Elkgunner

[Nemont]

EG,
I Have been reading all the useful links Ithaca posts.
The link
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_intro.htm

Here is one exerpt:

Subsidies

Whether on public or private lands, the western livestock industry is subsidized in multiple ways. First, there is the abundance of federal and state funding that props up the industry, including below-market grazing fees, emergency feed programs, low-interest federal farm loans, and many other taxpayer-funded programs.

Here is another:
Although the impacts associated with livestock production vary from region to region, and even from ranch to ranch, there is overwhelming evidence that livestock production has impoverished the West's biological capital. This damage is not confined to the public lands. Most of the private lands in the West are devoted to livestock production in one way or another, and suffer equally from environmental degradation. Public values-such as clean water and healthy, abundant wildlife populations-are diminished by poor land use practices in the private sector


You think once you have run off the ranchers who graze public lands these guys aren't coming after you next?
Nemont

 

[Ten Bears]

Good find NEMONT

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

How would you feel if those sections were clipped from RMEF or Ducks Unlimted sites? Would that change your fears? Are you just worried about Environmentalists NEXT agenda? But if it was a Hunting organization, you would be less concerned?

Ten,
What are you, Nemont's lap dog?

 

[Nemont]

Elkgunner,
Actually, I belong to both those organizations and agree with their missions to preserve land, public or private, and provide habitat for wildlife.
You would be surprised that most likely both you and I agree on many issues regarding wildlife, land preservation etc, etc.
What what I want to point out to you is that to those who are not in the cattle business view you, ranching on private lands, exactly the same as ranchers who graze public lands. They wish you and your family would just return the lands to nature and let the buffalo run wild.
I find it interesting that you saddle up with people who will eventually want to force you out of business as well, rather than seek a balance which would be good for everybody. Since, in their view you are also subsidized and are ruining the enviroment.

I give you credit that you are passionate about this issue and your position doesn't change. Plus it is fun to go back and forth with you. I just disagree with you about public lands grazing.
Nemont

P.S. I don't know Ten Bears

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-10-2004 14:06: Message edited by: Nemont ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, "those who are not in the cattle business view you, ranching on private lands, exactly the same as ranchers who graze public lands....."

I suspect there are many people who know the difference, especially anyone involved in raising beef on private land. And that's over 90% of the beef that's raised every year in the US.

 

[Nemont]

Ithaca,
Two questions: do you think that if you guys are successful ending public lands grazing, that will be the end of it?

Where do you get the statistics that 90% of beef is raised on private land? I have looked at your links and can't find the methodology that arrives at that number.

And no I do not think the average urban resident sees any difference.
Nemont

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-10-2004 21:25: Message edited by: Nemont ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

From the Website you posted in the intital post, the 10% number is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too big. It is actually 3%...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Economic Facts of Public Lands Grazing
Public lands grazers are a minority of livestock producers in the West and throughout the country…--Note:1

Number of livestock producers with federal grazing permits: 27,000. --Note:2
Percentage of livestock producers with federal grazing permits in the United States: 3%. --Note:3
Percentage of livestock producers with federal grazing permits in eleven Western states: 22%. --Note:4
Number of livestock producers without federal grazing permits: 880,000. --Note:5
Subsidized by taxpayers, public lands grazers pay far less than market value for federal forage and grazing fees on comparable state and private lands…
Fee to graze one cow and calf for one month (AUM) on federal public lands (2003): $1.35. --Note:6
Average fee per AUM on state lands in the West (excluding Texas) (1998): $12.30. --Note:7
Average fee per AUM on private lands in eleven Western states (1999): $11.10. --Note:8
The forage provided, and the beef produced from federal public lands is insignificant…

Percentage of total feed for livestock (cattle and sheep) in the United States supplied from federal lands: 2%. --Note:9
Percentage of American beef produced from federal rangelands: less than 3%. --Note:10

In Nevada (the state with more federal land than any other outside of Alaska), federal public lands grazing provides 1,228 jobs. --Note:12 By comparison, one casino in Las Vegas employs 37,000 people. --Note:13
Alternative uses of federal public lands contribute much more income to local and regional economies than livestock grazing. In the Central Winter Ecosystem Management Area in the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona, dispersed recreation is worth $200,000 annually to the local and regional economies; fuelwood is worth $48,984; livestock grazing is worth $45,988; and deer and turkey hunting is worth $1,324,259. --Note:14

Reference Notes:
1. The vast majority of "livestock producers" on public lands are beef growers.
2. Grazing permits for BLM and Forest Service allotments; includes sheep growers; accounts for permittees who operate on both BLM and Forest Service allotments. USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform '94 Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 3; see also Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 2S (reporting 26,300 permittees on BLM and Forest Service allotments).
3. USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform '94 Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26.
4. USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform '94 Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26.
5. See USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform '94 Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26.
6. USDI-BLM. 2003. Press release: 2003 Federal Grazing Fee Announced. BLM. Washington, DC. (Feb. 6, 2003).
7. USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1998. Agricultural graphics-17 state grazing fees adjusted AUM. USDA-NASS. Washington, DC. Available at http://www.usda.gov/nass/aggraphics/graphics.htm.
8. Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 2S.
9. USDI-BLM. 1992. Grazing fee review and evaluation: update of the 1986 final report. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 2.
10. Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 1S; Jacobs, L. 1992. THE WASTE OF THE WEST: PUBLIC LANDS RANCHING. Lynn Jacobs, P.O. Box 5784, Tucson, AZ: 354.
11. T. Power. 1996. LOST LANDSCAPES AND FAILED ECONOMIES: THE SEARCH FOR A VALUE OF PLACE. Island Press. Washington, DC: 184-185 (table 8-2).
12. T. Power. 1996. LOST LANDSCAPES AND FAILED ECONOMIES: THE SEARCH FOR A VALUE OF PLACE. Island Press. Washington, DC: 184 (table 8-2).
13. Greenhouse, S. 2001. Behind Las Vegas's glitter, heavy losses and layoffs. New York Times (Oct. 19, 2001).
14. Souder, J. 1997. How does livestock grazing fit into the larger societal uses of wildlands?, in PROC. SYMP. ON ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, AND LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO RANGELAND WATER DEVELOPMENTS. Arizona St. Univ. Tempe, AZ: 305.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nemont, I agree with you, we need to do a better job of educating the Urban beef consumer about the benefits of eating Private Land beef.

 

[dgibson]

I can tell you that before I started reading Ithaca's diatribes against public-land grazing I had little idea that it went on. I have been west and have seen signs of cattle operations on public lands, but it never really sank in that it was a big deal (I think I rather assumed that it was an exception rather than a rule). I don't think the average Joe east of the Mississippi has any idea that there is such a distinction, and certainly not that it is a point of contention. Even terms like "BLM" and the distinctions between national forests, national parks, and national monuments are lost on many.

 

[Nemont]

Ithaca,
My point exactly,

, most urban residents have not only not information but not a clue when it comes to public or private lands grazing. You have far greater faith in Joe Sixpack than I do.
You want to run anyone who run cattle on public out of business regardless whether they to it right or not. Where I live most public land is land locked behind private land. The land owners will simply shutdown access to their lands and have the public lands to themselves. We could do it on our place. We haven't but we could.
Without any compromise, at all, on the enviromentalist part you will lose access to alot of land.

PLEASE DON'T THINK I FEEL THAT ENVIROMENTALIST AND CONSERVATIONISTS ARE THE SAME THING.
Nemont

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-10-2004 21:34: Message edited by: Nemont ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, "You want to run anyone who run cattle on public out of business regardless whether they to it right or not."

Can you quote me saying that in any post in the last three years?

"Without any compromise, at all, on the enviromentalist part you will lose access to alot of land."

That sounds like the usual threat from cattlemen.

Now that EG has educated you a little on where the beef comes from in this country, maybe you'll start to understand how little public land beef is actually consumed in the US. I hope you noticed how conservative I was when I said less than 10%. Actually, the percentage of welfare ranch beef raised every year in the US is less than the annual fluctuation in demand. I'm surprised you don't know that!

dg, Maybe I should start posting info about welfare ranching on a few other boards!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-10-2004 21:50: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Nemont]

So, Ithaca you are a friend of cattleman? I doubt it. No I suspect that you are a person who once they get what they are fighting for, end public land grazing, you will then decide that the private ranchers are raping and pillaging the planet.

Here are quoted from some, not all, of your previous posts. Nemont

from your post on on 12-24-01:

Elkchsr, Here's the way it works around here. The FS or BLM range conservation agents make recommendations. Then the Cattlemen's Association disagrees and puts political pressure on the politicians to get the conservation agents transferred somewhere else. It's happened many times. Personnel throughout the Forest Service and BLM know that if they try to do the right thing their job won't last long. In their defense; many of them try to do as much as they think they can get away with, but they know it's a losing battle to try to do what really needs to be done to rehabilitate the range. They know that they don't dare get tough with the ranchers who constantly push the limits to see what they can get away with or they'll lose their job.

from your post on 12-22-01:
But the thing you seem to be missing is that none of the beef raised on public land is even needed! It's such a small amount of total beef production no one would miss it and it costs taxpayers money to support it and it is very destructive to wildlife habitat. Who benefits from it!

From your post on 1-03-02:

The problem with the multiple use concept is that when some ranchers get done using the land it's no good for anything else--covered with cow pies, no grass for game bird cover, streams ruined for fishing, etc. I'm in favor of no more exploitation of government land for private gain.

From your post on 1-15-02:
So far I haven't brought up the 30 day "grace" period for getting cattle off the range and how that gets abused constantly and deliberatly year after year.

From your post on 1-14-02:
sd and Elkchaser, The issue is overgrazing destroying land. Buzz and I give our solutions to the problem, just as we do on the forest issues. All you guys advocate is "business as usual".

Unfortunately for you, times are changing. The decisions about grazing and roadless areas have already been made. Screaming about it now won't do any good. Buzz and I were involved in the process, you guys missed the boat.

From your post on 1-17-02:
sd, I gotta hand it to you--you're putting up a valiant fight, but the facts are all against you. Times are changing, the abuse has continued for too long, the public is much more aware now than ten years ago. Tell your welfare rancher buddies to smarten up or lose everything!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-10-2004 23:20: Message edited by: Nemont ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, Thanks for the quotes. They sound quite reasonable to me.

And nowhere does it say I want to get rid of public land grazers.

Here's what I want: I want all public land in excellent condition. If ranchers can figure out how to graze their cattle on public land and make sure the land is in excellent condition that will be fine with me. I'm sure you know how much BLM and FS land is in poor condition due to grazing. Maybe you can explain to us why that should be allowed to continue.

And please don't give us the emotional "it's our lifestyle" BS.

 

[Whiskers]

Ithaca, your last post doesn't sound like an unreasonable request. Living east of the Missippi, I don't follow the stuff that goes on out there. But it sounds reasonable. Why the arguments?

 

[Ithaca 37]

I think the arguments are because some people think ranchers should be able to destroy public land for their own private gain. You'll have to ask them why, I can't imagine any sensible answer.

 

[Nemont]

Well, for one reason, who sets the criteria for what excellent condition means? Ithaca wants no cow crap on public lands when he is hunting. Don't think any rancher has figured out how to graze cattle without leaving cow crap. Another is what impact does drought play in your definition of excellent condition.

Let me get this straight, you only want the land in excellent condition. If that were accomplished without raising the cost of an AUM would you then drop the Welfare Rancher label? Doubt it. Therefore you want more. And when you get what you want it is onto the next thing.

Ithaca can I ask you a question: What do you do for a living? Would you want me to write the rules you had to live by day in and day at your place of work. Why do you think ranchers are suspicious of ,end public grazing activists, who think they know the only way to manage land.

My family has been in the ranching business for over 100 years. Our BLM leases have never been in poor condition and we are stewards of the land.
Nemont

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-11-2004 19:31: Message edited by: Nemont ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, You spend a lot of time telling me what I'm going to do! You're full of shit. You have no idea what I'm going to do.

I'm a small business owner and there are plenty of rules, regulations and laws I have to deal with.

BLM sets the criteria for classifying land. I'm surprised you don't know that!

Just in case you're not aware------about 60% of all BLM is in poor condition due to overgrazing. At least 85% of all BLM riparian zones are in poor condition due to overgrazing.

I was hoping you'd answer Whisker's question. What difference does it make how long your family has been ranching?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-11-2004 21:25: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Nemont]

Ithaca,
First of all when I say you I am lumping "you" together with all who oppose grazing of public lands period. So if you are not opposed to it then I guess I misunderstand most of your posts regarding what you call welfare ranching. So I won't do that anymore. I wasn't trying to tell you what you personelly were going to do.

Which question did whiskers ask? Why every cattleman doesn't agree with your position regarding public lands? I don't agree because there, appears to be, no room for compromise in your stance. How do we arrive at excellent condition if a drought persists?

Just because you want the land in excellent condition does not mean that anti grazing activists and enviromentalists are going to be satisfied with that. I am willing to bet that there will be more to it than that. Maybe I am wrong but it doesn't appear to me that most anti grazing people will be happy until the last cow has left the public land never to return.

Just as you want me to answer Whiskers question please answer mine. Would you remove the welfare label if your goals were accomplished without an increase in the cost of an AUM?

Maybe you are reasonable to deal with in your grazing stance it just doesn't come through in your posts.

Also I don't think that land should be abused or overgrazed. If the BLM and FS have allowed that to go on it is also part of that agencies fault. There are numerous rules regarding grazing on BLM land. We are told when we can be on the land and when to be off the land.

So tell me where I said cattleman should be allowed to harm the land. My gripe is that many people who are so vocal about the land being raped and pillage wouldn't know if a cow has grazed that land or not because they don't know the difference. You may be able to tell the difference I don't know.

Ithaca, I enjoyed listening to your position and going back and forth with you. I did think you something intelligent to add to the discussion. Why then do you have to tell me I am full of shit? I can discuss this issue with Elkgunner for hours and never have the same thing said. I sorry you feel that way.

Nemont


.

 

[1_pointer]

Just some FYI:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I want all public land in excellent condition <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Excellent land health will cause a decrease in some species populations, some of those that are endangered. A ranch operator for TNC (whose purpose is to maintain/increase biodiversity) states that he wants 50% of his ranch in good/excellent condition, 25% in fair, and 25% in poor condition. This allows for that area to support the maximum number of species. Also, the classification used by the feds to determine land health is outdated and not very effective.

A paper I just read from Fisheries (1991) stated that 58% of BLM land was in fair to poor condition.

 

[dgibson]

Tyler, can you expand on that? I'm curious how "poor" health can be beneficial. Unless it refers to the same type of thing as managed clearcutting, where it's poor right after the cut but then becomes lush and healthy with new growth. Anyway, please explain.

 

[1_pointer]

Some of it is just that, poor at one point in time means better later. However, most of what I was talking about is difference in habitat requirements for different species. Lets use birds and shrub amount/density. Some prefer dense shrub cover and some prefer wide open shrub canopies. Thus, even on the same plot of ground with the same shrub species, 'excellent' condition for one is not for both. Look at chukars. They thrive in areas with lots of cheatgrass, but cheatgrass is an indicator of 'poor' condition as it is a non-native annual, where there should be a native, perennial grasses. However, if there were lots of the native grasses they would not do nearly as well. FYI, chukars and cheatgrass both come from the same general geographic region.