Grazing fees, the economics of elk and cattle

[BuzzH]

What do i need to study? Did i ever say expressly that grazing is inherently bad? It is taken advatange of, underfunded, and solutions are required.

You lose people with your narcissism, out of some weird distaste for an entire generation of hunters. Bad actors in hunting are a tale as as old as hunting. They were apart of your generation too and still are.

Post some "grip/grins" and tell me how awesome you are next.

Where's your solutions? Just whining about grazing fees is a do-nothing endeavor. Just raising grazing fees doesn't do anything to improve grazing practices.

I've worked on this stuff for over 35 years, successfully, including writing management plans, assessing stream, wetland, riparian, forest, range, etc. etc. health. When you come up with your plan, let me know.

The one best thing you can do, that you likley won't, is to ask Congress to fully fund land management agencies, R&D, etc.

Let the experts figure it out...your whining will do zip.

 

[406dn]

At the very least grazing allotments should be put out for competitive bidding. That would at least somewhat approach getting the market value for the grass that public land grows. Also, among the bidders, individuals or groups that want to lease the grazing rights to leave it for wildlife should be allowed to bid for the grazing rights.

Likely putting it up for bid annually is too volatile for a rancher to plan around, but every ten years seems fair to me.

 

[antlerradar]

At the very least grazing allotments should be put out for competitive bidding. That would at least somewhat approach getting the market value for the grass that public land grows. Also, among the bidders, individuals or groups that want to lease the grazing rights to leave it for wildlife should be allowed to bid for the grazing rights.

Likely putting it up for bid annually is too volatile for a rancher to plan around, but every ten years seems fair to me.

Ranchers work in terms of generations, even at 10 years too many ranchers will beat that permit like a rented mule in anticipation that they will not have the lease in the future.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Ranchers work in terms of generations, even at 10 years too many ranchers will beat that permit like a rented mule in anticipation that they will not have the lease in the future.

Thats a very good point. The lease length has a lot to do with the vested interest in preserving it.

GPS collars give me a lot of hope in the future.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Ranchers work in terms of generations, even at 10 years too many ranchers will beat that permit like a rented mule in anticipation that they will not have the lease in the future.

@Oak/ @Ben Lamb do you think some ORGs would be interested in doing reverse aum fees/providing grants for water/gps collars?

Frankly, it seems like a decent way to improve habitat on public land a lot.

 

[hank4elk]

Very few leases around me get any rest. Ever.
Shortgrass prairie and pj's. Low yield, top quality feed gets hammered.
It's a way of life they say...

No livestock on my little place for years has changed it for the better. By far.

 

[mtmiller]

Surface ownership adds complications. This is one of the allotments I am working on today for a potential project.

 

[rjthehunter]

Oh, so this is where buzz came to complain today.

 

[antlerradar]

Is there substantial difference in amenties, regulations, etc.?

Thats quite a disparity - and based on the comments about economics im suprised it is rented.

State land is in general much better quality than Federal land. This has to do with the way state became state land and BLM and Forest Service stayed in federal hands. With the homestead act people were allowed to claim federal land for themselves. They then had to prove up on the land. As long as the homesteaders made some minimal improvements and stayed on the land for a short amount of time the government deeded the land over to the homesteader. Of course the first homesteaders to arrive laid claim to the best available land they could. All of the homesteaders that fallowed operated under the same principle, claim the best available land. When the homestead act was ended the land that was still unclaimed became BLM. In theory the best parcel of BLM is worth less than the poorest parcel of private land. If the BLM was better the last homesteader would have claimed the parcel of BLM instead of the private that was claimed. Forest Service is better because the Government likely removed the forest service land from the homestead act before the act was discontinued, but it is still likely that the homesteaders had their pick of the best land befor the forest service land was removed from the homestead act. State land is different. The State was given two sections from every township, sections 16 and 36. Those sections could be the best land in the township or the worst. Totaly randume in terms of the quality and the quality for all state is going to fall near the middle and not near the bottom like fedral land.

There is also far less regulations and red tape with a state lease than a fedral lease.

 

[BuzzH]

At the very least grazing allotments should be put out for competitive bidding. That would at least somewhat approach getting the market value for the grass that public land grows. Also, among the bidders, individuals or groups that want to lease the grazing rights to leave it for wildlife should be allowed to bid for the grazing rights.

Likely putting it up for bid annually is too volatile for a rancher to plan around, but every ten years seems fair to me.

Not a bad thought, but not grazing for extended periods isn't any more correct than over-grazing.

IMO/E, relying on the wildlife currently on the landscape to "graze" and "browse" isn't going to always work, I would argue, will never work.

On one of Turners ranches that I worked on, wrote a management grazing plan for, inventoried, etc, they had not grazed the riparian areas for about a decade. Plant species diversity suffered, plants, in particular grasses became decedent, wildlife actually started using it less as it became a tangled mess.

We recommended high intensity, short duration grazing during the winter. These systems evolved with grazing, just stopping grazing doesn't work. The idea was to graze back some of the grasses to allow decreasers and forbs the ability to increase in quality and number. Winter made sense because frozen river/stream/riparian areas don't suffer pugging, bank destabilization, etc. from livestock use. Riparian grazing on a continual basis causes all sorts of problems, water quality, bank stability, plant damage, damage to springs/water sources, and on and on. Winter grazing only solves about 90% of that.

Sure, in severely over-grazed areas, stopping grazing can result in pretty remarkable recovery, or what appears to be recovery. Even then, just because there's something green on the land, doesn't mean it's a healthy, functioning system.

IMO, the worst way to manage is exclusionary practices. It's an education problem as much as anything. I mean educating the public and those that are utilizing the range.

 

[Forkyfinder]

State land is in general much better quality than Federal land. This has to do with the way state became state land and BLM and Forest Service stayed in federal hands. With the homestead act people were allowed to claim federal land for themselves. They then had to prove up on the land. As long as the homesteaders made some minimal improvements and stayed on the land for a short amount of time the government deeded the land over to the homesteader. Of course the first homesteaders to arrive laid claim to the best available land they could. All of the homesteaders that fallowed operated under the same principle, claim the best available land. When the homestead act was ended the land that was still unclaimed became BLM. In theory the best parcel of BLM is worth less than the poorest parcel of private land. If the BLM was better the last homesteader would have claimed the parcel of BLM instead of the private that was claimed. Forest Service is better because the Government likely removed the forest service land from the homestead act before the act was discontinued, but it is still likely that the homesteaders had their pick of the best land befor the forest service land was removed from the homestead act. State land is different. The State was given two sections from every township, sections 16 and 36. Those sections could be the best land in the township or the worst. Totaly randume in terms of the quality and the quality for all state is going to fall near the middle and not near the bottom like fedral land.

There is also far less regulations and red tape with a state lease than a fedral lease.

One thing i struggle with - I know folks very well whos entire business is running cattle on their land for the grazing fees. If public land grazing was less desirable economically - it would help their businsss a lot.

Whether it is a detriment or a benefit to the economics of an operation is dependent a lot on whether a person has access or not (adjacent property to blm).

Very few leases around me get any rest. Ever.
Shortgrass prairie and pj's. Low yield, top quality feed gets hammered.
It's a way of life they say...

No livestock on my little place for years has changed it for the better. By far.

Do you mow your property? The tiny bit of pasture at my place was overgrazed badly via horses by the previous owner. Initially - not much came in but weeds but after i got a mower - a few years of mowing did a lot of good grass has come back very good.

 

[BuzzH]

Surface ownership adds complications. This is one of the allotments I am working on today for a potential project.
View attachment 316572

Some savvy that, most don't.

 

[Ben Lamb]

@Oak/ @Ben Lamb do you think some ORGs would be interested in doing reverse aum fees/providing grants for water/gps collars?

Frankly, it seems like a decent way to improve habitat on public land a lot.

PERC has an interesting model for increasing elk tolerance on private land: https://www.perc.org/2023/11/16/perc-launches-elk-rent-payment-for-presence-conservation-program/

The conservation leasing program that the BLM is trying to stand up is another way to go about this - essentially it allows people to secure the lease on a piece of public for conservation purposes.

As far as groups being able to purchase the collars, etc - theoretically any of the public land advocacy groups could do this on a larger scale than what PERC is working on, but there's a big issue relative to competing philosophies and views of the NAM relative to paying for wildlife tolerance and the recognition that wildlife exists as a condition of the land, and therefore paying for tolerance is not something that is well-received.

MT you can do this on private land through the conservation leasing portion of Habitat MT (new program) but that has a mandatory access requirement.

I know that some groups have done good work in helping fund programs that work with landowners to deal with other issues like grizzlies (GYC, NRDC, etc), etc. I don't see why a similar effort to help landowners manage livestock better on their public leases would be a bad thing at all.

Oak will likely have more on this than me though.

 

[Forkyfinder]

PERC has an interesting model for increasing elk tolerance on private land: https://www.perc.org/2023/11/16/perc-launches-elk-rent-payment-for-presence-conservation-program/

The conservation leasing program that the BLM is trying to stand up is another way to go about this - essentially it allows people to secure the lease on a piece of public for conservation purposes.

As far as groups being able to purchase the collars, etc - theoretically any of the public land advocacy groups could do this on a larger scale than what PERC is working on, but there's a big issue relative to competing philosophies and views of the NAM relative to paying for wildlife tolerance and the recognition that wildlife exists as a condition of the land, and therefore paying for tolerance is not something that is well-received.

MT you can do this on private land through the conservation leasing portion of Habitat MT (new program) but that has a mandatory access requirement.

I know that some groups have done good work in helping fund programs that work with landowners to deal with other issues like grizzlies (GYC, NRDC, etc), etc. I don't see why a similar effort to help landowners manage livestock better on their public leases would be a bad thing at all.

Oak will likely have more on this than me though.

Thanks for the feedback and direction!

 

[406dn]

Ranchers work in terms of generations, even at 10 years too many ranchers will beat that permit like a rented mule in anticipation that they will not have the lease in the future.

It seems easy enough to have one condition of a successful bid include the number of livestock and the length of the grazing period. If the terms are violated they surrender their lease.

Sadly, every hunter has seen public land grazed into the dirt, even when the lease holder could count on having the lease far into the future.

 

[The Hedgehog]

On average, a cow eats about 25-30 pounds of grass per day. Keep in mind that the amount can vary based on factors like the cow's size, age, and activity level.

 

[antlerradar]

On average, a cow craps about 25-30 pounds of per day. Keep in mind that the amount can vary based on factors like the cow's size, age, and activity level.

Fixed it for you

 

[RoughCountry]

Tell your game and fish dept you want a landowner tag program like New Mexico has then you can buy a tag if you don’t draw and hunt some of those elk on private land. Do you really care about the grass or is it the antlers ?

 

[Eric Albus]

State land is in general much better quality than Federal land. This has to do with the way state became state land and BLM and Forest Service stayed in federal hands. With the homestead act people were allowed to claim federal land for themselves. They then had to prove up on the land. As long as the homesteaders made some minimal improvements and stayed on the land for a short amount of time the government deeded the land over to the homesteader. Of course the first homesteaders to arrive laid claim to the best available land they could. All of the homesteaders that fallowed operated under the same principle, claim the best available land. When the homestead act was ended the land that was still unclaimed became BLM. In theory the best parcel of BLM is worth less than the poorest parcel of private land. If the BLM was better the last homesteader would have claimed the parcel of BLM instead of the private that was claimed. Forest Service is better because the Government likely removed the forest service land from the homestead act before the act was discontinued, but it is still likely that the homesteaders had their pick of the best land befor the forest service land was removed from the homestead act. State land is different. The State was given two sections from every township, sections 16 and 36. Those sections could be the best land in the township or the worst. Totaly randume in terms of the quality and the quality for all state is going to fall near the middle and not near the bottom like fedral land.

There is also far less regulations and red tape with a state lease than a fedral lease.

Funny how things have changed. Now the land “unclaimed”(blm) in north eastern Montana would be the first stuff homesteaders would want. This on account it’s the best mule deer/antelope/elk habitat in R6.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Tell your game and fish dept you want a landowner tag program like New Mexico has then you can buy a tag if you don’t draw and hunt some of those elk on private land. Do you really care about the grass or is it the antlers ?

.... what?