Grazing fees, the economics of elk and cattle

[antlerradar]

Be glad yours went to school.

I just wish he had finished, Then he would be making double what I do. I have the collage degree and finished near the top of my class. I could have stayed in school and or went to work at a bank like many of my classmates did. I am sure I would be making more than double what my son does now and be nearing retirement if I had taken that path. Happy with the path I took, setting in an office, living in the city just doesn't appeal to me that much. Some things are worth more than the money.

 

[antlerradar]

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?

The problem is hunters just don't add that much to the bottom line unless they are paying.

Crop damage can be expensive, problem is by the time rifle season starts the damage is already done. To get any benefit you have to reduce the game numbers for next year. This is almost impossible when it comes to elk for most ranches. The elk will not tolerate the hunting pressure needed. We are lucky to get a half dozen killed before they are gone.

 

[DFS]

Long seasons and liberal tags compound the problems of access in Montana. As far as grazing goes I have seen animals that want to live on public but can’t because of hunting pressure. I have also seen allotments so pounded out wildlife wouldn’t care to live there unless it rained and greened up.

Grazing is certainly better than energy development of public lands.

 

[Eric Albus]

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.

First thing first, you’re clueless, but that’s “your problem “.
2nd thing, only those worth multiple millions, or a billion can buy a ranch worth 10-150 million dollars.(billionaires was a slight exaggeration…but you being clueless enough to think it’s stupid speaks to your ignorance, or stupidity (your pick) .


Further I don’t “expect” anybody to do anything for me. The FACT we allowed free unfettered access to the elk we had should speak volumes…to some it does, to you….well

How many people that you do not KNOW hunt “your land” for free?

The fact I have to spell everything out to is exasperating.

 

[Stifler]

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.

If you think that billionaires are not buying the millionairs out, you really are clueless.

 

[elkduds]

A study published in the journal Climatic Change late last month cast a critical eye on two agricultural research centers that focus on the livestock industry’s carbon emissions and, as recently as last year, got much of their funding from industry donations. Housed at the University of California at Davis and Colorado State University, the centers study new technology to shrink the climate footprint of the livestock industry while regularly messaging that Americans don’t need to eat less meat and milk, contrary to what some environmentalists say.

But the report’s authors — Viveca Morris, the executive director of Yale Law School’s Law, Ethics & Animals Program, and Jennifer Jacquet, a University of Miami environmental policy professor — wrote that, in practice, the centers are operating more like arms of the industry than independent research institutions.

 

[SwaggyD]

How many people that you do not KNOW hunt “your land” for free?

I’m sure we will all be invited to hunt his new Lavina place next year.

 

[Bigjay73]

Why doesn't anyone bring up the fact that India has over 300 million head of cattle, and they don't even eat beef? I mean, if they're a main force behind global warming, where's the outrage?

 

[Dakotakid]

A search of Zillow gives the only listing for Lavina as a 20 acre $450k on Bundy rd.

Unfortunately, that if it is the targeted property, is an example of what one could expect if the evil ranching community goes away. Breaking up large swaths of land into subdivisions is far more detrimental to wildlife.

 

[antlerradar]

A study published in the journal Climatic Change late last month cast a critical eye on two agricultural research centers that focus on the livestock industry’s carbon emissions and, as recently as last year, got much of their funding from industry donations. Housed at the University of California at Davis and Colorado State University, the centers study new technology to shrink the climate footprint of the livestock industry while regularly messaging that Americans don’t need to eat less meat and milk, contrary to what some environmentalists say.

But the report’s authors — Viveca Morris, the executive director of Yale Law School’s Law, Ethics & Animals Program, and Jennifer Jacquet, a University of Miami environmental policy professor — wrote that, in practice, the centers are operating more like arms of the industry than independent research institutions.

This is what the environmentalists are over looking when it comes to carbon from cattle. you have to look at were the carbon is coming from. Cows don't just create carbon, it has to come from somewhere. The grass and grain where cows get the carbon from is very short term carbon storage. If a cow doesn't eat the carbon stored in grass it is going to be in the atmosphere by some other method in a matter of decades at the most and likely much sooner. Removing cows from the carbon cycle will do little to reduce carbon long term. The real issue with carbon is when we take and accelerate the carbon cycle on long term carbon storage.

 

[Eric Albus]

I can’t figure it out, cry wolf over carbon emissions, but don’t think far enough ahead to realize it’s carbon dioxide plants, algae need to produce oxygen.
Makes one scratch their head a bit.

 

[BigHornRam]

This is what the environmentalists are over looking when it comes to carbon from cattle. you have to look at were the carbon is coming from. Cows don't just create carbon, it has to come from somewhere. The grass and grain where cows get the carbon from is very short term carbon storage. If a cow doesn't eat the carbon stored in grass it is going to be in the atmosphere by some other method in a matter of decades at the most and likely much sooner. Removing cows from the carbon cycle will do little to reduce carbon long term. The real issue with carbon is when we take and accelerate the carbon cycle on long term carbon storage.

The grass produce a lot of fine roots that die off every year and are replaced with new growth in the following years. Carbon storage back into the soil, the perfect carbon sequestration machine. All we have to do is maintain healthy grasslands for all the ungulates to graze, like they have been doing on this planet as long as there has been grass.

 

[SAJ-99]

I’m with @Sexual Chocolate. I think everyone needs to walk in someone else’s shoes or boots for a few days. People in NYC should know where their food comes from and ranchers should understand that those people, being their customers, pay the bills. Maybe we need to re-release City Slickers.

 

[Eric Albus]

Keep the New Yorkers in the zoo, we don’t want them “re-wilding” eastern Mt.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Interesting article, not completely specific to this thread but it is a great example of how grazing can be compatible with healthy habitat, some ranchers really do care and know how to manage land, not all grazed land is garbage, and there is hope in fighting cheatgrass and habitat degradation for those willing to put in the effort.

Holding the Line: Defending Wyoming’s Sagebrush Cores from Cheatgrass | Working Lands For Wildlife

Sublette County, Wyoming has successfully treated more than 97,000 acres of cheatgrass, protecting core sagebrush habitat.

www.wlfw.org