Grazing fees, the economics of elk and cattle

[Dougfirtree]

Alright. By no means am I versed in Ag economics, but I've been smart enough to shut up and listen to some damned good ranchers & farmers, like @cgasner1.

1.) Other units of cost for landowners are far higher today than they were in the 1980's. Focusing only the AUM price ignores the economics of a ranching operation, cost of land, increases in rates on state trust lands, and private as well. In the past, operators could increase their fee title for a reasonable amount, but as the real estate economics lead towards investment rather than production, this is now far more difficult for an traditional operation to be profitable. Increasing the cost of an AUM may seem like simple math for us, but we're not the ones paying the feed bill in the winter, etc.

2.) The value of public land grazing in western states is far beyond just the benefit for the producer. Those subsidized rates help large blocks of private land stay intact. A study was just released in MT that showed in the last decade 1 million acres of ag land has been converted to housing. Those ostensibly are lands that hosted a lot of wildlife and provided recreation close to urban centers. You can't hunt a subdivision (unless approved under an urban deer mgt plan) and critical winter range is eaten up at alarming rates. Wildlife do not recognize boundaries, and so to think that we can kick producers off of public range while maintaining winter range, migration corridors, calving/fawning grounds ignores how wildlife use the land in favor of a human-centric position.

3.) Overgrazing absolutely is an issue. We tend to focus more on who eats what rather than why isn't there enough. This is the habitat issue, and especially in the west where "the new normal" is still well below the 100 year average for precipitation. Add in the fact that those public ranges are often times not the prime ag lands (otherwise they would have been settled) and a distinct lack of funding (Congress' fault) for habitat restoration and enforcement/compliance, weather events & biological events like grasshoppers and we seem to have an issue where we continue to argue about the smaller pieces of a declining pie rather than how we make the pie bigger and more nutritious.

4.) Elk in the west aren't suffering from a lack of forage. Most states are seeing expansions in the population rather than contractions.

If you want more elk on public land, make public land a place elk want to be. Improve forage, reduce pressure (year round) and enact recreation systems that favor wildlife rather than the human desire to play.

Public land grazing is a massive conservation tool. Like all tools, how it is used matters the most. I have zero problem with $1.35 an AUM because it keeps huge swaths of wildlife habitat intact. The notion that agriculture isn't wildlife friendly is simply untrue. Some practices can be, for sure. Fence-to-fence farming has reduced pheasant hunting across the midwest and monoculture farming significantly reduces the biodiversity of an area. But ungulates love grain, and so do birds. regenerative agriculture is taking off, and if we were smart as a nation, we'd recognize that ranchers & farmers are just small business owners looking to live their lives, while engaging in something worthwhile. If we start from the basic notion that people in agriculture are our neighbors, cousins, uncles, teachers, etc, we can find a better balance, while ensuring that agriculture always has a place on the landscape.

Making this discussion one of conflict ensures nothing good will come about.

Well said. I often think that grazing fees are too low and still do in many instances. I also think ranchers have too much political power, but until western states come up with a solid plan for keeping these large tracts of land intact without ranching, I'd be terrified to tinker too much.

 

[sclancy27]

The fact that cattle are grazing on the landscape is not the problem, it is the method in which they are grazed. There is a ton of data out there to show that shorter duration, more intense grazing regimes increase species richness, decrease weeds and greatly increase habitat characteristics for a number of species, game and non-game. The problem is intensive grazing systems are a complete 180 from the current method, which is leave them out to eat for weeks, if not months, at a time. I would be completely fine with the current cost of AUM's for BLM and FS land IF they grazed intensively. I believe a change in price structure to incentivize this practice would be a good place to start. But, the public needs to get involved with BLM/FS at the State, District and Field Office level.

And they need to come informed. Just saying "I want to get rid of grazing" is not an informed position, societally or ecologically. The vast majority of MT evolved under a regime of intensive grazing (bison) and removing grazing entirely would turn our grasslands into a monoculture, much like lack of fire and logging has done to the forests in western MT. I don't think we want that.

 

[sclancy27]

Well said. I often think that grazing fees are too low and still do in many instances. I also think ranchers have too much political power, but until western states come up with a solid plan for keeping these large tracts of land intact without ranching, I'd be terrified to tinker too much.

The model is already there and it's APR...whom everyone (it seems) hates.

 

[Nick87]

The fact that cattle are grazing on the landscape is not the problem, it is the method in which they are grazed. There is a ton of data out there to show that shorter duration, more intense grazing regimes increase species richness, decrease weeds and greatly increase habitat characteristics for a number of species, game and non-game.

"Mob grazing" as it's called around here is interesting I've seen it used and it shows results. Weren't mine though so I don't know how the economics of it shake out first hand. But those pastures sure look a Lot better than the the others that look like a putting green with thistles,around here anyway.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The model is already there and it's APR...whom everyone (it seems) hates.

Large non-resident landowners/conservation buyers are already doing this apart from APR. For wildlife, it creates islands of refuge but it also creates other issues relative to traditional ag operations.

Example: The Arthur Blank properties in the Paradise Valley have ensured that a massive chunk of country that was primed for 20 acre horse ghettos will always be elk country.

 

[sclancy27]

The present is this. Farming and ranching isn’t wildlife and habitat friendly from an ecological standpoint. What it is profitable. But good for wildlife, no way.

Ranching, at least in areas with a historical regime of grazing, can absolutely benefit wildlife versus no grazing. Farming could if we went away from industrial scale, but I feel like that is near impossible.

 

[sclancy27]

"Mob grazing" as it's called around here is interesting I've seen it used and it shows results. Weren't mine though so I don't know how the economics of it shake out first hand. But those pastures sure look a Lot better than the the others that look like a putting green with thistles,around here anyway.

We got to see several ranches that did this in MT when I worked for NRCS. They did better economically (they also changed the time of year they calve to late April/May), especially in drought conditions, then ranches that grazed traditionally. It wouldn't work for every ranch, saying that would be ridiculous. But I think it can be adapted to fit a lot of operations.

 

[Steiny77]

Theres around 90 million cattle in America. Around 1.5 million of them are in montana and 2/3rds (another million) of that in Wy.

I do agree that a lot of the west areas of MT & WY included are just about the most horrible places to raise cattle imaginable; hard winters, minimal rainfall, lousy feed, big predators, etc. The only reason that industry got started in the west to begin with is because land was cheap or free for the first guys settling the land. Who cares that it takes 75 acres to feed a cow if the ground is free, just have a whole sh#tload of land.

Having said the above, todays ranchers in those areas need those cheap grazing fees in order to remain in business, and most cattle ranchers in the west are very low margin businesses even with that help. Can't say I'm in favor of putting those guys out of business. The end result would probably be worse for wildlife as it would load up with more housing and development. I'd rather look out the window and see a vast open ranch landscape with cattle than more fancy housing, condos, ski resorts and retail.

 

[jmcd]

Ranching, at least in areas with a historical regime of grazing, can absolutely benefit wildlife versus no grazing. Farming could if we went away from industrial scale, but I feel like that is near impossible.

Agreed. Especially with the increased trend of good farmland now growing subdivisions. Industrial, highly specialized production becomes necessary.

 

[Trial153]

Ranching, at least in areas with a historical regime of grazing, can absolutely benefit wildlife versus no grazing. Farming could if we went away from industrial scale, but I feel like that is near impossible.

Your saying lands grazed by cattle vs no grazing will have a higher forage yield per acre and hold more wild ungulates?

 

[sclancy27]

Large non-resident landowners/conservation buyers are already doing this apart from APR. For wildlife, it creates islands of refuge but it also creates other issues relative to traditional ag operations.

Example: The Arthur Blank properties in the Paradise Valley have ensured that a massive chunk of country that was primed for 20 acre horse ghettos will always be elk country.

I wasn't making a value judgement on APR or similar outfits.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ruby Habitat Foundation is doing some amazing work on the ag/wildlife space: https://rubyhabitat.org/

Pathfinder Ranch in Wyoming is doing good stuff as well: https://www.pathfinderranches.com/

 

[Oak]

Aldo Leopold reading this thread, wondering why he even bothered.

View attachment 315727

Ed is chewing on a cigar and clapping.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I wasn't making a value judgement on APR or similar outfits.

Apologies if you thought I thought you did.

 

[sclancy27]

Your saying lands grazed by cattle vs no grazing will have a higher forage yield per acre and hold more wild ungulates?

Yes.

 

[sclancy27]

Ruby Habitat Foundation is doing some amazing work on the ag/wildlife space: https://rubyhabitat.org/

Pathfinder Ranch in Wyoming is doing good stuff as well: https://www.pathfinderranches.com/

Do you have personal experience with Ruby Habitat...cause I do, which causes me to have a slightly different opinion of them.

 

[Oak]

I'm by no means anti-grazing. I'm currently working with the BLM and a permittee on a conversion from sheep to cattle. But the USFS and BLM grazing management programs are broken, and there is no money or inclination to do anything about it.

 

[Trial153]

Yes.

I have yet to see it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Do you have personal experience with Ruby Habitat...cause I do, which causes me to have a slightly different opinion of them.

I haven't been down there in a while but know their manager. It changed a lot when MLR assumed management to be sure. My experience was with the Woodsons and the Foundation more-so than MLR, though I support what MLR does whole-heartedly.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I'm by no means anti-grazing. I'm currently working with the BLM and a permittee on a conversion from sheep to cattle. But the USFS and BLM grazing management programs are broken, and there is no money or inclination to do anything about it.

You are clearly an expert on the topic - how can we improve or change it. Or at the very least, what should the objectives be and what stands in the way?

What does real improvement look like? Ultimately - if it really meant a huge net postive and ranches adopted grazing approaches like @sclancy27 suggests or habitat improvements that sre documentably good - a reverse AUM might make sense. I dont know.