Floating an idea, don't kill the messenger

[Uplander]

Well, I disagree about your free market. It's simply not.

If you're fine with other producers cutting your throat via the government subsidizing some in your industry, you know picking winners and losers...cool.

But, as a taxpayer and a co-owner of public lands with 340 million of my neighbors, I think the grazing rates on Federal lands should reflect the fair market value (regionally adjusted).

As to where the money can go. I suggest back into the Land Management accounts of the agencies responsible for the management and administration of the leases (BLM, USFS, etc.).

Thats the funny thing. Its always those with absolutely no skin in the game who squawk loudest! You WILL pay your taxes whether you have any access to these acres or not and Id be willing to bet i pay far more taxes than many. Does that make it ok now? You speak about “fair market value” and being charged a rate the same as private ground. What about all the other revenue those acres are bringing in? Should that not offset the grazing leases somewhat? A mule deer hunt here is $5k plus yet You go hunt them on my land that i share with 340 million other people for $50. Is that fair? I think you should pay the same amount as the guys who hunt private land here do. How do you like them apples? Also, the lease is tied to the land and not a person so how are they picking winners and losers? I dont see the cattlemen here doing so poorly at the moment and ive never heard a single one complain about BLM leases in the west being too cheap.
Some people do and others talk. A victim mentality often separates one from the other.

 

[BuzzH]

Thats the funny thing. Its always those with absolutely no skin in the game who squawk loudest! You WILL pay your taxes whether you have any access to these acres or not and Id be willing to bet i pay far more taxes than many. Does that make it ok now? You speak about “fair market value” and being charged a rate the same as private ground. What about all the other revenue those acres are bringing in? Should that not offset the grazing leases somewhat? A mule deer hunt here is $5k plus yet You go hunt them on my land that i share with 340 million other people for $50. Is that fair? I think you should pay the same amount as the guys who hunt private land here do. How do you like them apples? Also, the lease is tied to the land and not a person so how are they picking winners and losers? I dont see the cattlemen here doing so poorly at the moment and ive never heard a single one complain about BLM leases in the west being too cheap.
Some people do and others talk. A victim mentality often separates one from the other.

Big game is not tied to the land ownership patterns in the United States, so your analogy doesn't hold water. What a private land owner charges for access to their land to hunt is actually based on a fair market value. I can assure you, if your neighbor has equal quality animals on their property and charges say, $3000 for access you're not going to get many takers if you're charging $5000. You would be forced to charge a similar fee as your neighbor.

What would not be a fair market is if the .gov gave your neighbor an additional $2000 per hunter on top of the $3000 they charge the hunters. In that case, you can't compete. Your neighbor gets $5k, you get $3k.

It's no different than you having to sell your cattle at the same price as those that have substantially lower Federal grazing leases. But, like I said, if you're fine trying to compete in a manipulated market that the government has decided your competitors deserve but you don't. I'm cool with that. It's money out of your pocket, not mine.

But, like I said, as a taxpayer I want the BLM, FS, etc. to offer their product at fair market value. No reason for the taxpayer to take a beating like you are on something as valuable at grazing leases.

No, I don't think one land use should be subsidized because we're creating revenue via another land use. That is once again, picking winners and losers.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Really? So you think that someone grazing BLM should pay more and that will make everyone else pay less somehow? When taxes are raised do commodities go down? Does fuel go down? I fail to see how charging someone more to make a living will benefit other Americans in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER when the govt is involved.

Do you think the government should continue to lose money administering a commercial use of taxpayer-owned resources? If that isn’t government fraud, waste and abuse, I don’t know what is. I feel the same about the ridiculously low royalties paid for mineral development in federal lands too. The government always cries poverty, and there’s no money to pay for the things citizens need. But they keep tightening the screws on taxpayers, while giving commercial interests bigger and bigger breaks. That is nonsensical.

You really think that in 2026, public land renters should still be paying the market rental rate from 1934? Please explain to me how this level of rent control is free-market, exactly? Sounds like *clutch pearls* socialism!!!

You are also totally conflating two separate issues and systems (public lands access and state-managed wildlife) in your hunting analogy.

 

[Uplander]

Big game is not tied to the land ownership patterns in the United States, so your analogy doesn't hold water. What a private land owner charges for access to their land to hunt is actually based on a fair market value. I can assure you, if your neighbor has equal quality animals on their property and charges say, $3000 for access you're not going to get many takers if you're charging $5000. You would be forced to charge a similar fee as your neighbor.

What would not be a fair market is if the .gov gave your neighbor an additional $2000 per hunter on top of the $3000 they charge the hunters. In that case, you can't compete. Your neighbor gets $5k, you get $3k.

It's no different than you having to sell your cattle at the same price as those that have substantially lower Federal grazing leases. But, like I said, if you're fine trying to compete in a manipulated market that the government has decided your competitors deserve but you don't. I'm cool with that. It's money out of your pocket, not mine.

But, like I said, as a taxpayer I want the BLM, FS, etc. to offer their product at fair market value. No reason for the taxpayer to take a beating like you are on something as valuable at grazing leases.

No, I don't think one land use should be subsidized because we're creating revenue via another land use. That is once again, picking winners and losers

Since i pay more taxes than you, shouldnt i have more say? Wouldnt that be “fair”?
I can compete just fine now in any cattle market without govt leases and i will do it in the west if i need to. I will, however, take a govt lease if its offered and be VERY thankful for it just as you would if the county came in and lowered your taxes. If they said “hey Buzz, weve been thinking. We are going to lower your tax rate substantially but your neighbors will not be effected”. You are going to politely decline and say you would rather just keep paying the same?

 

[Dave N]

 

[Uplander]

Do you think the government should continue to lose money administering a commercial use of taxpayer-owned resources? If that isn’t government fraud, waste and abuse, I don’t know what is. I feel the same about the ridiculously low royalties paid for mineral development in federal lands too. The government always cries poverty, and there’s no money to pay for the things citizens need. But they keep tightening the screws on taxpayers, while giving commercial interests bigger and bigger breaks. That is nonsensical.

You really think that in 2026, public land renters should still be paying the market rental rate from 1934? Please explain to me how this level of rent control is free-market, exactly? Sounds like *clutch pearls* socialism!!!

You are also totally conflating two separate issues and systems (public lands access and state-managed wildlife) in your hunting analogy.

How is the govt “LOSING” money on grazing leases exactly? They arent losing anything but the potential to squander more money theY fleece from taxpayers. YES, ranchers who graze on public lands are also tax payers. How are they effecting your livelihood exactly? AGAIN, you seem bitter because someone else is buying inputs (grazing in this case) cheaper than you are. Are you not leasing public land grazing because you are taking a moral stand against it? HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Were there a public land grazing lease to come up next to you would you not accept it or only accept it at a private land lease rate? EVERYONE knows the answer to that. You made YOUR bed, now sleep in it. If you want a better bed, sell out and go buy one.

 

[BuzzH]

Since i pay more taxes than you, should i have more say?

Has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about subsidized grazing and the .gov creating anything close to a free market system.

As to the "say" in what happens on public lands, all 340 million of the owners have a say.