AZ402
Well-known member
I bet the Havre bars are full of them just after sunset..........
Marv what's the score on that bad boy??
BLM Sucks [again]
- Thread starter cjcj
- Start date
I bet the Havre bars are full of them just after sunset..........
Marv what's the score on that bad boy??
And Miller's affinity for them suggests experience.
MarvB
Well-known member
Stan not sure what he'll gross but you don't have to pry him away from the buffalo hippies either....and he sings "Happy Trails" when you push his nose 
Tom
New member
Well, here's a report, is it right? The BLM got $1.79 when the average fair price was $13.30, so they loose a lot, 13.30-1.79 = $11.51 /AUM or cow-calf pair per month.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/press/grazing10-31-05.html
Hunters and others who use the BLM should be paying that $11.51, right? Or, is the land stocked chuck full of cow-calf pairs and those people should be paying it?
Who decides the stocking rate, and how? What does that act say about it Jose?
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/press/grazing10-31-05.html
Hunters and others who use the BLM should be paying that $11.51, right? Or, is the land stocked chuck full of cow-calf pairs and those people should be paying it?
Who decides the stocking rate, and how? What does that act say about it Jose?
Nemont
Well-known member
Huh? Why should hunters and others being paying anything toward an AUM? You need some more research before you post again.
Also your math is a little out of date
Nemont
Tom
New member
Don't the animals that are hunted off of BLM land eat off of BLM land? Isn't the reduced cost because of multiple use of the land?
Where is the $1.35 quote from? Does it give the new data for the $11.30 number? I didn't see that in your post. Don't we need that to evaluate the $1.35 as appropriate or not?
Where is the $1.35 quote from? Does it give the new data for the $11.30 number? I didn't see that in your post. Don't we need that to evaluate the $1.35 as appropriate or not?
Nemont
Well-known member
Tom,
The AUM rate is set by Statute, not evaluation, not comparison, not market value not bidding to the highest bidder.
THE LAW
How on earth are you going to charge hunters for wild animals that live on public lands? FYI much of the west is Checkerboarded and lot's of wild animals grazing on both public and private land, some move off deeded onto public or vice versa every day. How are you going to figure out a way for hunters to pay that? Most allotments have a set amount of forage that is supposed to be left for wildlife again ask mtmiller, Oak or 1-pointer the particulars of RMP's etc.
Nemont
guppie9
New member
You know, I usually stay out of these grazing arguments, but these two statements are two of the most asinine statements I have ever seen...especially from someone who calls himself a hunter. I am a US Citizen who pays my taxes every year...I have already paid for those animals that I hunt on public land. If you, or anyone else, wants to place personal property (cattle, sheep, etc.) on public land, than you need to reimburse the US taxpayers the cost of using that land. An elk, deer, moose, etc. are not personal property.
Tom
New member
Its pretty asinine to think an elk, deer a moose is personal property, until you shoot it, then it is yours.
You think your taxes pay for the animals and their management.
You guys don't like to think about it, but its easy, the idea. Say, 1000 animals are harvested from a unit. Say its checkerboard and national forest. 50% national forest, 25% BLM, 10% state land, and 15% private.
50% of 1000 is 500 lived off the national forest.
25% of 1000 is 250 lived off the BLM.
10% of 1000 is 100 lived off the state land.
15% of 1000 is 150 lived off the private land.
If you want to measure the forage on each and use forage acres, I'm sure 1_pointer, mtmiller, Oak and others can tell you how to do that.
There are many states with reimbursement programs for animals taken off of different types of land. Isn't it a basic principle of economics to recupe the costs when you sell something, otherwise you and your "production operation" so to speak go bankrupt? Those who benefit have got to pay those who contribute.
Its not like you paid your fair share and a lady in an apparment in NY paid her fair share of taxes, so you get the elk. That's a pretty darned blind way to look at it and any body knows that too, you don't fool any anti's or non-residents by huffing and puffing any yelling you pay your taxes. Tough shit, everybody pays their taxes. Now that's an asinine attitude to think that covers the cost of an elk, for example. Nothing personal, but maybe if I talk asinine to somebody who talks asinine to me, you'll get the idea.
You think your taxes pay for the animals and their management.
You guys don't like to think about it, but its easy, the idea. Say, 1000 animals are harvested from a unit. Say its checkerboard and national forest. 50% national forest, 25% BLM, 10% state land, and 15% private.
50% of 1000 is 500 lived off the national forest.
25% of 1000 is 250 lived off the BLM.
10% of 1000 is 100 lived off the state land.
15% of 1000 is 150 lived off the private land.
If you want to measure the forage on each and use forage acres, I'm sure 1_pointer, mtmiller, Oak and others can tell you how to do that.
There are many states with reimbursement programs for animals taken off of different types of land. Isn't it a basic principle of economics to recupe the costs when you sell something, otherwise you and your "production operation" so to speak go bankrupt? Those who benefit have got to pay those who contribute.
Its not like you paid your fair share and a lady in an apparment in NY paid her fair share of taxes, so you get the elk. That's a pretty darned blind way to look at it and any body knows that too, you don't fool any anti's or non-residents by huffing and puffing any yelling you pay your taxes. Tough shit, everybody pays their taxes. Now that's an asinine attitude to think that covers the cost of an elk, for example. Nothing personal, but maybe if I talk asinine to somebody who talks asinine to me, you'll get the idea.
Nemont
Well-known member
Tom,
Please explain what any of this has to do with AUM's and what the BLM fee is?
If that going rate for AUM's on private deeded ground are going for $14/AUM or higher per AUM but on neighboring BLM they are going for $1.35/AUM why would it be hunters responsibility to make up the difference?
What costs are associated with managing the Wildlife that isn't already paid for by hunter license fees, volunteer time and/or Pittman-Robertson excise taxes? There is no reason for additional fees to come from hunters.
Those Cattlemen who have a BLM grazing permit have been given a golden goose that allows them to graze the range and pay well below market value for that grazing. They have successfully gotten congress to go along with the system and codify their subsidy.
I really am having a difficult time understanding any of your rationale for this. Why would you even consider this to be an option?
Please explain what any of this has to do with AUM's and what the BLM fee is?
If that going rate for AUM's on private deeded ground are going for $14/AUM or higher per AUM but on neighboring BLM they are going for $1.35/AUM why would it be hunters responsibility to make up the difference?
What costs are associated with managing the Wildlife that isn't already paid for by hunter license fees, volunteer time and/or Pittman-Robertson excise taxes? There is no reason for additional fees to come from hunters.
Those Cattlemen who have a BLM grazing permit have been given a golden goose that allows them to graze the range and pay well below market value for that grazing. They have successfully gotten congress to go along with the system and codify their subsidy.
I really am having a difficult time understanding any of your rationale for this. Why would you even consider this to be an option?
Tom
New member
Its a simple idea, the BLM has a deficit, those who use the BLM should pay for the deficite. I don't believe there's any grazing fee paid for in a deer liscense. If I shoot a 4 year old deer it ate more than if I shoot a 2 year old deer. Why do you think a deer or elk hunter should get a deer or elk off of BLM land for $0 grazing, when a rancher pays $1.35/ month for his animals he gets off the BLM? That's a way to look at it too. Can you show may any reimbursement for BLM forage provided to hunter harvests? Do those guys like 1_pointer, MtMiller, Buzz, Oak, etc. ever take a wildlife economics class? Is there a topic in school of wildlife economics, that's where this stuff would be discussed in an intelligent way.
Here's a meeting list of studies on that from google.com, I'll read some of that and get back to you.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/symposia/economics/index.html
Here's a meeting list of studies on that from google.com, I'll read some of that and get back to you.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/symposia/economics/index.html
Tom- I'm not sure where to begin...
First off, a grazing permit is for a type of livestock (ie sheep, cattle, horses, goats), for a specific time (May 15-Sept 10), and for a specific number of those AUMs. Given the first two factors the actual number of animals for that time period can be calculated to meet their permitted AUMs.
One big hurdle you have in the way of your plan is that the federal government 'owns' the land and the state government 'owns' the wildlife. The state is never charged for the AUMs that wildlife consume; for one it would be a logistical nightmare and two management of wildlife is funded through other avenues. The BLM and USFS are not the managers of wildlife, that is the state agencies job, but they are tasked with the management of the habitat of the lands they 'own'.
I'll start with that info, which I'm sure will illicit some more questions...
First off, a grazing permit is for a type of livestock (ie sheep, cattle, horses, goats), for a specific time (May 15-Sept 10), and for a specific number of those AUMs. Given the first two factors the actual number of animals for that time period can be calculated to meet their permitted AUMs.
One big hurdle you have in the way of your plan is that the federal government 'owns' the land and the state government 'owns' the wildlife. The state is never charged for the AUMs that wildlife consume; for one it would be a logistical nightmare and two management of wildlife is funded through other avenues. The BLM and USFS are not the managers of wildlife, that is the state agencies job, but they are tasked with the management of the habitat of the lands they 'own'.
I'll start with that info, which I'm sure will illicit some more questions...
AZ402
Well-known member
*Grabs head, falls to ground in fetal position*
cjcj- Are those horses you saw, wild horses? That throws a huge monkey wrench into management IMO. Now I guess I'm gonna 'Ride for the Brand' a bit here but here goes; funny you should mention those nasty federal land management agencies and seem to be espousing state management of those lands. Yes, I'm making assumptions. But, just wanted to let you know that I've spent each of the last three weekends working on a fire rehab project on BLM lands. Do you know what type of rehab is going on the adjacent state and private lands? Nada. Why? They can't afford it. Just something to think about...
Tom
New member
Ok, I"m with you on that. The feds don't give the states the wildlife, they just give the states the job of managing the wildlife. They just give the states the forage for the wildlife off of the federal land, right? There's no reimbursement to the feds. for what they give the states off of the federal land, the wildlife take whatever they need, and the states manage the wildlife, including setting of fees. The states get "their wildlife" forage at no AUM costs, there isn't one for wildlife usage of BLM land or any other federal land. If so, why do they ignore that? Doesn't basic economics say to consider that somehow?
Is that out of the federal budget, or is there some consideration of interaction of wildlife and other animals sharing the same feed?
There's something that considers some of these things, I guess.
Like where does all the money for wildlife crop damage come from? Can't people get money for that, say an elk herd comes and eats a bunch of their stuff, who pays for what they ate? That's a specific example that occurs regularly I think, who pays those costs?
Here's a note about issues raised earlier in the thread. The BLM says they take into account several factors in setting the AUM fee. "The Federal grazing fee for Western public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service will be $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM) in 2007, down from $1.56 in 2006. The newly adjusted fee, determined by a congressional formula and effective on March 1, applies to nearly 18,000 grazing permits and leases administered by the BLM and more than 8,000 permits administered by the Forest Service.
The formula used for calculating the grazing fee, established by Congress in the 1978 Public Rangelands Improvement Act, has continued under a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986. Under that order, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per AUM, and any increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous year's level. An Animal Unit Month is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.
The annually adjusted grazing fee is computed by using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM for livestock grazing on public lands in Western states. The figure is then adjusted according to three factors - current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. Based on this formula, the 2007 fee declined primarily because of an increase in production prices."
its from here, that quote,
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2007/february/NR0702_3.html
guppie9
New member
Tom, do you get the difference between public and private??? When a rancher puts his personal property onto public lands, he has to reimburse the public for it. Why is that such a problem??? For you to say the states should reimburse the federal government for wild animals is just crazy!!! Seriously, you can't think that is a good idea.
Tom- It would be nearly impossible to be able to accurately determine with any degree of certainty how many of what specie of wild animal used a piece of ground for how long.
Crop damage is out of my arena and IIRC is handled by the state.
I would guess because there is little to no cost incurred by the feds in management of wildlife (excluding endangered species of course). But, that is just a guess and I have never considered, or heard of, it to be an issue. About the only monetary consideration given to wildlife that I know of is that some RMPs grant a specific number of AUMs to wildlife. Also, wildlife use is factored in when considering utilization limits of forage.
Crop damage is out of my arena and IIRC is handled by the state.
Tom
New member
That's what I'm thinking about, I don't know why more of them RMPs don't do that, do you? Why is it some and not others?
Some are managed better than others or they can estimate the AUM for wildlife or what?
I don't buy the idea that its next to impossible to figure out the usage do to wildlife, isn't that part of the equation for optimal population management that the states are in fact doing or supposed to be doing? It seems to me like a good thing to think about doing, AUM for wildlife. Its interesting that some RMPs do some of that. I take it they probably just attribute the usage to wildlife, so as to know that there is less to charge for on sheep, goats, and cattle, do you know if that is that right?
They don't charge anybody for the AUM they attribute to wildlife, do they?
cjcj
New member
Wild Horses? I doubt it... the only wild horse I have ever seen were in Northern Nevada... We have plenty Of Wild "ferral" burros though. Ipt If I see them again I will get a pic.,,,
Not sure of your above post as in Where are you coming from?... Are you supporting BLM or AZ G&F? in this thread?
Tom
New member
Yes, I get that Guppie9.
Well, it seems like a lot here think the rate is too low, its governed by law and some formula, but it comes out real low, compared to non-government managed fees for AUM. Otherwise, its a good idea, eh? You get that too, right?
That's the idea, sort of, crazy or not. Not reimburse for the wild animals, but reimburse for the costs to the feds. generated by the wild animals. The states benefit from the wildlife, so they pay the costs. That's the idea. The states and feds. interact, you get that, right? States need to pull their fair share of the federal assets they use, including recreational use and wildlife use. I don't really know much about how state and federal budgets interact, but they do. From what I"ve read, the federal government and the federal land management budgets are in real need of being balanced, so you have to think of ways to fix that. Billing for use fairly is certainly a reasonable thing to think about for balancing budgets. Its even more reasonable to think about when you think of the habitat being at risk and then the wildlife at risk from that. If we don't pay for what the wildlife need fairly, it seems to me, we'd be hurting the wildlife, not helping them.
