You're working on a Royal Flush of ignorant generalizations.
BLM Grazing Overhaul
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
Carnage2011
Well-known member
You can twist words with the best of them. CNN has a full time job calling your name. If you ever want to have an actual conversation shoot me a PM and you can call me.
Arctic_Snow_Seeker
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2020
- Messages
- 161
Noted. I apologize, it’s a slow day checking the cows. But this new trucks heated seats are nice. But what do I know???
BigHornRam
Well-known member
WWP has trucks with heated seats for the hired help? Cool!
BuzzH
Well-known member
Here's what I know...and this is only from working on BLM, FS, and State ground for ohhh, the last 30 years, maybe 150 days a year...I rarely and I mean rarely see a "cowboy" checking their cows on any public land lease.
I have, but its a rare bird. See them moving them ON the leases in spring, and OFF at the end of the season, that's about it. Rest of the summer, those cows are on their own.
Sheep on the other hand, totally different story...always a sheep herder on horseback, a few dogs, etc. with them all the time.
I have, but its a rare bird. See them moving them ON the leases in spring, and OFF at the end of the season, that's about it. Rest of the summer, those cows are on their own.
Sheep on the other hand, totally different story...always a sheep herder on horseback, a few dogs, etc. with them all the time.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
This has been 100% my experience as well. We have both cows and sheep grazing within our permit area, which is a mix of both BLM and private. The sheep always have a herder with them. For the cows, I literally have to call the rancher and let him know when his cows are about to die.
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
There's an existing Secretarial Order 3356 from this administration regarding increased access to public lands for sportsmen. Some of the previous statements regarding access might be worthwhile to comment on. There are no requirements for range riders on BLM leases, except for certain allotments where wolves are listed and present and USFWS requires it. Private leases are case by case as far as what is included in the lease regarding range riders, water developments, etc. But business is business, so they're gonig to pass those expenses to the lessee regardless. There's no doubt that a BLM lease is way cheaper than private or state leases, direct and indirect costs considered, other than maybe a few sweetheart deals that don't represent the market standard.
Like many things this administration has taken on, there's a lot of opportunity for improvements, but the lack of trust for the motivations behind it and the lack of consideration of the best information and desire to find good solutions gives cause for doubt. I agree that the NEPA process could be more efficient, but if that is just code for weakening land health standards and rubber stamping renewals and authorizations, then there will likely be a cumulative loss of wildlife habitat suitability over time. It might feel like screaming into the wind, but if you have strong feelings on this topic, send them a letter!
Like many things this administration has taken on, there's a lot of opportunity for improvements, but the lack of trust for the motivations behind it and the lack of consideration of the best information and desire to find good solutions gives cause for doubt. I agree that the NEPA process could be more efficient, but if that is just code for weakening land health standards and rubber stamping renewals and authorizations, then there will likely be a cumulative loss of wildlife habitat suitability over time. It might feel like screaming into the wind, but if you have strong feelings on this topic, send them a letter!
BuzzH
Well-known member
Some times, a slow process is not a bad thing.
That's essentially what is happening now by using the FLPMA 402(c)2 exception on allotments where there are resource concerns they don't want to deal with. My experience is with domestic sheep allotments with bighorn sheep conflicts. The BLM is not fully processing permits because they know the science is clear enough that they will be litigated if their NEPA decision authorizes high risk grazing. In areas where they are completing NEPA they have gone from EAs to EISs and have disclosed the impacts of the decisions (and will likely be litigated anyway).
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
I agree with you on this, but it's interesting how this ties back to Buzz's comment. This exception was created (actually long before 2015 as an appropriations rider), as a band-aid for the backlog of renewals that weren't getting through the NEPA process, so that BLM wouldn't have to kick thousands of ranchers off their leases because they hadn't processed the renewals. It could be argued that this was due to the more arduous process created in the 95 regulations they seek to update. There was good reason for the new requirements, to ensure the maintenance and improvement of land health and to keep livestock grazing from degrading it. But the reality of implementing it wasn't well thought out, so the good intentions were lost as a steady backlog of renewals piled up as ranchers and enviros both challenged and BLM struggled to implement it's own rules. The exception has now become a major loophole allowing the kicking of the can instead of addressing problems. Finding the balance of a thoughtful process and fully processing all leases on time is an incredible challenge.
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
Sorry, home with a sick kid today, just wanted to finish my thought on this. This administration did implement a categorical exclusion to the NEPA process for renewing leases determined to be meeting land health standards (or not meeting but livestock not a contributing factor). If the land health evaluation and determination process is carried out in good faith by BLM, this is a good way to help the problem, so that allotments in good condition and good compliance from lessee can be cleared out quickly, allowing time to focus on processing areas that need improvement. Essentially every major grazing decision is going to be challenged by enviros, whether there's actually high risk grazing or not, just like forest projects. The categorical exclusion helps limit that to some extent, but it's dependent on a good faith effort from BLM.
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
Would you mind sharing some details of your experience with this, it's an interesting topic that isn't what most people first think of when the topic of BLM grazing conflicts come up. This has a whole new element of disease transmission that I wonder if the grazing regulations even address?
sbhooper
Well-known member
With more and more people/businesses etc., vying for a piece of the public land pie, there are going to be conflicts and it is impossible to please everybody. I think that there is far less abuse now than what I saw many years ago, while hunting in New Mexico. The ranchers have had to take better care of the allotments and rightfully so. I grew up on a ranch and so I see a bit of both sides of these arguments, but the bottom line is that it is PUBLIC land and not just for hunters, fishermen and hikers. I wish it was that simple, but it is not.
Many times, the only reason that areas have any good water sources, is because of the ranchers that have the allotments. I have no problem what so ever with the cows being on the land, as long as it is not grazed to the point that it affects the other wildlife. The same principals apply to the energy and mining industries. No problem with any of them, as long as they are controlled and have someone overseeing what they are doing.
As far as the grazing allotments, the only real issue that I have with them, is that once someone has one, they seem to have it forever. I think that they should be opened to other people bidding on them after a predetermined amount of years and if they are deemed to be abusing, or over-loading the allotments, then it is time to pull them from their use.
Many times, the only reason that areas have any good water sources, is because of the ranchers that have the allotments. I have no problem what so ever with the cows being on the land, as long as it is not grazed to the point that it affects the other wildlife. The same principals apply to the energy and mining industries. No problem with any of them, as long as they are controlled and have someone overseeing what they are doing.
As far as the grazing allotments, the only real issue that I have with them, is that once someone has one, they seem to have it forever. I think that they should be opened to other people bidding on them after a predetermined amount of years and if they are deemed to be abusing, or over-loading the allotments, then it is time to pull them from their use.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
It seems the opposite is true here. Grazing leases are virtually impossible to find.
I know a lot of people who graze private and public doing the same practices and everyone grazing public is doing better financially, expanding, buying more ground driving newer rigs etc.
The guys who are grazing private are spending more to raise and having to compete with government subsidized beef at the sale yard lose, lose,
If your thoughts were true guys would simply drop public grazing and frind or buy enough private pasture.
Without letting a free market decide the cost of grazing on public land it is impossible for the cost to be fair.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
How do you feel about political pressure using our game agencies to remove the animals that compete with cows?
Idaho has just come to a head on this issue.
We went from using biologist to give target numbers of elk in units to using "social science" (actual wording change used in the department and printed in the regulations) in the process they pushed out the fish and game director some commissioners and numerous lower level employees. The results were some units went from having 100 or so cow tags open for around 1 month year. To 2500 cow tags open for 4 months a year.
If you attend the meetings it was ranchers who say that they own all of the grass that grows on an allotment and the elk are eating too much of it.
Maybe Montana guys can fill you in on shoulder seasons i bet there was some grazing intrest involved?
sbhooper
Well-known member
I am not in favor of ANY land use that is not based on sound management and science. Social engineering bullshit does not belong in the management of public lands. Ranchers can say what they want, but the bottom line is that the land is public and not theirs, just because they have the lease. Unfortunately, in many areas, the ranchers have a very big voice in the political battle of grazing on public land.
What is a bit amazing to me, is that the ranching interests are actually playing into the hands of the anti-hunters. If the ranchers squawk loudly enough, then more elk/deer/whatever, are removed from the land and the anti crowd wins again, by running off the hunters. After the hunters all throw their hands in the air and quit, then the ranchers will be on their own, fighting the crowd that wants THEM off the land next.
rustednuts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2018
- Messages
- 772
All of you who are antigrazing realize that you benefit with lower beef prices are the supermarket.
Good thing I put some more "non-beef" in the freezer this morning.
Arctic_Snow_Seeker
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2020
- Messages
- 161
As part of my anti grazing stance I do not buy beef. I get my beef like I get my deer and elk, on FS or blm land.
