the strawman argument that you are setting up. I can't put my hand on the publication right now, but IIRC that 3% number comes from where they are finished/butchered. Many of the cows that other states report start as calves from elsewhere.
Cattle
- Thread starter idelkhntr
- Start date
If you don't think "hardworking ranchers, cowboys, and feedlot employees" are benefitting from agricultural subsidies from the goverment either directly or indirectly you are sorely mistaken. True, they do not come in form of use of public lands, but to post that most of them are not recieving benefits from some level of government (county, state or federal) is false. They are just getting the benefits from agencies other than the BLM and/or USFS.
sbhooper
Well-known member
I think the 3% is pretty close. It seems like I have read that before. I know that it is less than 10%. It is hard to find actual numbers, because much of the data is from sites that are of the protectionist nature and so may be a bit biased. The BLM does not keep actual numbers of cattle or percentages.
The grazing fee is based on a 1966 formula for $1.23/AUM. It is way too low at the current $1.35 and that is pure fact. The fees should at least be at a break-even level and not subsidized by the taxpayer. HOWEVER, I don't think they should be at the same level as private, since it is still open to the public (for the most part) but they are indeed too low.
This same discussion could be made for the disparity in timber leases, oil/gas leases and mining leases between public and private.
The grazing fee is based on a 1966 formula for $1.23/AUM. It is way too low at the current $1.35 and that is pure fact. The fees should at least be at a break-even level and not subsidized by the taxpayer. HOWEVER, I don't think they should be at the same level as private, since it is still open to the public (for the most part) but they are indeed too low.
This same discussion could be made for the disparity in timber leases, oil/gas leases and mining leases between public and private.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Nemont, coup de grace, please.
JoseCuervo
New member
That would bring the Free Market into play, and Welfare Ranchers would fail if they had to operate in the Free Market. They much prefer Socialism over Capitalism.
To answer, the Welfare Ranchers and their supporters will spout a bunch of nonsense about how important of an economic engine they are to their communities, and, if they had to pay more, they would go out of business, you wouldn't have feed stores, and, you wouldn't have anyone to volunteer to bake pies for the bake sale at the local HS basketball games.
OF course, that ignores all the ranchers who run their cattle on Deeded lands and still make profits, buy feed, and provide cakes to the Bake sales...
They were set up based upon "preference" in 1934 with the Taylor Grazing Act. Much of the land now grazed via a permit had unregulated grazing (and most other uses as well) until this law was passed and some areas were not fully adjudicated for many years. IIRC, the main idea behind "preference" was that the folks that were using that land (ie locals) in 1934 would be the first to have a chance at the permit for that same land. In short, the best way to think of how "preference" works is to consider it first right of refusal for both the permit and the yearly use of the permit.
Now the only ways, generally, to get a permit is to either buy the permit or land the permit is tied to (BLM) or to purchase the herd the permit is tied to (USFS). It's my understanding that in order to go to a bidding process the TGA would have to be re-voked and a new law issued.
sbhooper
Well-known member
Yep. It would take a new law. The only way a permit is revoked is if they are not within the guidelines and I don't think the agencies have the man power to police most of the leases. They would probably have to show a continued pattern of blatant wrong-doing to lose a permit.
The fair way would definitely be an auction every several years, but I think a lot of the real big people that have held the leases for a long time have too much pull to do that. This land has been tied up by the same people for a long time in some instances. What little that I have seen and learned is that if you buy the land and it had a forest lease, then you will probably be given the lease for as long as you want it.
There is no easy answer to this as there are pros and cons. The down side to an auction is it might allow protectionists with lots of money to get the leases and then spend their time trying to keep the public off of it even more than some of the ranchers do.
The fair way would definitely be an auction every several years, but I think a lot of the real big people that have held the leases for a long time have too much pull to do that. This land has been tied up by the same people for a long time in some instances. What little that I have seen and learned is that if you buy the land and it had a forest lease, then you will probably be given the lease for as long as you want it.
There is no easy answer to this as there are pros and cons. The down side to an auction is it might allow protectionists with lots of money to get the leases and then spend their time trying to keep the public off of it even more than some of the ranchers do.
Last edited:
Permits can also be lost due to continued non-use of that permit without proper application and approval to do so. I do not see TGA being revoked and a new law to take it's place in my lifetime that would allocate permits based upon an open bidding process. Too many political and social hurdles.
Fort Meade, SD (BLM) is an interesting example.
Jose, you need to educate yourself.
Grazing Rights on Federal Lands
by Sylvan Walden
I have come to realize that most of the people living in the U. S. don’t understand the
ownership layers of the so called “public” lands (federal lands) and how that relates to
grazing leases. So I will try to explain it in simple, non-legal terms. Each parcel of land
comes with several layers of ownership. These layers may be all owned by one person
or owned by separate people. There is the person who actually owns the land surface
(in this case, the federal government). Then there is the person or people who own the
water rights (i.e. the right to use the water originating on that land), the mineral rights
(i.e. the right to use the oil, gas, coal, etc. that originates underneath that land’s
surface), and then there are the GRAZING RIGHTS (i.e. the right to use the
herbaceous plant material growing on that land). The land and these various rights can
be owned as one or bought and sold separately. When federal lands have grazing
permits, that means a private individual has paid fair market value for those grazing
rights and they are PRIVATELY owned by that person even though they are on federal
lands. The federal government does not own those grazing rights. The person who
owns the grazing rights pays “grazing fees”, which are basically a property tax on the
ownership of those grazing rights. This structure would be a lot like owning a house
within the city limits compared to owning one outside the city limits. You pay city taxes
and have to follow city zoning laws even though you own your own house and lot. If
you lived outside the city (i.e. owned the land surface and the grazing rights) you
wouldn’t have to pay those city taxes (grazing fees) or follow the city zoning laws (rules
and regulations about how you use your permit). Often you hear people claim that the
“cheap” grazing fees are a government subsidy for the owners of grazing rights. You
need to remember that they more of a tax on a private property (similar to city taxes)
and not actual fees for a grazing leases or rent of a pasture and grazing rights owned
by someone else. To charge the going lease rate for grazing on a grazing right you
own would be like having to pay the going rate for rent to live in a house you own. You
also need to remember that even though John Q. Public has the right to access and
enjoy federal lands (as long as the federal government doesn’t object), that there is
private ownership existing there also and that needs to be respected. This is a lot like
how the rest of the city people utilize your front yard to walk down the street. You are
fine with it and accept it as just part of living within the city limits, but if one of the people
walking along your front yard insists on letting his dog water your prize hydrangea, you
start to get a little crabby with that person. This explains why most grazing permit
holders tend to get crabby when John Q. Public decides there should be horses,
buffalo, etc. using the herbaceous material. The grazing permit holder actually owns
the right to the use of that herbaceous material and has paid fair market value for it,
paid taxes on it, and followed all the rules. How would you feel if the city police told you
to get over your hydrangea bush, because the dog walker had every right to kill it, since
you live in a city of people who like dogs?
JoseCuervo
New member
Great find.... I am speechless.
whyelkhunt
New member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 122
If this is true it is interesting.
I call BS.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
JoseCuervo
New member
What can you really say? The sad thing is, she likely has supporters. And, if you go to the originals source, nobody challenges her claims.
I suppose one could try and reason with these kind of people, or........
one could just keep making sure the laws get followed and drag those into court that don't follow the law.
I'll keep leaving gates open, and keep pulling staples, eventually her "cost of ownership" will get too high and she will just confine her activities to the feedlots.
Last edited:
recoil junky
New member
I notice you guys don't bitch about ranchers when your mouths are full.
RJ
RJ
My meds must be slowing me down today. Or, just a Friday afternoon funk.
Either I have spent the last 25 years with a business degree thinking incorrectly in my definition of a subsidy and a private property right and what represents a tax, or my reading comprehension of this particular piece is lacking, or this lady is out "in the weeds" (all pun intended) in her definitions and analogies.
And to think Northern Ag Network posted that article on its FB news page. What's next, they going to invite Don Peay to explain the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation?
Either I have spent the last 25 years with a business degree thinking incorrectly in my definition of a subsidy and a private property right and what represents a tax, or my reading comprehension of this particular piece is lacking, or this lady is out "in the weeds" (all pun intended) in her definitions and analogies.
And to think Northern Ag Network posted that article on its FB news page. What's next, they going to invite Don Peay to explain the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation?
