Grazing cattle on public land

[Wapiti Warrior]

Here is a piece of an article in the Billings Gazette about grazing:

A crucial factor in these calculations, according to Arizona University Law School professor Jay Feller, is the relative cost of state and private grazing land. Federal grazing leases cost $1.35 per animal-unit month. That’s the value of how much grass an adult steer or a cow-calf pair eats (which is around 36 pounds a day, according to Ranch Resource Magazine).

By comparison, private grazing land costs about $18 per animal-unit month.

“In a wilderness area, you can’t drill for oil or other commercial activities, but we allow grazing,” Feller said. “That tells you the hold on the political system that ranching has. Every other activity — mining, gas drilling, logging — is more productive on public lands, but grazing is the one that gets the pass.”


Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...314-5f6b-94df-bf9657288e06.html#ixzz1qykUuyEm

 

[noharleyyet]

...no replies?? Jose must not be up yet.

 

[shoots-straight]

In Montana, that wouldn't have been near the divisive issue as it is now. If the livestock industry hadn't went on the all out assault on our wildlife by passing HB 42 in 2003 things would have been quite on the Wildlife, livestock front. I think that if they re address the issue and allow us more elk that will defuse the situation.

 

[Dinkshooter]

That is also the value of grass that 5 domestic sheep eat a month as well.

 

[bjtc_brian]

First let me start off by saying that I am a very avid hunter. But I am also from a lineage of ranchers. So, I get beaten up on both sides of the road everywhere I walk!. This is one of the issues that hunters have that I don't understand. First off, our elk are not on any type of decline due to lack of food on public grounds. So keeping the cattle from grazing on public ground doesn't help elk heards. Yes, I know there are some areas that can be mismanaged, but for the majority the amount of feed isn't an issue. The money is used on the land(or supposed to be, who knows how it is actually used), and for the most part, the ranchers do lots of upgrades for the land(watering troughs in areas that don't have good water being the biggest) which in turn is good for the wildlife.

I know there is the thought that the cattle "push" the elk out of the public lands. I have too thoughts on this. The cattle for some reason don't push the elk off private land, so is it really the cattle pushing the elk off public land? Secondly, there was a study done(I think by the University of Colorado) that said the elk were more likely to stay on public lands if there was a rotation set up for using them. The elk are very likely to come into a place that has been grazed down by cattle and the grass started growing back. Elk are much more prone to eat the soft tender grass than the long tough stemmy grass. I believe it also had something to do with the fact the cow can use it's tongue for eating the longer harsher grass than an elk, I can't remember fully. Hence they would follow the cattle into the field they had just been in.

Now, I understand for the most part any study can be portrayed to show only the information that the person doing the study wants too. See the last 15 years of wolf studies! I know this will probably open a can of worms, but I believe there are some misconceptions out there on this issue.

I have a couple of issues with legeslative bills and such, but I won't go into them at this point.

 

[JoseCuervo]

First let me start off by saying that I am a very avid hunter. But I am also from a lineage of ranchers. So, I get beaten up on both sides of the road everywhere I walk!. This is one of the issues that hunters have that I don't understand. First off, our elk are not on any type of decline due to lack of food on public grounds. So keeping the cattle from grazing on public ground doesn't help elk heards. Yes, I know there are some areas that can be mismanaged, but for the majority the amount of feed isn't an issue. The money is used on the land(or supposed to be, who knows how it is actually used), and for the most part, the ranchers do lots of upgrades for the land(watering troughs in areas that don't have good water being the biggest) which in turn is good for the wildlife.

I come from a long line of ranchers, too. And, I can spot bullshit easily....

The cost of public lands ranching to American taxpayers is enormous. The current public land grazing fee of $1.35 per month for one cow and her calf is woefully below market value. Direct government expenditures to administer public land grazing constitute an annual net loss to the taxpayers of at least $123 million and more than $500 million when indirect costs are accounted for. As much as 96% of these public dollars are spent to enhance livestock production in direct conflict with legal mandates to restore the health of public lands.

If you want to read more on how truly outrageous it is for the US Taxpayers, Hunters, and Anglers to subsidize Welfare Ranchers, here is a great link....
Cost of Welfare Ranchers

Several efforts have been made to estimate the full costs of the federal livestock
grazing program. This study examines budget records and other relevant data to
derive a minimum estimate of $128 million for the full, annual cost to the U.S.
Treasury of grazing on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and
the Forest Service in the western U.S.

Grazing fees charged by the BLM and Forest Service are limited by regulation to
a fraction of market rates. Moreover, 50 percent of the fee revenue is retained by
agencies to construct range developments, and approximately 15 percent goes to
county governments. This leaves approximately 35 percent for the U.S. Treasury.
As a result the federal grazing program operates at a loss to the U.S. Treasury, a
loss that can be calculated as the Congressional Appropriations for the program, less
the fee receipts to the Treasury. The net direct loss of the BLM's range management
program was over $72 million in 2001. The loss for the Forest Service exceeded $52
million in 2000.

However, these direct costs of range management and administration are likely a
minor part of the full costs of the grazing program to the public. Many other
programs, both within the two agencies and in other federal posts, either support
ranching operations on public lands or are needed to compensate for resource
damage caused by livestock. Such programs include Wildlife Services, in the
Department of Agriculture, which kills wild animals to protect livestock, among
other purposes. Public lands ranching accounted for about $4 million of Wildlife
Services’ costs in 2000. Another example is the Fish and Wildlife Service in the
Department of the Interior, which is responsible with identifying, protecting and
recovering threatened and endangered species, many of which are imperiled as a
result of habitat loss due to livestock grazing.

 

[shoots-straight]

Brian, the rub doesn't come from cows eating my public lands grass, it's when my public land elk go on the ranchers land and eat his private grass. At $18 per cow calf pr. That private grass is far more valuable than my public grass.

They don't want my elk competing with their cattle on the private lands. I've never met a rancher that thought it wasn't OK for their cows to compete with my elk on the public lands.

If your a rancher of course you want it both ways. As a hunter, I'd like that too. I'd like my elk herd to reach range capacity. Wouldn't that really be a change?

 

[smarandr]

Brian, the rub doesn't come from cows eating my public lands grass, it's when my public land elk go on the ranchers land and eat his private grass. At $18 per cow calf pr. That private grass is far more valuable than my public grass.

They don't want my elk competing with their cattle on the private lands. I've never met a rancher that thought it wasn't OK for their cows to compete with my elk on the public lands.

If your a rancher of course you want it both ways. As a hunter, I'd like that too. I'd like my elk herd to reach range capacity. Wouldn't that really be a change?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[bjtc_brian]

Jose,
What part of this statement are you saying is bullshit?

"The money is used on the land(or supposed to be, who knows how it is actually used), and for the most part, the ranchers do lots of upgrades for the land(watering troughs in areas that don't have good water being the biggest) which in turn is good for the wildlife. "

On "welfare ranchers", I am not sure what the origin of that web site is. But from this line right here, "which is responsible with identifying, protecting and recovering threatened and endangered species, many of which are imperiled as a result of habitat loss due to livestock grazing", it sounds an aweful lot like a environmental website. But, assuming it isn't, as I said before, reports can be made to look however the person giving the report wants it too. "Several efforts have been made to estimate the full costs of the federal livestock grazing program." sounds like there isn't a solid way to determine where money is going and where money is spent. Does this article take into account farmers and ranchers man-hour time? Does this take into account what the county does with the money? Are they taking into accound that the people working on the livestock grazing program are probably not only doing that for their job? Are they losing money because they mis-managed? Are they losing money because government is fat? Or is it strictly because they are charging to little? And, how is this the fault of the rancher either way?

I am assuming your picture is to point out that the cattle are damaging the stream beds. For one, Elk do way more damage to stream beds than cattle do. There are many studies done on this. If you don't believe it, just look at the difference in the way cows and elk are. Elk use water sources(stream beds) to wallow in. This is due their bodies temperature rising when they are in the "Rut". Cows don't go through a rut, hence they don't damage the area like an elk. Unless cows are being pushed, I have very rarely seen them do anything other than walk up, take a drink, and walk back.

SS,
I understand there is big difference in charges between public and private. But show me anything that is done on public land that isn't way cheaper than private. Are you showing the same contempt to golfers when they use a public golf course because it isn't as expensive as a private golf course? There are many factors in the cost of things. I guarantee you the private land owner spent way more money on his land than the government did(if the government even had to pay for it). On top of that, the government isn't out to make money, as it shouldn't be. The private landowner on the other hand is out to make money. Now, I am not saying either is right. But it is no where near as simple as looking at the private dollar costs vs. the public dollar costs. I think they are both on the ridiculous ends of the spectrum. And on that, why does the rancher take the black eye for going with the lower price? Aren't we all looking for the best deal at all times? If not, that person has way to much money to where the value of a dollar is meaningless.

 

[bjtc_brian]

SS,
One more thing. "They don't want my elk competing with their cattle on the private lands. I've never met a rancher that thought it wasn't OK for their cows to compete with my elk on the public lands." I don't personally know any ranchers that get to charge for the elk eating off their privat land either. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[6speed]

bjtc_brian save your breath. Jose is a staunch supporter of the western watersheds project and laps up the John Marvel Kool Aid like a black dog on a sunny day. He will cut and past this post into oblivion with slanted enviro crap. The rules governing public grazing need a makeover but he won't agree to anything less than putting you and every other rancher who grazes cattle on public land out of business. The sad thing is it is rooted more in Marvels hatred of cattle because he got poop on his shoes than it is in actual science that has been proven to provide a sustainable and healthy ecosystem.

 

[bjtc_brian]

Thanks for the heads up 6speed. I was pretty much figuring that with his reply, but it is always nice to get confirmation.

 

[1_pointer]

I'm not from a long line of ranchers, however I was geneticly endowed (nope, not THAT way) with the ability to spot bullchit myself.












Look, there's some right here....

As much as 96% of these public dollars are spent to enhance livestock production in direct conflict with legal mandates to restore the health of public lands.

 

[BuzzH]

I never could see why favoritism is given to public land ranchers over the ranchers that lease all private lands.

A portion of the livestock interests are being subsidized via cheap federal grazing fees and those paying the much higher grazing fees on private leases are expected to "compete" on the "free" market.

Thats a BS deal for everyone, except those with federal leases. Those with cheap federal leases are cutting the throats of their fellow ranchers who dont have access to same.

As far as the landowners getting paid for elk using their property...thats a joke. When the elk are on their deeded ground for a few months, we'll call it even for the cheaper than dirt price they pay for an AUM all summer long on MY PUBLIC LAND.

It gets old listening to ranchers whine and complain how they cant make money, how much the federal leases are, how they want welfare reform, blah, blah, blah...yet feed at the same government trough as any other welfare recipient.

They cry about free markets, while hiding under the subsidized government welfare blanket.

You want welfare reform and free markets...good, lets all go down that road...we'll see who flinches first.

 

[Bambistew]

"which is responsible with identifying, protecting and recovering threatened and endangered species, many of which are imperiled as a result of habitat loss due to livestock grazing", it sounds an aweful lot like a environmental website.

Are you anti-environment?

I am assuming your picture is to point out that the cattle are damaging the stream beds. For one, Elk do way more damage to stream beds than cattle do.

This is possibly the stupidest thing I've seen posted in a long time. By all means please post up a study or 3 that proves this.

On top of that, the government isn't out to make money, as it shouldn't be.

What should the government be doing? Taking in $1.35 and giving out $18?

 

[shoots-straight]

BJ, you got me, I'm speechless, how do I answer that? Have you seen the montana meth commercials on TV? There pretty good.

 

[BuzzH]

Like Pointer...I can spot BS as well...this paragraph is pure BS.

I am assuming your picture is to point out that the cattle are damaging the stream beds. For one, Elk do way more damage to stream beds than cattle do. There are many studies done on this. If you don't believe it, just look at the difference in the way cows and elk are. Elk use water sources(stream beds) to wallow in. This is due their bodies temperature rising when they are in the "Rut". Cows don't go through a rut, hence they don't damage the area like an elk. Unless cows are being pushed, I have very rarely seen them do anything other than walk up, take a drink, and walk back.

Really? Cattle never park their asses in riparian zones for days and days at a time? They just slip on down to the crick for a quick sip of water and then haul ass back up the hill?

Interesting...

 

[JoseCuervo]

bjtc_brian save your breath. Jose is a staunch supporter of the western watersheds project and laps up the John Marvel Kool Aid like a black dog on a sunny day. He will cut and past this post into oblivion with slanted enviro crap. The rules governing public grazing need a makeover but he won't agree to anything less than putting you and every other rancher who grazes cattle on public land out of business. The sad thing is it is rooted more in Marvels hatred of cattle because he got poop on his shoes than it is in actual science that has been proven to provide a sustainable and healthy ecosystem.

You are an idiot, with all due respect. I am a staunch supporter of capitalism and the free market, unlike you with your communist/socialist ideas of allocating public resources for the production of the nation's food sources.

My family has ran cattle on private deeded acres for generations, never needing to have government welfare like the Welfare Ranchers running their cattle on My Public Lands.

 

[1_pointer]

Buzz- Do you honestly believe that a direct comparison of $1.35/AUM on a federal permit to $18/AUM on private land is a fair one? Who covers maintenance fees of infrastructure on each in your experience? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not a pretty good deal, but IMO/E it's not as disparate as just comparing the AUM fees appears on the surface.

PS- I hate to burst some folks heads, but I know of a quite a few that graze livestock on federal lands legally for FREE !!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose,
What part of this statement are you saying is bullshit?

"The money is used on the land(or supposed to be, who knows how it is actually used), and for the most part, the ranchers do lots of upgrades for the land(watering troughs in areas that don't have good water being the biggest) which in turn is good for the wildlife. "

It is bullshit to say that "upgrades" are a good use of grazing fees when the purpose of the "upgrades" is water troughs for cattle. How about this idea, you keep the Welfare Rancher's cattle off My Public Lands, and I won't give a shit about a lack of water troughs for my deer, elk, and other game animals. I am willing to make that trade, how many Welfare Ranchers are?

On "welfare ranchers", I am not sure what the origin of that web site is. But from this line right here, "which is responsible with identifying, protecting and recovering threatened and endangered species, many of which are imperiled as a result of habitat loss due to livestock grazing", it sounds an aweful lot like a environmental website.

Yep, as a hunter, I care quite a bit about the environment. Too bad you don't.

But, assuming it isn't, as I said before, reports can be made to look however the person giving the report wants it too. "Several efforts have been made to estimate the full costs of the federal livestock grazing program." sounds like there isn't a solid way to determine where money is going and where money is spent. Does this article take into account farmers and ranchers man-hour time? Does this take into account what the county does with the money? Are they taking into accound that the people working on the livestock grazing program are probably not only doing that for their job? Are they losing money because they mis-managed? Are they losing money because government is fat? Or is it strictly because they are charging to little? And, how is this the fault of the rancher either way?

Lots of questions.... Maybe if you read the report, you would know what was measured.

I am assuming your picture is to point out that the cattle are damaging the stream beds. For one, Elk do way more damage to stream beds than cattle do. There are many studies done on this. If you don't believe it, just look at the difference in the way cows and elk are. Elk use water sources(stream beds) to wallow in. This is due their bodies temperature rising when they are in the "Rut". Cows don't go through a rut, hence they don't damage the area like an elk. Unless cows are being pushed, I have very rarely seen them do anything other than walk up, take a drink, and walk back.

Congrats, you just won the prize for the stupidest comment ever posted on the internets...

So much fail in that comment. Have you ever heard of "riparian fences"? Do you have a clue what they are fencing away from the streams??? I will give you a hint, it ain't the elk they are keeping away from the streambed.

Before Fences:

After Fences:

SS,
I understand there is big difference in charges between public and private. But show me anything that is done on public land that isn't way cheaper than private. Are you showing the same contempt to golfers when they use a public golf course because it isn't as expensive as a private golf course? There are many factors in the cost of things. I guarantee you the private land owner spent way more money on his land than the government did(if the government even had to pay for it). On top of that, the government isn't out to make money, as it shouldn't be. The private landowner on the other hand is out to make money. Now, I am not saying either is right. But it is no where near as simple as looking at the private dollar costs vs. the public dollar costs. I think they are both on the ridiculous ends of the spectrum. And on that, why does the rancher take the black eye for going with the lower price? Aren't we all looking for the best deal at all times? If not, that person has way to much money to where the value of a dollar is meaningless.

This is addressed to Shoots-Straight, so he can answer.

But, tell me why the government should be subsidizing ANY Welfare Ranchers?