Floating an idea, don't kill the messenger

[Gellar]

Multiple reasons. Conversion to crop land is high. A landowner is going to charge a rental rate that competes with the alternative of just converting the grass to crop or some other development. A lot of the guys with cows are land-poor locally. Land is expensive, and they can’t afford to buy enough land of their own to run enough cows to make a living.

My rental rate is tied to the average private rental rate in the state, so it’s right in line with what they’re paying to graze private. Though we give them deductions for maintenance work, grazing improvements, spraying weeds, etc- things we would normally need to do but can’t get done due to lack of staff.

In this part of Iowa we dont see the conversion of pasture to crop land as much. Most tillable ground is already tillable and most pasture is so steep and rough its not possible to till. with 3.50 corn its not bad, but when we get to $7 corn some questionable ground becomes farmable and CRP is converted back to ag. In other parts of Iowa, they just dont pasture anymore, its all

 

[The_Jim]

Idk about farming, but I work with grazers daily, and I’m not bound by the Taylor Grazing Act. Private leases, and my rental rates, are 15-20 times the going rate on BLM. I’m charging $26.00/pair this year and none of my cooperators is batting an eye. $1.35 or whatever it is is criminal, and a fleecing of America. They have plenty of wiggle room in between those numbers.

I was going to bring this up. I'm curious about the profit margins on someone grazing their herd on BLM vs. a ranching family that owns & leases private land for their operations.

I have almost $4k into the whole beef I bought this year. (thats processed and packaged) I buy it from a family farm and I would rather see them be profitable and pay a little more for my beef than watch the big 4 packers make record profits with cheap beef.

 

[Hunting Wife]

In this part of Iowa we dont see the conversion of pasture to crop land as much. Most tillable ground is already tillable and most pasture is so steep and rough its not possible to till. with 3.50 corn its not bad, but when we get to $7 corn some questionable ground becomes farmable and CRP is converted back to ag. In other parts of Iowa, they just dont pasture anymore, its all

We still see a lot of conversion, and development- plenty of conversion to crop still (which I suspect is driven on this shitty ground due to reductions in CRP enrollment coupled with crop insurance), oil and gas frequently but increasingly these battery storage facilities, data centers, cloud computing facilities.

 

[OldManOnTheMountain]

Shoot him! Get that messenger guy!...

I understand the logic, but wonder if the interests of sportsmen receive more attention than they otherwise might simply because we are the ones greasing the wheels. The moment "non-consumptive" recreational users begin paying fees, our influence may be diminished.

And that brings up another point. I recognize that hunters and fishermen are labeled "consumptive" users, but that needs to change. The truth that we and others must understand is that sportsment take only the excess in fish and game populations that would perish with or without us. To call us "consumptive" only reinforces the impression that our activities somehow reduce the populations of the species we pursue. Only when non-hunters understand that it is impossible to stockpile wildlife beyond carrying capacity, and that the deer, turkey, etc we take would die otherwise, of other natural causes, will the well-intentioned among them permit us in good faith to engage our "sport" (which, again, is a horribly misleading term when used to describe hunting/fishing and must somehow be expunged from use).

 

[BuzzH]

Shoot him! Get that messenger guy!...

I understand the logic, but wonder if the interests of sportsmen receive more attention than they otherwise might simply because we are the ones greasing the wheels. The moment "non-consumptive" recreational users begin paying fees, our influence may be diminished.

And that brings up another point. I recognize that hunters and fishermen are labeled "consumptive" users, but that needs to change. The truth that we and others must understand is that sportsment take only the excess in fish and game populations that would perish with or without us. To call us "consumptive" only reinforces the impression that our activities somehow reduce the populations of the species we pursue. Only when non-hunters understand that it is impossible to stockpile wildlife beyond carrying capacity, and that the deer, turkey, etc we take would die otherwise, of other natural causes, will the well-intentioned among them permit us in good faith to engage our "sport" (which, again, is a horribly misleading term when used to describe hunting/fishing and must somehow be expunged from use).

I dont think we only kill the excess and in the States I hunt, I sure haven't seen any sign of wildlife being close to carrying capacity.

 

[Nick87]

I dont think we only kill the excess and in the States I hunt, I sure haven't seen any sign of wildlife being close to carrying capacity.

As soon as we get anywhere close we sure seem to do a great job of trying to grind them back into a fine powder. Hunters, farmers, wildlife agancies you name it. At least thats how it is in a lot of places I spend time.

 

[Nick87]

And if the state proposes an $.50 raise on licenses they throw an holy shit fit.

Bought my first archery deer tag in 2001 for $25.
Fast forward a quarter of a century. Still $25. I wish they'd crank that up about 4x.

 

[OldManOnTheMountain]

I dont think we only kill the excess and in the States I hunt, I sure haven't seen any sign of wildlife being close to carrying capacity.

Agreed. I hesitated to suggest the idea of carrying capacity since many populations are intentionally managed at much lower levels, but thought that it might be clearer than mentioning annual recruitment, etc. Better to say that we take the number that we expect to see replaced with the next generation and with the goal of maintaining the number that would exist with or without hunting. Especially since most areas prohibit doe hunts it is hard to imagine that shooting fewer bucks will increase overall numbers. Few does go unbred, even where buck numbers are relatively low.

 

[accone]

I’ve always felt my federal and state taxes should cover land management in areas that I hike. That being said biking I feel should come with a fee as that does more damage to trails that then requires maintenance. I disagree that everyone accessing public land should pay something similar to hunters, animal management is much more expensive than trail maintenance. The hope is that the government uses hunting license revenue to maintain the game animals although I see very little management here in NC

 

[Straight Arrow]

biking I feel should come with a fee as that does more damage to trails

Agreed! If you ever have attempted to backpack or just hike trails hammered by mountain bikes and motorized dirt bikes, you likely have crossed them off your list of places to go. The deep, steeply rutted trails are impossible to hike, as the flat bottom is more narrow than your feet. It requires straddling the trail, feet spread widely or hiking on slopes parallel to the trail.

 

[Wheatgrass]

Under current law, they are not allowed to institute such a fee.

(1) Prohibition on fees for certain activities or services

The Secretary shall not charge any standard amenity recreation fee or expanded amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation under this chapter for any of the following:



(A) Solely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trailsides.
(B) For general access unless specifically authorized under this section.
(C) For dispersed areas with low or no investment unless specifically authorized under this section.
(D) For persons who are driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking through Federal recreational lands and waters without using the facilities and services.
(E) For camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide a minimum number of facilities and services as described in subsection (g)(2)(A).
(F) For use of overlooks or scenic pullouts.
(G) For travel by private, noncommercial vehicle over any national parkway or any road or highway established as a part of the Federal-aid System, as defined in section 101 of title 23,1 which is commonly used by the public as a means of travel between two places either or both of which are outside any unit or area at which recreation fees are charged under this chapter.
(H) For travel by private, noncommercial vehicle, boat, or aircraft over any road or highway, waterway, or airway to any land in which such person has any property right if such land is within any unit or area at which recreation fees are charged under this chapter.
(I) For any person who has a right of access for hunting or fishing privileges under a specific provision of law or treaty.
(J) For any person who is engaged in the conduct of official Federal, State, Tribal, or local government business.
(K) For special attention or extra services necessary to meet the needs of the disabled.

Unfortunately, we have seen concessionaires start charging to park at trailheads on USFS lands in Utah. Tony Grove on Cache National Forest is one example.