ID F&G reform initiative starts anew

[Troy Jones]

Buzz, the money we recieve from the government is from a small chunk of crp. The only other outside money recieved is from the walk-in program for hunters, paid by the state. We lease several thousand acres to the state for that purpose. The revenue generated from our payments would cover about 2 days feeding of hay for the 1,100 head of cattle and is just a little supliment for the taxes on that ground. Around here, if it wasn't for the walk in program, there wouldn't be a lot of places for anyone to hunt. Buzz, why don't you just say "thank you" for all the hunting the government pays to provide you with? I would like to say how altruistic it is of you to pay us for that CRP we have. That $480 really kept us going this year. Wouldn't know what to do without it. "Spending real easy" is an understatement.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Now come on Troy, with that kind of money coming in from the Gov. in the form of welfare money, you should be pretty close to financial independence...LMAO!!!

 

[BuzzH]

Troy, nobody is forcing you to take money for allowing hunters or to take money for CRP, so if all you can do is bitch about them...then quit the programs.

You remind me of most welfare recipients, bitch and complain while getting something for nothing.

Oh, and one question, why should I thank you for anything?....I rarely eat beef and I dont hunt in S. Dakota. You on the other hand have no problem accepting my tax dollars in the form or CRP payments.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Troy, Don't you get any other tax breaks on things like diesel fuel, etc. in SD? Any help from Dept. of Ag on any programs? Just curious, not trying to instigate anything. You'd sure be the first farmer/rancher I know with that many cattle and that much land who only gets a few hundred dollars in benefits from the gummint, but I admit I haven't spent much time looking into it.

 

[Troy Jones]

Buzz, I'm not bitching, I am defending. No one's forcing you to hunt public ground, so if all you do is bitch about them...then quit hunting them. We were approached by the game and fish for the hunting. It's a good piece of ground. We were also approached by the NRCS for the CRP, because of soil type there.

We get a break on fuel, but so does everyone that uses diesel fuel for other than road use, contractors etc. We also received a half of a ton of dried milk suppliment. We mixed it into cake, saved us a couple hundred dollars. Ithaca, the only thing that taxes do is increase.

We use to have some National Forest cattle permits. They ended up being more trouble than what they were worth. ATVers, tourists, and hunters cutting fence going in and going out of areas. Spent all the time chasing cattle and fixing fence. Expenditures for time, fuel and help vs. revenue generated from the weight gain, made it more expensive to run them on forest service than not.

In order not to pummel the land due to the drought. We have sold all heifers, calves, two year old steers, all old cows and half the bulls. We are down to under 500 head. We had enough old hay to sustain that many with suppliments over the winter. If the government is handing over buckets of cash, my family or inlaws have never seen it. Maybe that's why I get so pissed when the finger is pointed in are direction.

 

[BuzzH]

Troy, while I understand its hard for you to comprehend simple subjects, I dont bitch about hunting public lands. I CHOOSE to hunt public lands, and I like to hunt public lands. Its a real pain in the ass having to deal with landowners, dont hunt here, watch out for that, do this...blah blah blah. Public lands I hunt what, where and when I want.

What I bitch about is welfare ranchers nuking public lands with their livestock. Remember the facts Troy, 60 percent of BLM lands are in poor condition, 90 percent of riparian areas are in poor condition on BLM lands. By the way, did you ask about the riparian work I did in S. Dakota?

I know its hard for you to follow, but my main goal is to see that Public lands are in good condition so that all wildlife has excellent habitat. Which would mean more game for everyone to hunt, cleaner water, etc. Then, the Game and Fish wouldnt have to irritate you and offer you cash for hunter access, they could find better hunting on public lands. Plus all that money the G&F would save, by not paying you for access, could be used to manage wildlife instead of people.

Believe me, nothing would make me happier than the fish and game not having to deal with cry baby landowners any more.

 

[Troy Jones]

It's obvious where the crying and whining is coming from Buzz. If we left the decision making process to you and your green, nazi, tunnel visioned, government cohorts we would have a nice socialist society wouldn't we? God Bless the U.S. and capitalism! If your looking to control a people, I hear China, Iraq etc. are looking for a few of your type.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-30-2003 12:48: Message edited by: Troy Jones ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

HAHA, thats a good one Troy, you dont believe in Capitalism...if you did, you wouldnt let the gummint support any part of your operation. But you cash those checks and take that cheap fuel dont you?

If all the welfare ranchers want to be capitalists, and if you want the BLM, FS, etc to be, I say let them. If they (blm, etc.) operated under true capitalism, I bet the going rate for an AUM would be more than a buck thirty five, agreed? We'd then see how all the welfare ranchers like capitalism, they'd fold faster than a mallard taking a full charge of number 4's.

Oh, and I'm not trying to control anyone, just shitty land management practices like the ones we've had for the last 80 or so years. If you want to nuke your land with livestock, go for it dude, I wont interfere with your right to do it.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-30-2003 14:03: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Troy, If you are only getting a minimal amount of subsidies from the gummint, how do you feel about welfare ranchers all over the West competing with you in the cattle market? If you were to lease out the grazing rights on your private land what would you consider a fair price (per AUM)?

 

[Troy Jones]

Ithaca, We had a little private summer pasture leased last year. We paid $16 a cow/calf pair to graze it. This country takes 30 acres a summer to do so without damaging the ground. It works out to be about 50 cents an acre for the summer. I have no idea what the cost associated with grazing are for BLM or for any other area. The inlaws have nearly 14,000 acres, with roughly 80 in BLM. I have no idea what they pay for it. There are a couple 40's inside 4 to 5 section pastures, it's more of a have to thing. They are not fenced out or anything. Not enough BLM land there to do anything with.

As far as competing. The others cattle couldn't sell any better or worse than ours. They just get to keep more of it. My family and inlaws ranches are paid for, they are making a fly of it and always have. What ever is decided with government land, will not hurt us or help us.

Everything else seems to be good. My Daughter, Wife and myself get trophy deer and antelope every year. I hunt public and private and do well either place.

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Troy, Don't you get any other tax breaks on things like diesel fuel, etc. in SD? Any help from Dept. of Ag on any programs? Just curious, not trying to instigate anything. You'd sure be the first farmer/rancher I know with that many cattle and that much land who only gets a few hundred dollars in benefits from the gummint, but I admit I haven't spent much time looking into it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's not the rancher/farmer that set these tax breaks up, it was bureaucrats, this money that is used for “tax breaks” is not the governments money any way, it is just less that needs to be paid to the government, this is in no way’s wrong or improper, unless of course you’re a socialist and think all money is the governments…
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In order not to pummel the land due to the drought. We have sold all heifers, calves, two year old steers, all old cows and half the bulls. We are down to under 500 head. We had enough old hay to sustain that many with suppliments over the winter. If the government is handing over buckets of cash, my family or inlaws have never seen it. Maybe that's why I get so pissed when the finger is pointed in are direction. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ithica, Buzz!!
This looks like responsible cattle ranching to me, maybe you guy's can find fault in this? But it looks like these are good ranchers!!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What I bitch about is welfare ranchers nuking public lands with their livestock. Remember the facts Troy, 60 percent of BLM lands are in poor condition, 90 percent of riparian areas are in poor condition on BLM lands. By the way, did you ask about the riparian work I did in S. Dakota? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think you saw what he has done to help with the land around him, but your prejudice has you blinded by every thing and any thing that has any thing to do with cattle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I know its hard for you to follow, but my main goal is to see that Public lands are in good condition so that all wildlife has excellent habitat. Which would mean more game for everyone to hunt, cleaner water, etc. Then, the Game and Fish wouldnt have to irritate you and offer you cash for hunter access, they could find better hunting on public lands. Plus all that money the G&F would save, by not paying you for access, could be used to manage wildlife instead of people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your real goal would be to have all ground owned by the government and made into public land and all ranchers/farmers kicked off the land. You don't hide this fact very well at all. You don't have to say it; it is in almost every post you put up on this subject.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Believe me, nothing would make me happier than the fish and game not having to deal with cry baby landowners any more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't you also realize that there are a lot of land owners that put just as much faith in the F&G, and every little bureaucrat that shows up on their door step to regulate one more thing that these people want to do on their own ground!!! Pretty sour you are I say!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> HAHA, thats a good one Troy, you dont believe in Capitalism...if you did, you wouldnt let the gummint support any part of your operation. But you cash those checks and take that cheap fuel dont you?

If all the welfare ranchers want to be capitalists, and if you want the BLM, FS, etc to be, I say let them. If they (blm, etc.) operated under true capitalism, I bet the going rate for an AUM would be more than a buck thirty five, agreed? We'd then see how all the welfare ranchers like capitalism, they'd fold faster than a mallard taking a full charge of number 4's.

Oh, and I'm not trying to control anyone, just shitty land management practices like the ones we've had for the last 80 or so years. If you want to nuke your land with livestock, go for it dude, I wont interfere with your right to do it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is very rich Buzz, since you haven't taken a capitalist dollar ever from what I have seen you spout, it has all been government gained from one source or another. You don't seem to understand that a tax break is not government money; it is our money that we are allowed to keep. You can disagree with that all you want, but in reality, that is exactly what it is. How can one even begin to state that any tax break was or is the government’s money? It is not and to even think this proves that socialism runs completely thru your veins. Didn't you know that there are enough socialist countries in the world, that one could just go live there instead of being here and trying to change it? But if you happen to look at the history, your way of thinking just hasn't worked anywhere else in the world. That is why socialists sit in this country and think that they can and should try and change what we were founded on because they in their hearts think that they have the answers, look around the world and prove me wrong!!!

 

[BuzzH]

Elkchsr, wow, all I can say is great imagination!

I guess ranchers taking a gummint handout is capitalism eh? I would strongly suggest you look up capitalism and socialism in a dictionary and study up junior.

Troy, you dont get it. Your family competing with welfare ranchers who lease cheap BLM ground is driving cattle prices into the ground. While you pay $16 an AUM, the welfare rancher pays $1.35. He can afford to sell cattle at a cheaper price (he pays 12 times less for his AUM's). To combat low prices and to remain competitive everyone raises more cattle to offset the low prices, which degrades the land. That in turn gluts the market and forces prices even lower, good by small rancher, hello corporate ranches.

But, its the greenies fault that ranchers are too thick to understand economics 101 right Troy?

What exactly have the greenies done to limit your families ability to raise cattle? What have they done to lower cattle prices so its damn near impossible to make any money raising cattle? Not a damn thing.

If I raised cattle I'd be wound up about the price the blm charges for grazing, it kills the small rancher, bigtime.

But, to tell you the truth, personally I dont care, because cattle prices and associated profit margins dont mean a thing to me. Any smart rancher would be dead set against cheap subsidized leases...makes it real hard to compete.

What I care about is the health of the public lands, nothing more. Like I've said before, I'd give public lands leases away if they were managed with consideration for wildlife and the health of the land.

 

[Troy Jones]

Subsidized ranchers don't sell their cattle any cheaper than anyone else or it would be a problem. They just get to hold on to more of the money annually. Buzz, do you think that if these "welfare ranchers" were paying the $16 they would treat anything any different? I think if they paid the same price they would drop the program from the hassles such as you. You'd be losing a lot of revenue, then these places would be over hunted for no revenue to the BLM. There are many more dynamics involved than, I am sure, you or I can fathom. That requires specialists in many fields, not tunnel vison.

There are many problems pertaining to cattle prices, welfare ranchers are not one of them. The monopoly of the big three meat packing companies, and the free trade agreement are the problem.

Another big problem for ranchers is developement. Land worth $80 an acre around towns have sky rocketed from $1,500 an acre to $15,000 a lot in the past 5 years. Easments for roads, electrical etc. through ranch land. It's the domino effect. The taxes then get to be more than what can be supported by raising beef. Then you have corporate ranching that usually lease the hunting out. They keep buying and buying up land. That is what it sounds like you are talking about when you talk "welfare rancher". They are the ones with all the breaks. Buzz, I fear that in another 25 years you'll be longing for the good old days. Be careful what you wish for...

 

[BuzzH]

Troy, you just dont get it...

I'm not trying to be a smart ass.

You dont think subsidized grazing of public lands is hurting cattle prices?

Let me ask you this....lets say you and I both enter the cattle market tomorrow we each own 1200 head, have the same overhead, taxes, etc. I own say 500 acres and lease from the BLM 20,000. You own 500 and have to lease 20,000 acres of private ground. I pay $1.35 an AUM you pay $16 for the same thing.

Who do you suppose will be forced out of business by low cattle prices first? I dont think its really all that complicated, no trick question.

Look, I dont want or like corporate ranches/farms any better than anyone else...unfortunately the consumer does. But whats caused the problem is not environmental restrictions, but the cattlemen and cattle industry itself. Big corporate ranches can absorb loses easier than the small producer and they intentionally drive prices lower to force the small operator out of business. One avenue they take to accomplish that goal is taking cheap BLM leases at 1.35 an AUM and lease huge tracts of BLM lands. I mean really they're smart for doing it, I'd do it too. Eventually with all the small operators out of business, the ranching industry will be monopolized just like the 3 meat packing plants you speak of...then they can control price by choosing to cut supply or increase supply...all economics and all capitalism at its finest.

The real threat to the small producer is all internal, very little, if anything, has to do with enviro-greenie-nazis.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Troy, Sorry, you're way off base with this one: "then these places would be over hunted for no revenue to the BLM.". Welfare ranching is actually a money loser for the BLM. Administration, fence building, water pipelines etc. cost a lot more than the income from $1.35 AUMs. That's what you should really be upset about. If welfare ranching was eliminated the taxpayers would actually save money.

"Our nation's federal land management agencies fail to meet any reasonable standard of fiscal responsibility, making the public foot the bill with hundreds of millions of tax dollars. Twenty percent of the nation's land area (456 million acres) is controlled by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. This federal estate encompasses a wealth of forests, grazing lands, minerals, wildlife, and recreational amenities with enormous potential to generate revenues for the public good. Yet from 1994 through 1996 these agencies lost an average of $290 million on timber, $66 million on grazing, and $355 million on recreation."

http://www.perc.org/publications/landreports/report1.html

"To enhance revenues, some states are experimenting with alternative, non-grazing uses for trust lands. The first non-grazing lease was awarded in New Mexico in the fall of 1996. The Forest Guardians, an environmental group, outbid a rancher for a 644-acre riparian area. The state trust now receives not only greater revenues from the new lessee, but willows and other cover have been planted along damaged stream banks. Alternative uses of rangelands allows land managers to derive revenues from the highest valued land use. Legislation prohibits the Forest Service and BLM from non-grazing use of federal rangelands."

If you do some research you'll find lots more info on BLM losses. I think (last time I remember seeing the data) BLM is losing about twenty million bucks a year on welfare ranching.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-30-2003 20:50: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

For the life of me, I have never understood comments like Troy's.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There are many problems pertaining to cattle prices, There are many problems pertaining to cattle prices, welfare ranchers are not one of them. The monopoly of the big three meat packing companies, and the free trade agreement are the problem.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never been able to understand how ranchers hate their customers ("the big three... are the problem"), and defend their lowest cost competitors ("welfare ranchers are not one the problems").

That comment is one of the most mixed up comments I can imagine.

Our family would LOVE to see the Welfare Ranchers out of business, as they are the low cost, inefficient operators, who can bring cattle into the market at lower costs, as they have both hands, and their wallets, held out to the welfare trough.

I can think of no other industry, other than AG, where the participants bad mouth their customers (the Packers), and defend the guy that is taking money out of their wallet, by selling at less than 'free market prices'.

How any one who raises cattle on private grounds can defend Welfare Ranchers is amazing to me. How any one who hunts public ground, or just wants to know it is there, can defend Welfare Ranchers is amazing to me.

 

[Ithaca 37]

I wish I knew why they do it (defend welfare ranchers). I think it's just a knee jerk reaction to defend all ranchers whenever they perceive criticism of any kind of ranching. Either that, or they're so incredibly obtuse they don't even understand the economics of the businees they're in. Sometimes I think it's because many of them are brought up in a fairly closed culture reading the kinda stuff we see quoted here in SI frequently giving the most unbelievably emotional and biased accounts of any issue pertaining to ranching or wildlife. I think many of them actually believe this kinda crap!:

"In recent years, a softer society, far removed from the land, has unwittingly stood idle as nihilist wildlife devotees, championed by politically-correct appointees on federal regulatory boards, have succeeded in reintroducing the wolf scourge."

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply&f=31&t=001425

Maybe they grow up reading shit like that and actually think it is factual reporting!

 

[Washington Hunter]

I think it's rather obvious that Troy really needs to take an Economics 101 course. Troy, are there any community colleges in your area that may offer a course like that? Possibly they may have one you could do by correspondence if the college is too far to commute to every day. I think it would help you a lot.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-30-2003 22:31: Message edited by: Washington Hunter ]</font>

 

[Lostagain]

Myself and Troy are NOT defending the ag folks that are raping the land, or using the handouts, We are mostly really upset by the people that refer to all ag people as welfare ranchers. Wouldn't you all be upset if you weren't referred to as hunters or sportsmen but as killers and poachers?

As for the cheap deisel....so those folks that heat their homes with that same fuel are welfared too uh?

What's really killing the beef markets in USA is mostly just progress. Progress in developing countries able to export their commodities. Progress in the transporting, etc. The consumers in the usa want a decent product for lowest cost. The Associated costs in the US are high compared to those costs in other countries, hell, even in different parts of this country.

Back to few days ago...... BuzzH wanted some places without human pillaging as a control group to measure our success/failure at our attempts to manage our lands. Good. We do need those, and they do have value as such. The only disagreement then is how much of the land or remaining untouched land should be included, and in addition there should be some land that is totally untouched, that is NO access whatsoever by people.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-31-2003 12:35: Message edited by: Lostagain ]</font>

 

[1_pointer]

If there is NO access how are we to monitor what is going on? Satellites are getting better, but they are not capable of that yet. There is no place on this planet that is unaffected by man. Too many things are carried in the atmosphere for there to be a 'true' control area. Couple that with differences in sites and may not be a sound design (replication in time and space). On the other hand, if this is the best we can do then we should do it. Some decent information is better than none at all.

I think a better plan would be to have areas within used places to be able to monitor different degrees of use.