Yes,part of the unfunded mandates that Congress has pushed. That & I believe they are scared these days,for good reason.
Private beef out of our public land.
- Thread starter bornintherut
- Start date
Yes,part of the unfunded mandates that Congress has pushed. That & I believe they are scared these days,for good reason.
I have had worse run-ins with outfitters lying to me and telling me I couldn't hunt than the ranchers here. The ranchers have also put a lot of water tanks here that the elk and deer use and thrive on. I have no issues with cattle in the areas I hunt and there are plenty of them.
I know I'd be interested in you elaborating on both those topics.
I think public land grazing in itself is a slow dying industry. Everyone wants to be a cowboy until they see the paycheck. Regulation compliance is hard, future generations want different lives and the economics of public land grazing in dry environments doesn’t work. It’s much easier to raise cattle in Missouri with a higher animals per acre with easy access to the animals. Without government subsidies, it’d already be dead.
The land did fine before livestock and will do fine without livestock again.
The land did fine before livestock and will do fine without livestock again.
Handlebar
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 303
The land did fine before livestock and will do fine without livestock again.[/QUOTE]
Ah.. The Pristine Paradigm
Ah.. The Pristine Paradigm
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
In areas with abundant grasses but limited water (desert) it's often hard to keep cattle out of riparian areas. Even if tanks are available they often prefer a cool lush stream bank with a few trees than a tank in the desert. As you can imagine it takes a lot of work to repetidly push them off all summer. Some are to lazy to do it some are to busy. Others do a darn good job.
I personally could do without any grazing but when done correctly I'm ok with it.
My biggest complaint is the cost/burden to the American people.
We should not be paying higher taxes to make up the deficit created by holding AUM's artificially low. The price to graze on public land should be higher. the price of beef should be higher.
People around the world are eating tbones on the back of the American taxpayer.
I have friends who ranch on public lands and friends who ranch exclusively on private land anyone care to take a guess at which ones are economically disadvantaged?
Let the people who buy beef pay for the cost of raising beef!
I respectfully disagree. MT has domestic bison herds in almost every county and I can think of no fewer than 4 large bison ranches that have wildlife friendly fencing which allows for deer, pronghorn & elk to move freely. You don't need 10 foot tall mesh panels to keep bison in a pasture. You need feed, space and a few thousand volts.
Rancho Loco
Well-known member
Cows, Not Condos.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
The American Prairie Reserve fences in Bison with wildlife friendly fence, and they claim it works.
https://www.americanprairie.org/project/fences
https://www.americanprairie.org/project/fences
PrairieHunter
Well-known member
There are plenty of profitable ranches in Wyoming and other surrounding states that do not rely on government subsidized grazing to make a profit.
Some are better than others, which leads to failed ranches being sold to those who are successful and we end up with these massive 100k acre ranches.
Rest assured the owners of those ranches are worth millions and millions even though they may not appear to be wealthy.
These folks are a perfect example of wealthy Wyoming ranchers (worth over 100 million $ in property and cattle) who are adding thousands of acres per year to their holdings and are over 150k acres last time I looked.
http://www.westernfarmerstockman.com/business/wyoming-ranchers-add-holdings
bobbydean
Well-known member
In many areas, the only reason that wildlife have water is that ranchers supply it to their cattle or sheep. Wildlife depend on that water.
one ate E grain
Active member
Bornintherut (BOIR) and others there are other less concrete reasons to appreciate ranchers of public land.
It's well understood that without the grazing allotments that adjoin private landholdings, established way back when, most ranches wouldn't be viable. Ranching has become less and less profitable in the Rocky Mountain west and many ranchers are leaving, selling out as was mentioned to developers and land becomes ranchettes. Ranchers are usually the only people still living on vast miles of land, as such they are a vital source of stewardship just by the nature of their existence just as we hunters become stewards of the land we walk and come to know well. In the case of ranchers "institutional knowledge" stretches back two, three, or more generations. Someone whose parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents lived on and gained sustenance from a valley or hillside have a deep and emotional attachment to that land.
I like ranchers. They are good people. They are rural.
That said it's time for a change. Through the luck of birth many ranchers hold valuable lands. Good luck to them, I'm happy for their good fortune. It's the public lands that we all own that I want. I want access to every single piece of public lands. No more de-facto privatization via inholdings. There needs to be vehicular access from the closest public road. It's my land and I've a use for it. In exchange I'm willing to pay for the great upkeep ranchers do. All those irrigation tanks and constructive use of ungulates to enhance the land is valuable to me as well as to ranchers. Carbon can be sequestered in soil via healthy turf and grass, land can support far greater diversity of species if constructively used by ranchers and even the timber industry. Raise my taxes, I'm willing to pay for increased budget for BLM (get rid of the dang feral horses first) and Forest Service.
And than there's the other Ranchers. I've no use for hobbyists. The ones who use ranches as a write off via conservation easements for capital gains in the stock market. The folks with multi million, or even hundreds of millions in income, for whom a ranch is a great place to invite friends for a couple weeks in the summer, a private Yellowstone National Park. An alternative to the house in Boca Raton, Luang Prabang, or an entire island somewhere. The amateur conservationists who either keep me off my public lands entirely or only allow me extremely limited access via a draw in my state called ranching for wildlife. The folks who keep a couple thousand head of cattle and associated wranglers and cowboys for local color and to keep control of a community by being one of the largest employers. Like Three Forks where a certain self guided TV hunter attempted to helicopter in to hunt on a public land inholding but was refused permission to film via the district manager for CO Parks and Wildlife. There are many more of these ranches across the west. Tens of thousands of acres and bigger, ranching isn't their source of income, nor is it their raison d'etre, access is, access to public lands that only comes via the rest of us being locked out, and as that High Lonesome fella bragged, at four figures per day, it's just like a fee for a National Park, but higher.
England dealt with their large estates by an extremely high inheritance tax after WWI, it's that or as they did in France, they forced the wealthy to split up the estates or lose their heads. We need to do something before we get to the point of storming the Bastille, we need land reform and wealth reform. If land is not producing lots of something, at least it should be used for recreation by all, especially if it's our land.
End of commie rant.
It's well understood that without the grazing allotments that adjoin private landholdings, established way back when, most ranches wouldn't be viable. Ranching has become less and less profitable in the Rocky Mountain west and many ranchers are leaving, selling out as was mentioned to developers and land becomes ranchettes. Ranchers are usually the only people still living on vast miles of land, as such they are a vital source of stewardship just by the nature of their existence just as we hunters become stewards of the land we walk and come to know well. In the case of ranchers "institutional knowledge" stretches back two, three, or more generations. Someone whose parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents lived on and gained sustenance from a valley or hillside have a deep and emotional attachment to that land.
I like ranchers. They are good people. They are rural.
That said it's time for a change. Through the luck of birth many ranchers hold valuable lands. Good luck to them, I'm happy for their good fortune. It's the public lands that we all own that I want. I want access to every single piece of public lands. No more de-facto privatization via inholdings. There needs to be vehicular access from the closest public road. It's my land and I've a use for it. In exchange I'm willing to pay for the great upkeep ranchers do. All those irrigation tanks and constructive use of ungulates to enhance the land is valuable to me as well as to ranchers. Carbon can be sequestered in soil via healthy turf and grass, land can support far greater diversity of species if constructively used by ranchers and even the timber industry. Raise my taxes, I'm willing to pay for increased budget for BLM (get rid of the dang feral horses first) and Forest Service.
And than there's the other Ranchers. I've no use for hobbyists. The ones who use ranches as a write off via conservation easements for capital gains in the stock market. The folks with multi million, or even hundreds of millions in income, for whom a ranch is a great place to invite friends for a couple weeks in the summer, a private Yellowstone National Park. An alternative to the house in Boca Raton, Luang Prabang, or an entire island somewhere. The amateur conservationists who either keep me off my public lands entirely or only allow me extremely limited access via a draw in my state called ranching for wildlife. The folks who keep a couple thousand head of cattle and associated wranglers and cowboys for local color and to keep control of a community by being one of the largest employers. Like Three Forks where a certain self guided TV hunter attempted to helicopter in to hunt on a public land inholding but was refused permission to film via the district manager for CO Parks and Wildlife. There are many more of these ranches across the west. Tens of thousands of acres and bigger, ranching isn't their source of income, nor is it their raison d'etre, access is, access to public lands that only comes via the rest of us being locked out, and as that High Lonesome fella bragged, at four figures per day, it's just like a fee for a National Park, but higher.
England dealt with their large estates by an extremely high inheritance tax after WWI, it's that or as they did in France, they forced the wealthy to split up the estates or lose their heads. We need to do something before we get to the point of storming the Bastille, we need land reform and wealth reform. If land is not producing lots of something, at least it should be used for recreation by all, especially if it's our land.
End of commie rant.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
The Flying D Ranch spanning Gallatin and Madison River drainages employs wildlife friendly fences and has for decades, without any real problems with neighbors.
You may paint a bleak perspective of conservation easements, but that perspective is not necessarily the norm.
If the Flying D was not protected by a conservation easement, you can be assured that one of the most beautiful places on earth would have been gobbled up, developed and strewn with mega million dollar ranchettes sold by one or more of the seven thousand four hundred thirteen or so real estate brokers from the Bozeman area. At its own expense the Flying D nurtures and protects the wildlife, habitat, fisheries and natural open space of the place. Access to the Spanish Peaks Wilderness and hunting on adjacent public lands is undisputed. You may take a dim view of the guy who owns the ranch ... but at least he puts his money where his preservation / conservation mouth is.
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
One thing I've noticed, where there is no cattle grazing, the grass is tall and lush and it is generally FULL of elk.
I think we should work on getting rid of domestic sheep grazing on public lands first though.
I think we should work on getting rid of domestic sheep grazing on public lands first though.
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
The cows vs condos debate is about gone if you ask me, there is a lot of $ out there for people to put their places under conservation easements and still keep the ranch.
Last edited:
Idahoarcheryhunter
Well-known member
Some grazing is good in my opinion, but I am tired of seeing areas that have been absolutely destroyed by cattle i.e. Elk habit, deer etc. I just think we may need to regulate some of it a bit differently is all.
The dept's were understaffed 20 yrs ago. Acreage to cover has not reduced. Scope & duties most surely has increased.
I am not against proper use of our public lands,grazing included. Overgrazing & abuse of permits is not acceptable to me. Same as extraction leaving messes everywhere that we pay to clean up,for the rest of our lives.
To the other statement,the only vehicles I see BLM,USFW,& half the FS is unmarked vehicles.White ,silver,gray,black,maroon trucks & SUV's w/usgov plates,no other markings besides radio antena & lights hidden in grill & along windshield.
You rarely see them in stores,cafes,gas stations anymore here.Just driving on hwy.
Someone asked me where they all live now.
They used to be part of the community.
I'm pretty sure folks in OR getting death threats during Bundy siege has something to do with it. I do know they get them here. If I happen to run into any employees now they are usually in pairs,very wary/guarded & not very friendly if you ask a ? now ....if you see one.
pointingdogsrule
Well-known member
You seem to throw ALL public grazing into the same bucket ….. "the bad bucket". I visit ranchers every spring and fall out west. Don't blame the ranchers.... the government allows the grazing. Talk to the government official who decides the number of cattle allotted per acres. Ask him the condition of the public land... he's the expert. This official keeps the public lands in an acceptable condition... if not then the allotments are cut back next year. This year, because of low rain conditions the public lands in one area were off limits until a later time period. I walk these public lands that the cattle graze and I have no complaints about the condition of the lands. In most cases it's hard to tell that that cattle have even been in these areas.
good luck to all
the dog
good luck to all
the dog
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
<this space left intentionally blank>
Last edited:
Thanks...
Similar threads
