Grazing fees, the economics of elk and cattle

[Ben Lamb]

I think feeling a unique moral authority (and condescending tone to others producing) to subsidy is a bit strange - and worth questioning?

He's not wrong though. Subsidies in the USA paid to Ag producers mean you ain't buying a $7 gallon of milk, or $15 a pound burger.

The issue of Ag not being as profitable in the west isn't really a land quality issue so much as a packer inequality issue. The public are the biggest recipient of Ag subsidies, and the vast majority of Americans have no clue about that. Just like the subsidies for O&G are keeping our gas prices down compared to other countries.

I tend to think that people put too much intonation into what others say as a reflection of their own bias, rather than a cold, analytical approach to the policy issue at hand, but that's just me, Sexual Chocolate.

 

[Elky Welky]

I tend to think that people put too much intonation into what others say as a reflection of their own bias, rather than a cold, analytical approach to the policy issue at hand, but that's just me, Sexual Chocolate.

I actually have quite a bit of respect for @Eric Albus, and appreciate what he brings to these conversations. He knows his business and he cares about keeping wildlife populations sustainable. I disagree with him on certain things, but I do try to keep it civil with him.

But when someone who wants to represent Montanans advocates for (even with the caveat of it being "their sadistic side") a "good old fashioned depression," I am going to take issue with that and hold them to a higher standard. Maybe that is just a reflection of my own bias, and the world I occupy, where most Montanans aren't entitled and well-off "sissies," but simply people trying to make it through the day. I'm okay with that bias.

Also, DIY hunters, in particular, appreciate where their food comes from more than most; it's a big part of why many of us hunt.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I actually have quite a bit of respect for @Eric Albus, and appreciate what he brings to these conversations. He knows his business and he cares about keeping wildlife populations sustainable. I disagree with him on certain things, but I do try to keep it civil with him.

But when someone who wants to represent Montanans advocates for (even with the caveat of it being "their sadistic side") a "good old fashioned depression," I am going to take issue with that and hold them to a higher standard. Maybe that is just a reflection of my own bias, and the world I occupy, where most Montanans aren't entitled and well-off "sissies," but simply people trying to make it through the day. I'm okay with that bias.

Also, DIY hunters, in particular, appreciate where their food comes from more than most; it's a big part of why many of us hunt.

Jake, I think you generally do a great job of disagreeing in an agreeable fashion, so please don't view this as an attack on you, just furthering the conversation.

But when someone who wants to represent Montanans advocates for (even with the caveat of it being "their sadistic side") a "good old fashioned depression," I am going to take issue with that and hold them to a higher standard.

There's a real danger in not giving people grace (especially on the internet) and letting some silly things slide in a discussion. Eric's point was clearly tongue-in-cheek, and people getting their dander up either due to misinterpretation, or they're looking for an argument and want to feel like they're on the moral high ground. Similarly, holding people to a higher standard is all fine and good, but how you do so is just as important as doing so. Otherwise, you end up alienating and rather than ingratiating.

Maybe that is just a reflection of my own bias, and the world I occupy, where most Montanans aren't entitled and well-off "sissies," but simply people trying to make it through the day. I'm okay with that bias.

$5 says Eric's probably closer to people who don't know where there next meal is coming from than most of us. The communities he lives in generally have higher poverty rates than Billings, Bozo, etc. I think your perspective is somewhat similar given your time working in the criminal justice system, and there's where the grace part comes back into this. But, again - there is truth to the notion than a lot of people who show up in R 6 & R7 aren't there to simply fill larders and get winter meat. From his perspective, that's what he sees. Setting aside our own biases to actually understand what someone else is saying that pisses us off is incredibly difficult when it comes to issues people are passionate about, but not doing so simply furthers the wedge driven.

Also, DIY hunters, in particular, appreciate where their food comes from more than most; it's a big part of why many of us hunt.

I mean, that's the industry line but then we see the reality of the masses here. People hunt for all kinds of reasons. Meat is a big part, but the recreational aspect is the driver. If it was truly about just the meat, I doubt we'd see so much resistance to landowner tags for bulls because you do get significantly greater access with that kind of system (CO). We've all seen wanton waste, even among our friends. But that bon mot gets tossed around a lot by people driving $40,000 trucks and wearing $2K worth of camo, and it can come across as hollow and a bit elitist at times. If it was just about meat, we wouldn't be celebrating the removal of doe tags in 1/3 of the state. If it was about meat, we wouldn't fight shoulder season expansion, we'd be buying 1/4's of beef locally, and if it was truly about the meat; processors wouldn't get away with the criminal acts they perform on quality protein.

Hunters hunt for a lot of reasons. The number of us who do so simply to feed our families or for the meat is remarkably low statistically. We all enjoy the meat, but if we're honest with ourselves, the meat isn't the only reason we're out there. It's an appreciation of wildlife, open space and wild country; and it's damned good recreation. MT is lucky enough to still have people left who grew up rough enough to have lived that life, or who grew up with parents that lived that life, and their wisdom is paramount to ensuring that MT's management system remains egalitarian and open to all. But those same folks are the ones who joke about giving the Little Shell tribe the town of Opportunity, MT for their reservation. So, again - grace & perspective is key.

 

[Cornbread]

Not near as much as rural America is. The sadistic part of me would really like to see a good old fashioned depression. Where people could start comprehending where their last meal came from, one where people would be actually willing to go to work just for food. We have become a nation of entitled sissy’s. A nation where a huge percentage of the population does not even begin to understand that we(farm/ranch) community is the direct beneficiary of gov’t subsidies, so the masses(everyone who produces mostly nothing) is the indirect beneficiary of said subsidies, with cheap, safe, regulated staples(food for those who think staples are for paper, or fences).

A debt crisis WOULD cause a huge recession. Recessions start because of excesses in the real or financial sides of the economy or both. Real excesses in the past: Oil, Technology/the internet in 1999, Housing in 2008 off the top of my head. Financial excesses: tight monetary policy, financial mis-regulation of banking/credit 2008, Banking in 2000. What's the excess today? GOVT!!!!

 

[rogerthat]

A debt crisis WOULD cause a huge recession. Recessions start because of excesses in the real or financial sides of the economy or both. Real excesses in the past: Oil, Technology/the internet in 1999, Housing in 2008 off the top of my head. Financial excesses: tight monetary policy, financial mis-regulation of banking/credit 2008, Banking in 2000. What's the excess today? GOVT!!!!

Unfortunately market forces don’t exist in govt. If only there were a political party that actually wanted to rein it in. Unfortunately there is not. Just parties looking to expand govt and spending on “their” priorities.

 

[antlerradar]

Do you own a ranch or work on a ranch?

yes, there is a reason ranch kids are not that interested in taking over the ranch. My 26 year old son that does not have a collage degree makes approximately 50% more than I do.

 

[antlerradar]

TX , OK, Nebraska, Missouri

Those places all have their issues too. For example TX and OK are below the "little ear parallel". For those of you that don't know what that is, if you live below the little ear parallel your breed of cattle had better have a little more ear so that they can deal with the bugs. Of course those cattle will not finish like cattle from the northern plains so when you sell them you are not going to get as good of a price.

 

[Elky Welky]

generally

Ha! I go off sometimes. More than willing to admit that. And I have no problem poking the hornet's nest (just ask @DFS ) also willing to admit that. I rarely take anything personal. I enjoy a good debate, and as you've pointed out before: cussin' and discussin' is kinda what we do here. Appreciate the response.

There's a real danger in not giving people grace (especially on the internet) and letting some silly things slide in a discussion.

Cuts both ways here. I am trying to give Eric grace, while also pointing to the real problems his potential constituents face. What one person finds silly, however, is a matter of subjectivity. There's also a real danger in letting things slide (take a look at how far our national discourse has fallen). We have to draw a line somewhere. And it also begs the question: whose comments do we let slide, whose do we not?

but not doing so simply furthers the wedge driven.

I agree. Hunters not acknowledging the value of the farming/ranching industry only hurts hunters, just as much as the farming/ranching industry not acknowledging the value of hunters has hurt just as many in the farming/ranching community.

the meat isn't the only reason we're out there. It's an appreciation of wildlife, open space and wild country; and it's damned good recreation.

Also agree. I said it was a big part, not the only part. Which was where I was debating Eric's broader notion that those here don't appreciate where their food comes from. They definitely do, just as much as they appreciate hunting for all the other reasons you mentioned here.

 

[Eric Albus]

Why do you do it if it's the poorest business model you know of?

There's massive benefits that come with owning 1000s of acres. Which are typically capitalized on.

I'm glad we're on the same page that the government should stay out of it.

Getting 2-3 hrs of sleep these cold nights calving makes me wonder.

 

[Eric Albus]

Those places all have their issues too. For example TX and OK are below the "little ear parallel". For those of you that don't know what that is, if you live below the little ear parallel your breed of cattle had better have a little more ear so that they can deal with the bugs. Of course those cattle will not finish like cattle from the northern plains so when you sell them you are not going to get as good of a price.

Those ears act as radiators, keeping the cattle cooler as well.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ha! I go off sometimes. More than willing to admit that. And I have no problem poking the hornet's nest (just ask @DFS ) also willing to admit that. I rarely take anything personal. I enjoy a good debate, and as you've pointed out before: cussin' and discussin' is kinda what we do here. Appreciate the response.

Cuts both ways here. I am trying to give Eric grace, while also pointing to the real problems his potential constituents face. What one person finds silly, however, is a matter of subjectivity. There's also a real danger in letting things slide (take a look at how far our national discourse has fallen). We have to draw a line somewhere. And it also begs the question: whose comments do we let slide, whose do we not?

I agree. Hunters not acknowledging the value of the farming/ranching industry only hurts hunters, just as much as the farming/ranching industry not acknowledging the value of hunters has hurt just as many in the farming/ranching community.

Also agree. I said it was a big part, not the only part. Which was where I was debating Eric's broader notion that those here don't appreciate where their food comes from. They definitely do, just as much as they appreciate hunting for all the other reasons you mentioned here.

One day we'll all be as graceful as Buzz & RJ. Have a great weekend my friend. Appreciate the great discussion!

 

[Eric Albus]

yes, there is a reason ranch kids are not that interested in taking over the ranch. My 26 year old son that does not have a collage degree makes approximately 50% more than I do.

Be glad yours went to school.

 

[Eric Albus]

Amazon had a negative profit margin last year. Guessing you dont think they have a "poor business model"

If they went backwards they’d better fix it

 

[Eric Albus]

Good points, but tongue in cheek I added more context.

Your additions were cutting close to the quick.

 

[Eric Albus]

Ranchers: Elk are eating my grass. I want money .

Hunters: we will kill the elk.

Ranchers: Okay pay me money to kill the elk.

Ranchers: why do hunters know we are Dicks? good question ..but let’s block some access to public land and make sure they are right while we’re at.

Rather than complaining on an internet blog site (whilst hiding behind an anonymous moniker) why not try being part of the solution. Bring forward some ideas of how we can incentivize landowners to allow access.

 

[Eric Albus]

A debt crisis WOULD cause a huge recession. Recessions start because of excesses in the real or financial sides of the economy or both. Real excesses in the past: Oil, Technology/the internet in 1999, Housing in 2008 off the top of my head. Financial excesses: tight monetary policy, financial mis-regulation of banking/credit 2008, Banking in 2000. What's the excess today? GOVT!!!!

I worry a bit about where the country is actually headed, IMO a recession/depression looks unavoidable. A Gov’t can’t print money and hand it out for free and there be no consequences. Unless inflation will keep it in check, and in order to keep inflation in check I expect the Fed to raise interest rates again. This will be especially harmful to the ag sector, and housing.

. Couple this with the current administration allowing in millions of illegals, some of whom have been reported Chinese nationalist’s, I’m going to be curious as to see what plays out.

Be interesting for certain to see where we’re at a year or two from now.

 

[Trial153]

Rather than complaining on an internet blog site (whilst hiding behind an anonymous moniker) why not try being part of the solution. Bring forward some ideas of how we can incentivize landowners to allow access.

First of all if elk on a ranch are really an economic liability, then hunter access even given away for free should be considered a positive line item to your balance sheet. The problem is most ranches want to have their cake and eat too. They want government remittances and then payment for access.

I guess the question should be how can you possibly not find someone to hunt your land?

 

[SAJ-99]

They want government remittances and then payment for access.

I see you are familiar with Montana's Type II Block Management.

 

[Eric Albus]

I don’t have a problem finding someone “to hunt my land”. We had plenty of folks lining up to hunt FOR FREE when we had an elk issue a few years ago.
It is not “if” elk are an economic impact, FACT they do impact. Elk are not like mule deer, elk graze, mulies browse (of you don’t know the difference google it).

most ranches that have elk are one of 2 things in Montana (as a rule, not always tho) 1. Old legacy ranches been in family 100 plus years, paid for debt free.
2. Been sold by traditional family to carpetbagger billionaire from out of state.

Neither one (again as a rule) goes into a govt office for anything. If they allow hunting are either leased to a group of hunters from Montana, or an outfitter, or hunted by family only, some participate in the 454 program (allows public access), and some do not allow any hunting by anyone at anytime…..except unknowingly and unwillingly when they are not around.

 

[Trial153]

I don’t have a problem finding someone “to hunt my land”. We had plenty of folks lining up to hunt FOR FREE when we had an elk issue a few years ago.
It is not “if” elk are an economic impact, FACT they do impact. Elk are not like mule deer, elk graze, mulies browse (of you don’t know the difference google it).

most ranches that have elk are one of 2 things in Montana (as a rule, not always tho) 1. Old legacy ranches been in family 100 plus years, paid for debt free.
2. Been sold by traditional family to carpetbagger billionaire from out of state.

Neither one (again as a rule) goes into a govt office for anything. If they allow hunting are either leased to a group of hunters from Montana, or an outfitter, or hunted by family only, some participate in the 454 program (allows public access), and some do not allow any hunting by anyone at anytime…..except unknowingly and unwillingly when they are not around.

Here is your first problem. You admitted elk are a negative line item against your ranches margin. However you go on to say “ hunt for free”. The way I see it if hunters are removing negative line items from your balance sheets then they are in fact performing a service that increases your margin.
Why do you feel the need to double dip and expect the taxpayers of your state to give you remittances for people performing a service for you for free?

Secondly there are less than 800 individuals with net worths in the US over a billion dollars. The idea that only a billionaire can buy land in Montana is stupid.

The absolute best way to foster access via paid or not is to establish relationships. Commonality can be found if people make an effort to look for it. Almost all my hunting opportunities on private lands other than those I own come from having relationships with people.