Grazing cattle on public land

[shoots-straight]

DId you stop hunting last year? Elk, deer heards are down. Just cause they offer a tag doesn't mean you need to hunt. Talk about a $*)Q!#@$ hypocrite!

Son, your not to smart, so I'm going to say this kinda slowly for you.

Our elk herds are at or over objective levels. Do you know what that means? Those levels where forced on us by your buds in the livestock industry. If I never killed another elk in much of Montana, if wouldn't do squat. We are going to see less elk because of you and your kind.

If you or your daddy, are part of MSGA, or UPOM, and your claiming to be a sportsman, then your HYPOCRITAL.

Have I lost you yet bud?

Now, would it do me any good to stop hunting, if we can't raise one more elk? Come on, I'm sure you can come up with the right answer if you try hard enough.

I'm pointing out why our elk herds are on the decline, I have no control over that, then you call me hypocritical for hunting. Makes about as much sense as blaming wildlife for the woes of Ranching. Wait a minute, I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Why would I quit hunting if the elk numbers are at max? Is that hard to understand?

I didn't hunt in a unit that was below that ridiculous objective, THAT would have been hypocritical.

To claim your a sportsman, but yet perpetuate the same of chit from the ranching community that we've heard for years, is old, and HYPOCRITICAL.

Can you show me on any post where I said that there should be no hunting? If I made that claim, and hunted, that would be hyporcritical. Are you with me still bud?

Other than helping out a RANCHER, I haven't shot a buck deer sense 2002. Just a few does. I've shot more lions, and coyotes.

This link might help you out, look it over. Let me know what you think.

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=250136

 

[Nemont]

So the solutions is to end CRP, perhaps one of the most successful programs in terms of providing habitat for wildlife? Seems like hunters fight to keep as many acres in CRP as possible and to keep funding.

CRP is not a subsidy like all the other programs as it is rental agreement between the landowner and the government to keep highly erodible land out of production rather than being farmed. That has been a win-win situtation not only for landowners but also taxpayers.

I am not sure that the urban taxpayer would be willing to sink or swim in a global market for commodities that are not tied to subsidize argiculture. I would say throw out the government support and let the chips fall where they will but I suspect the alligator tears from consumers when China's and India's rising wealth and populations outbids Americans for the food and fiber produced here. Then there will be hell to pay if the our government abandons the cheap food policy that has been in place since FDR's new deal.

I am all for ending the support but please find me an ag state politician from either party that will lead the charge on this.

Nemont

 

[6speed]

Buzz for some reason I thought this post was about grazing cattle on public land. If you want to talk about subsidies paid to dairy farmers who hire undocumented labor, build giant houses and drive $200,000 + sports cars while getting government handouts then you most definitely have something I will agree with you about.

 

[bjtc_brian]

Son, your not to smart, so I'm going to say this kinda slowly for you.

Our elk herds are at or over objective levels. Do you know what that means? Those levels where forced on us by your buds in the livestock industry. If I never killed another elk in much of Montana, if wouldn't do squat. We are going to see less elk because of you and your kind.

If you or your daddy, are part of MSGA, or UPOM, and your claiming to be a sportsman, then your HYPOCRITAL.

Have I lost you yet bud?

Now, would it do me any good to stop hunting, if we can't raise one more elk? Come on, I'm sure you can come up with the right answer if you try hard enough.

I'm pointing out why our elk herds are on the decline, I have no control over that, then you call me hypocritical for hunting. Makes about as much sense as blaming wildlife for the woes of Ranching. Wait a minute, I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Why would I quit hunting if the elk numbers are at max? Is that hard to understand?

I didn't hunt in a unit that was below that ridiculous objective, THAT would have been hypocritical.

To claim your a sportsman, but yet perpetuate the same of chit from the ranching community that we've heard for years, is old, and HYPOCRITICAL.

Can you show me on any post where I said that there should be no hunting? If I made that claim, and hunted, that would be hyporcritical. Are you with me still bud?

Other than helping out a RANCHER, I haven't shot a buck deer sense 2002. Just a few does. I've shot more lions, and coyotes.

This link might help you out, look it over. Let me know what you think.

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=250136

You need to get your shit straight! One sentence...objectives are bullshit...next sentence I'm hunting because the unit I hunt in isn't at the objective. So which is it? Objectives are bullshit or are they okay? You do have control over it! Since the sportsman community doesn't agree with the objectives, stop hunting them when you think the numbers are too low! Think of all the animals that would be around to breed and have more calves if that happened! And yes, you have complained about the numbers across the state being too low. So if you hunt next year, you are only contributing to the issue, and hence you are a hypocrite!

 

[1_pointer]

I would challenge any of you to come out and walk the ground and be able to tell me what is deeded and what is public as it all looks pretty much the same.

I'll take that challenge if I can come during deer season with a tag in my pocket!!

 

[shoots-straight]

DId you stop hunting last year? Elk, deer heards are down. Just cause they offer a tag doesn't mean you need to hunt. Talk about a $*)Q!#@$ hypocrite!

I believe most on her support Block Management. SUBSIDY! Hypocrites!

You changed your post on me.

Yes we (sportsman) support block management. It was brought about by sportsman trying to compete with leasing.

Now I'm going to slow down so you can follow me.

This is paid for,( still there?) by sportsman's Dollars. NR fees pay the bulk of that money. It doesn't come from the US General fund. (TAXES). Understand bud?

WE (MONTANA Sportsman) share our wildlife with NR hunters. We do so, but make them pay a high price. That's partially so we can get more land for all to hunt on.

Now here's another point, you seem to forget. We sportsman, don't make any money from Block management areas. You Ranchers do. It's a subsidy paid to you, that benefits us.

 

[Nemont]

Shoots-Straight,

I don't think you understand the difference between a subsidy and payments for a contract. I believe every one of the BMA's cooperators has a contract with the FWP that allows access. Therefore it is not a subsidy as the landowner is agreeing to provide something of value ie access in return for consideration ie money. To say this is a subsidy completely confuses the issue.

Simple solution for you would be to avoid block management properties and not participate in giving condsideration to landowners.

Nemont

 

[shoots-straight]

You need to get your shit straight! One sentence...objectives are bullshit...next sentence I'm hunting because the unit I hunt in isn't at the objective. So which is it? Objectives are bullshit or are they okay? You do have control over it! Since the sportsman community doesn't agree with the objectives, stop hunting them when you think the numbers are too low! Think of all the animals that would be around to breed and have more calves if that happened! And yes, you have complained about the numbers across the state being too low. So if you hunt next year, you are only contributing to the issue, and hence you are a hypocrite!

Son, you shouldn't type mad. Your not reading too good now either.

Quote me where I said I hunted a unit that was below objective levels. Come on. Re read the post son. Slower. I keep saying you need to slow down to understand what's written. Your not doing it.

Son, if we quit hunting the elk, the dept of livestock, or the MtFW&P's would bring in hunters from some where to kill the elk. The objectives have been set and those levels will be reached by law. You do understand what that means don't you bud?

One of the goals, IMO, of the MSGA, and UPOM, was to show that the MTFW&P's couldn't get the elk down to those levels. Then they run a ranching for wildlife bill.

Now son that's a lot of information to grasp. Do you know what "Ranching For Wildlife" is?

So what good would it do me to not hunt elk? Be carefull here.

 

[bjtc_brian]

This is paid for,( still there?) by sportsman's Dollars. NR fees pay the bulk of that money. It doesn't come from the US General fund. (TAXES). Understand bud?

I know all this information is hard for you to understand.

So

I

Will

Slow

It

Down

For

You.

The dictionary [Concise Oxford] defines it as "money granted by state, public body, etc., to keep down the prices of commodities, etc.”.

Let me exlpain that to you since for you it will be confusing.

The government pays the BM money so you don't have to pay the high price to get on his land!

Their is no distinction for a subsidy to have to come out of a general fund.

So, to follow your own words! You must not know what a subsidy is!

And on that note, you can reply back to all of my posts as much as you want. I am done with this idiotic argument.

 

[shoots-straight]

Shoots-Straight,

I don't think you understand the difference between a subsidy and payments for a contract. I believe every one of the BMA's has contract with the FWP that allows access. Therefore it is not a subsidy as the landowner is agreeing to provide something of value ie access in return for consideration ie money. To say this is a subsidy completely confuses the issue.

Simple solution for you would be to avoid block management properties and not participate in giving condsideration to landowners.

Nemont

I can buy that.
I haven't but might some day.

 

[bjtc_brian]

Son, you shouldn't type mad. Your not reading too good now either.

Quote me where I said I hunted a unit that was below objective levels. Come on. Re read the post son. Slower. I keep saying you need to slow down to understand what's written. Your not doing it.

Son, if we quit hunting the elk, the dept of livestock, or the MtFW&P's would bring in hunters from some where to kill the elk. The objectives have been set and those levels will be reached by law. You do understand what that means don't you bud?

One of the goals, IMO, of the MSGA, and UPOM, was to show that the MTFW&P's couldn't get the elk down to those levels. Then they run a ranching for wildlife bill.

Now son that's a lot of information to grasp. Do you know what "Ranching For Wildlife" is?

So what good would it do me to not hunt elk? Be carefull here.

In know your old and some words wern't around when you were taking English. At does not mean over! But I will change my sentence for the elderly.

One sentence...objectives are bullshit...next sentence I'm hunting because the unit I hunt in isn't under the objective.

 

[shoots-straight]

In know your old and some words wern't around when you were taking English. At does not mean over! But I will change my sentence for the elderly.

One sentence...objectives are bullshit...next sentence I'm hunting because the unit I hunt in isn't under the objective.

If the district is" A"T objective, then there's no room for more elk. So the type of season structure is dictated to keep those elk "AT" or "Below".. "AT" might as well mean over, with respect to how that elk herd will be managed.

I know words like wern't weren't around then.

 

[bjtc_brian]

If the district is" A"T objective, then there's no room for more elk. So the type of season structure is dictated to keep those elk "AT" or "Below".. "AT" might as well mean over, with respect to how that elk herd will be managed.

I know words like wern't weren't around then.

You got me! fingers are slow this morning.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Yes they do, and we use them very effectively to do this.




Not sure how many places of business will accept a "thought of being intitled(entitled)" as payment.



We already let people hunt on our property free of charge!

let it be known that it is bjs idea that all private ranch land be open to all hunters. I as I'm sure all of the sportsmanship on here really appreciate you offering to let us hunt on you're ranch please post your address I will get my application in and with a little luck see you this fall.


Do you see what I did there? No. Ok ill explain it I took what you said out of context and went in a different direction with it but unlike you I didn't act ignorant about doing it.

For the record I'm pro subsidy / public grazing but we need to change a lot of things in those systems.
If you have a trust fund then you get no welfare. If your business is growing no welfare! If you employ illegals to save a Buck NO WELFARE! If you hurt public ground. Yep you got it no welfare.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Here is the problem for people who want to end grazing on public lands. Whether you want to admit or not there has been money borrowed, capital risked, estate taxes paid etc, etc based upon the historic use of grazing permits. Banks have put a value upon those permits, our government has put a value on them through estate taxes and that fact makes ranchers feel like they have some skin in the game especially on those places that have been in the same family of over 100 years, like my inlaws.

I would challenge any of you to come out and walk the ground and be able to tell me what is deeded and what is public as it all looks pretty much the same. Jose has been over most of the place himself and I am pretty sure he couldn't tell without looking at a map.

Of course $1.35 is stupidly low to the point of being a bad political problem for public land grazers. Permitees are often their own worst enemy, the only worst enemy they have is the people who think everything east of Great Falls is all public and they will hunt where ever they want. Been in way more of those discussions than I have been in discussions about how grazing was hurting wildlife. Not every hunter but alot of them cannot read a map, don't want to walk even 100 feet and drive where they please. I can post pictures of public lands that have been grazed for 100 years that are permanently damaged by hunters on ATV's.

Just saying the issue is far more complicated than the anti grazing crowd would have you believe.

Nemont

I think you and I are the only sane people in a world of madness....

 

[Big Shooter]

NeMont...! Right out of the park! Awesome posts! Honestly, well written and factual! You are maturing so nicely.......too bad the rest of us can't (BuzzH, Shoots-Straight and of course myself)

 

[Elkmagnet]

For those of you reading this I am replying to bjs private messages

1st I am not necessarily referring to you taking my words out of context its just an observation from reading this thread.

2nd Your opinion seems biased on the subject and the information your present doesn't seem factual.

3rd if I had a app on my phone where you come on and correct my spelling and punctuation for me that would be great if you can do it better than google.

Don't pass a bill to end subsidies/ welfare ranching you have to slowly wean off of them like a heroin addict. Otherwise there will be negative consequences

 

[bjtc_brian]

I apologize and won't correct your spelling any more.

 

[sweetnectar]

True or False Quiz:

If your competitor buys his supplies for a $1.35 and you refuse to pay such little and buy your supplies for $18 you are an idiot and will soon be out of business.

If you are a republican rancher that wines about welfare and your (Tester/democrat) competitor fills out an application and gets $2,000 and you refuse to fill out an application and get your $2,000 then you are an idiot and will soon be signing over your ranch to your competitor.

Cattle can damage a riparian zone.

Elk can damage a riparian zone.

Private lands provide clean air, water, and habitat.

Public lands provide clean air, water, and habitat.

Do you eat beef?

 

[Nemont]

True or False Quiz:

If your competitor buys his supplies for a $1.35 and you refuse to pay such little and buy your supplies for $18 you are an idiot and will soon be out of business.

If you are a republican rancher that wines about welfare and your (Tester/democrat) competitor fills out an application and gets $2,000 and you refuse to fill out an application and get your $2,000 then you are an idiot and will soon be signing over your ranch to your competitor.

Cattle can damage a riparian zone.

Elk can damage a riparian zone.

Private lands provide clean air, water, and habitat.

Public lands provide clean air, water, and habitat.

I think the answe is: False