Healthy Rural Economies without Welfare Ranching

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, Elkgunner has written extensive posts about how subsidizing welfare ranchers hurts ranchers who raise cattle on private land. I'll try to go back and find some of the topics he posted in.

Welfare ranchers always blame the low AUM fees on the gummint, but it's the Farm Bureau and the Cattlemen's Associations that lobby the gummint for low fees and scream bloody murder if anyone mentions raising them.

"does not take into consideration the use of lands which do not have potential for game to flourish...."

I believe most land would support much more wildlife (not always game animals, but wildlife in general) if the public land was in better condition. Remember, 60% of all BLM is in poor condition due to grazing. 85% of the BLM riparian zones are in poor condition due to overgrazing. Fish count as wildlife, too.

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont, first off, good post.

I'll only comment on a couple things...

There is no doubt that BLM grazing is done at a net loss to the owners of the land, that being you and I and everyone else in the U.S. Similar land leased by a private owner would be much more per AUM.

Also, for this subsidized grazing, we get 60% of the leases (by the BLM's own admission) in poor condition. Not a great deal for the owners of that BLM. We now have a nice piece of range land in poor condition that wont support public wildlife either...and for that I get to pay for it because remember, the BLM is operating leases at a net loss.

I agree with most of your post, that there shouldnt be a one size fits all closure of BLM grazing. But, we need to be getting fair market value for the leases and we need to improve range conditions to support the publics wildlife...and that aint happening.

In my opinion, if grazing is "reducing the productivity of the land" something needs to be adjusted...and again, that isnt happening...for mostly political reasons. Even talk about range improvements or lease compliance, and theres protests and phone calls to congress, news stations, etc.

 

[Ithaca 37]

" Commercial livestock production is an inappropriate use of public lands - inappropriate because it is ecologically damaging, uneconomic and inequitable. TWRR synthesizes the scientific, economic, historical and legal thinking on an issue of increasing importance. It argues that commercial grazing should be halted on (1) arid lands, because of their marginal productivity for livestock and their susceptibility to irreversible ecological changes, and (2) riparian zones, because of their tremendous importance for native species habitat and water quality."

http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2001/2001html_fall/livestck.html

Rangelands were so severely overgrazed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that most places just couldn't get any worse. Since then, there has been limited improvement, mostly because of a steep reduction in domestic sheep numbers. Yet it would be wrong to imply that our rangelands are seeing significant advances toward biological sustainability. Hundreds of millions of acres are still in an ecologically degraded condition. For example, according to statistics compiled by the Society for Range Management, 15 percent of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands are improving in ecological condition and function. However, 14 percent of BLM lands are continuing to decline. And although the vast majority of BLM holdings are rated "stable," a high proportion of the acreage in this category is in such poor shape that it cannot get much worse. Livestock proponents like to say that the majority of western rangelands are "stable and improving." Yet by combining the large percentage of "stable" lands with the smaller percentage of "improving" lands, what livestock advocates have done is to disguise the reality that most of these public lands are ecological disaster zones.


http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_myth_improving.htm

Myths About Public Lands Ranching and Livestock
We must choose between cows or condos in the West...


Better grazing practices are the solution...


Cattle replace lost bison on the range-we need to graze public lands...


Rangeland conditions are improving...


Public lands grazing supports itself through grazing fees...


Public lands grazing is critical to western state economies and beef production...


Profitable livestock production and ecological preservation can coexist…


Livestock production benefits wildlife...


Public lands "grass-fed" beef is ecologically and ethically preferable to feedlot beef production...


Livestock grazing reduces fire hazard in the West...

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-19-2003 17:33: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

I think Buzz and Ithica answered your question, but the quick answer to the "money out of my pocket" is that Cattle are a commodity, and if the Supply is including cattle from Public Lands, then the price is lower than if the Supply was only Private Lands. Therefore, those of us who run our cattle on private pastures have to compete with a Supply that is influenced by cattle running on MY Public Lands.

Why should I provide assets to my competitiors???? No other business does that.

Secondly, MY taxes are higher, as I have to pay the loss on the Public Land grazing programs. If we end Welfare Ranching then my taxes "could" go down, in theory.

And again, good post, and keep up the discussion. It is so much more enjoyable to read your points/arguments than it is to read Ten Bear's. It is quite obvious that you went far beyond the third grade.

 

[Ithaca 37]

"In one study, scientists found that domestic livestock grazing consumed 88.8 percent of the available forage (cattle and [domesticated] horses 82.3 percent, free-roaming horses 5.8 percent, sheep 0.7 percent), leaving 11.2 percent to wildlife species (mule deer 10.1 percent, pronghorn 0.9 percent, bighorn sheep 0.1 percent, elk 0.1 percent). 1"

It is a simple concept: the forage (grass, forbs [wildflowers], shrubs) consumed by domestic livestock is not available as food and cover for native wildlife--species that are important to healthy ecosystems, admired by wildlife enthusiasts, and prized by hunters. Range managers use the rather imprecise animal unit month or AUM to measure and allocate forage. An AUM is the amount of forage necessary to sustain a cow and calf for one month (approximately 650 pounds, although some estimates are more, between 800-1000 pounds 2). Below are generally accepted AUM equivalents.

Native Wildlife Animals Per AUM 3 Domestic Livestock Animals Per AUM 4
Bighorn Sheep 6.9 Cow 1
Pronghorn 10.8 Bull 1.25
Mule Deer 7.8 Horse 1.25
Elk 2.1 Goat 5
Bison 0.8 Sheep 5
Moose 1.2

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/

 

[Nemont]

Elkgunner,
Thanks, Your position does make sense I have not thought about that part of the economics of cattle ranching. Well let me ruminate on that for awhile.

Thanks
Nemont

 

[Troy Jones]

It seems as though things are blown a little out of proportion. ElkG, all the money coming out of your pocket. Let's put this into perspective. We have an enormous black hole money pit that we call the US, state, county and city government. You could not cut a penny down small enough for what comes out of your pocket because of subsidized cattle grazing. Let's say all your taxes goes to pay a BLM official. How far will your taxes go? One official for one week maybe. Out of how many? Tens of thousands?

You want to really make a difference. Cut the pyramid of beurocrats down and get more people in the feild doing something. How about getting out of the we are your buddy payments the US gives out all over the world. We spend hundreds of billions of tax dollars tearing shit up in war and then billions and billions to rebuild the damn places we just demolished. Don't you think we should take care of our own first?

Check in later, it's time to go freeze my ass off waiting to see what bucks are out chasing the does around.

 

[Ten Bears]

Oak, maybe in time, but you should look into some of that yourself.

IT, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... 60% of all BLM is in poor condition due to grazing.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 60% of all BLM may be in poor condition, but you have yet to show that it is due to grazing. Haven't I asked you to show that before? I see your back to twisting data, and making more of your ASSumations. Didn't we examine the scope of BLM lands that, even with the complete removal of domestic stock, would not and could not be improved to good or excellent range status due to the slope/aspect/level of precipitation/soil types necessary? Didn't we examine the process of rating lands, and site potential?

What part of the BLM lands are those lands left over after the good/productive lands were homesteaded is so hard for you to comprehend?

GRINNER, I surpassed the third grade expectation, and completed ninth before going to work. I have since completed my basic edumacational requirements.

I too am a taxpayer, and as such, I prefer to allow my thin penny (thanx TROY) to be used for subsidizing SOME beef growers in flooding the market with subsidized beef to drive the prices down. If you can't compete, and I'm sure you can, get into a different market.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, "60% of all BLM may be in poor condition, but you have yet to show that it is due to grazing. Haven't I asked you to show that before?"

You've been shown about a thousand times, you're just to stupid to understand what you're reading.

Try this: http://www.publiclandsranching.org/

Go down the menu to "Welfare Ranching" and click on it, or just do your own google search and quit wasting our time. I suppose you have some other answer to why 60% of BLM is in poor condition and it starts improving as soon as the cattle are removed?

 

[Ten Bears]

My point, IT, is we have been over all this before...... You had to back out once.

Range conditions would change with an increase or decrease of annual precip too.

Stay on topic.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-21-2003 11:40: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[Washington Hunter]

I must have missed the part where Ithaca was off topic. Isn't the topic here "welfare ranching?"

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, "Range conditions would change with an increase or decrease of annual precip too." I sometimes forget you're too stupid to debate with. Compare the range conditions now to 200 years ago.

 

[Ten Bears]

Here, compare with this:

Table 1.

Trends in range conditions on BLM administered land (Laycock, 1996).

Condition


Year
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Unclassified

1936
2
14
48
36
--


1975
2
15
50
33
--

1984
5
31
42
18
4

1989
3
30
36
16
14


Table 2.

Trends in condition on private rangeland (Laycock, 1996).

Condition


Year
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Unclassified


1963
5
15
40
40
--

1977
12
28
42
18
--

1982
3
31
45
17
5

1987
3
30
47
14
6


http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range456/hot-topics/Range-Grazing.htm

WH, sometimes I think IT believes that all topics deal with grazing. I thought this topics was about how rural economies could recover without welfare ranching?????? Not grazing impacts on BLM land.

IT, please refrain from the intellectual insults. You can't compete in that market either.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-21-2003 15:24: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, Keep researching. Maybe you'll learn something.

 

[Ten Bears]

IT, did you even bother to read the site I referenced???? Let bring to bear some of the highpoints.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The way to improve poor conditioned rangelands is by experimenting with different management concepts while taking into account the past history of the rangeland. There is no single management plan best for all situations, or even required for any one situation (Clary 1999).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Most western rangelands are now in the best condition in a century. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> According to Brown and McDonald (1995), issues raised by most environmental extremists often have little scientific proof and assume that past history is the average impact of grazing, even though there are some studies cited that some poor conditioned rangelands are due to little or no livestock impact.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Some people assume that removing livestock grazing from rangelands would allow range conditions to improve. In fact, most vegetation would change little if at all. If stocking rates were excessive, reducing the number of animals to a moderate or light grazing system would be beneficial to vegetation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That doesn't sound like a call for the complete removal of grazing pressure to me.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-21-2003 15:44: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

In the land of the Blind, the One-Eyed man is King. I guess in the Land of the 3rd graders, a Frat-boy/Rugby player is a genius...

Let's look at your hero's credentials...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My name is Jason Theodozio. I'm from Grand View, Idaho, studying Range/Livestock Management at the U of I. I am a member of FarmHouse fraternity and the Idaho Rugby Club.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here is one of Mr. Theodozio's comments: "there are the environmental extremists that want rangelands free from cattle grazing and restored to the way they were, with all native species "...

I would say young Mr. Theodozio has made up his conclusion, and is looking for data and analysis to support his poppa's livelihood.

Even funnier, is Mr. Theodozio's data, and Ten's embracement of the data. Mr. Theodozio puts up data that is 14 years old???

It is funny that many of the Grazing cases the BLM loses is due to the fact the BLM has NOT INVENTORIED their land in many years. And we now have Ten making the same mistake... Marvel wins most of his cases by bring real pictures, and real science/data, where the ranchers like Mr. Theodozio show 14 year old data to justify their position.

Ten, you should poke around some more on that set of Student articles from the grazing class. It is kind of funny to read those articles, written at mid-night the night before they are due, after downing a bunch of Brews at the Corner Club in Moscow ...

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, That's really pathetic! I hope you don't expect anyone to take you seriously!

 

[1_pointer]

Let me see if I can do better than Mr. T. BTW, I am a member of Phi Gamma Delta and played baseball in college!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Rangelands were so severely overgrazed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that most places just couldn't get any worse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Given even good environmental conditions how long would it take some of these arid lands to get back to excellent condition? Remember that the BLM's organic act was the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. Then all of the land under the BLM's care had to be inventoried. Given that range condition is based on Clementsian Succession, which has been shown time and time again to not work in arid environments and high alpine areas, is 'excellent' range conditions, as defined, even attainable. In many cases, I don't think so.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Profitable livestock production and ecological preservation can coexist…
Livestock production benefits wildlife... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is not a myth. To sound like a broken drum, but Red Canyon Ranch and Deseret Land and Livestock have shown that this is possible. It just takes proper management and often a different paradigm.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Livestock grazing reduces fire hazard in the West... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Goats were used effectively to create fire breaks on Camp Williams near SLC two years ago.

IMO, the call to the end of all public lands grazing is as bad as unrestricted public lands grazing. Both for the simple fact that blanket land management policies don't work everywhere. I feel that there is a long future for public lands grazing, but the goal of which will be different. Management is being forced by society to focus more on recreation and aesthetic aspects of land stewardship, instead of commodity production. However, grazing is a very powerful and useful tool if used properly. I think grazing on public lands in the future will have to be looked at as a means to alter the landscape for the betterment of the land. It is possible, it just takes the right mindset to perform the proper management.

'Gunner is right, many of the lawsuits are lost by the agencies because of a lack of collected data. That in itself is a whole predictament for the offices. First they get sued, then the few available hands on staff are not able to get into the field because they have to prepare documents for the lawsuit. Thus, data is not collected, for which they will be sued for in the future. It is a feedback loop that is operating against the agencies.

One thing we must remember is that environmental concerns are not the only ones that public lands managers must address. They also have to balance economic and societal concerns with the environmental concerns. Without a proper balance, public support is not there to get done what needs to be done.

Okay, that is my take, fire away!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-23-2003 19:52: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>