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.
I see lots of properties with very little deeded acres and LOTS of govt lease land. Ive never once been bitter about it. That would be like resenting someone who was born into money without even knowing them. They were very fortunate at some point in time. I am choosing to buy much more deeded acres and much less lease acres because i dont, never have, and never will depend on the govt for anything. I wouldnt give a rip if they pulled every govt lease but id be a fool not to take it if its offered.

 

[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. Thats the beauty of public lands.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

I think if you're struggling to realize that the government is charging wayyy less than market value charged by their competitors...and question how that is a losing proposition to the tax payer...it is impossible to have reasonable dialog with you.

Take your beating while your competitors cash in...I don't care.

All I care about is not taking a beating as a taxpayer.

Is it unreasonable for the taxpayer to ask that their resources are sold at fair market value?

 

[Hunting Wife]

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.

Well, the grazing programs costs so much money to administer. The grazing revenue is a lesser amount than that. A small number minus a bigger number equals a negative number. It’s called math.

I’m not bitter at all. A little irritated about an arrogant out-of-stater with a demonstrably poor understanding of public lands issues lecturing about public land issues.

Sounds like you’re coming to Montana to preach and pick fights. Great. More of that is just what we need.

I’m out.

 

[Uplander]

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.

What do you mean that it has nothing to do with the discussion? If we are all “owners” and i spent a lot more to “buy in” over my time here than you have, is it not “fair” i have more say? See, being “fair” has a lot of facets and moving parts! I dont believe i should have anymore say than you even though it could be argued about what is fair. How is the grazing “subsidized” exactly? The govt owns the land so they arent paying themselves a fee on a grazers behalf to offset his costs. A subsidy is when they use taxpayer money to make purchases or payments directly to or for business. “Green energy” is subsidized. All commodities are subsidized in more ways than one. Everyone is griping and moaning about the cost of beef. Those same people havnt a second thought about spending $12 a pound for potato chips or pop tarts but $5 a pound for beef is outrageous!
Now it seems producers are complaining because their profits dont match their neighbors. Then the hunters wife has the gall to spout “socialism”! Comical.

 

[BuzzH]

What do you mean that it has nothing to do with the discussion? If we are all “owners” and i spent a lot more to “buy in” over my time here than you have, is it not “fair” i have more say? See, being “fair” has a lot of facets and moving parts! I dont believe i should have anymore say than you even though it could be argued about what is fair. How is the grazing “subsidized” exactly? The govt owns the land so they arent paying themselves a fee on a grazers behalf to offset his costs. A subsidy is when they use taxpayer money to make purchases or payments directly to or for business. “Green energy” is subsidized. All commodities are subsidized in more ways than one. Everyone is griping and moaning about the cost of beef. Those same people havnt a second thought about spending $12 a pound for potato chips or pop tarts but $5 a pound for beef is outrageous!
Now it seems producers are complaining because their profits dont match their neighbors. Then the hunters wife has the gall to spout “socialism”! Comical.

Personally, I dont care what beef costs per pound. I dine on deer, elk, pronghorn etc. and have been my entire life.

You're bringing in a lot of crazy things that are beyond the scope of the discussion.

On what planet do think its not right for the tax payer to demand their grazing not be leased below fair market value?

Why should the tax payer take a beating when selling/leasing their resources?

 

[Uplander]

Well, the grazing programs costs so much money to administer. The grazing revenue is a lesser amount than that. A small number minus a bigger number equals a negative number. It’s called math.

I’m not bitter at all. A little irritated about an arrogant out-of-stater with a demonstrably poor understanding of public lands issues lecturing about public land issues.

Sounds like you’re coming to Montana to preach and pick fights. Great. More of that is just what we need.

I’m out.

Show me the numbers that verify your statements about revenue being less than administration please. If thats accurate i could see the concern! As far as being an “arrogant out-of-stater”, well i know who i am and you are fully entitled to your opinion. Also, please enlighten me more on the “public land issues” im missing. As i understand it, the main issue is that someone is grazing cheaper than you FOR WHATEVER REASON and you dont like it. What are the other issues now?
I came from a farming/ranching background that wasnt big enough to support more than one family. I knew what i wanted and i put my nose down to make it happen. Worked 7 days a week for FIFTEEN YEARS and was never given much of anything. SACRIFICE, and lots of it got me here. Should i be bitter because you were born or married into it? Thats just not fair! I had to pay a much higher “private lease” fee to get where i am while you paid the “govt lease” price. Yeah, im an arrogant out-of-stater but im honest with myself and others.

 

[Uplander]

Personally, I dont care what beef costs per pound. I dine on deer, elk, pronghorn etc. and have been my entire life.

You're bringing in a lot of crazy things that are beyond the scope of the discussion.

On what planet do think its not right for the tax payer to demand their grazing not be leased below fair market value?

Why should the tax payer take a beating when selling/leasing their resources?

So you want to DEMAND they charge market price for grazing leases but you are ok with all the other things they are doing? A very strange hill to make your stand on.