The Ranching Economy

[Oak]

I went down a rabbit hole this morning searching for something else after reading a post here on HT and found this clearly dated page from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. I found the "Private Lands" section particularly interesting, in that over 20 years ago they were conceding that many ranches must offer paid hunting to stay viable. Clearly, the point being made is that they have an incentive to help maintain healthy game populations, but the other conclusion we can draw is that they need reliable access to licensed hunters. Seems relevant to other recent conversations here.

The Ranching Economy - NCBA

The rural economy of the West is based on sustainable resource-based activities including ranching and, increasingly, wildlife-derived dollars. In 1995, cash receipts from the marketing of cattle in 11 of the western states totaled $7.3 billion (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995). Ranching...

www.ncba.org

 

[MTLabrador]

Interesting and relevant, thanks for sharing.

 

[TOGIE]

but the other conclusion we can draw is that they need reliable access to licensed hunters.

in the meantime it seems clear this is only what they care about.

i know the ranch my friends guide at would be in the red or maybe just barely scraping a profit would it not be for the lodging and guiding they offer. each year they try to book themselves beyond what any reasonable ranch should if they actually wanna provide good service and good hunting. OTC tags are going to be nearly impossible to eliminate when we find ourselves needing to for the sake of herd health.

 

[SFC B]

I am not a huge beef eater to begin with, so I know that colors my view of cattle ranching from the get go. Add to that the huge amount of public subsidy (through grazing/use of public lands, various direct subsidies and receiving big cash through hunting public resources) necessary to allow ranchers to maintain their lifestyle and I admit it rubs me rough in many circumstances. Similar to where I am from (Indiana) with "family" farmers......relying on government subsidies to keep their family traditions intact while our country has huge surplus in the amount of food produced. I understand the attachment to the land, but what other small business that is not viable without such support would we keep throwing money at? I get this is a complex issue for land usage but it seems off kilter to me.

 

[Mountain Man]

I am not a huge beef eater to begin with, so I know that colors my view of cattle ranching from the get go. Add to that the huge amount of public subsidy (through grazing/use of public lands, various direct subsidies and receiving big cash through hunting public resources) necessary to allow ranchers to maintain their lifestyle and I admit it rubs me rough in many circumstances. Similar to where I am from (Indiana) with "family" farmers......relying on government subsidies to keep their family traditions intact while our country has huge surplus in the amount of food produced. I understand the attachment to the land, but what other small business that is not viable without such support would we keep throwing money at? I get this is a complex issue for land usage but it seems off kilter to me.

One thing to consider when it comes to food production is our national security. We have been blessed with many decades free of major world wars, but conceivably this could change in the future. What is a surplus today could turn into critical food production capacity if major war does ever break out again. Once land/people are removed from the production of food it doesn’t typically come back. What might seem excessive now could look very different in the future. My viewpoint of the subsidies is that they are a form of insurance the government is securing to ensure there is adequate food production capacity going forward.

 

[Bambistew]

Funny... I was thinking about something similar in response to ranches going away if cows are no longer on them.

IMO a large portion (I would venture most) of ranches today do not rely on running cattle pay for the land. The ones that do are bought and paid for a generation or more ago, but many of the large ranches are investment opportunities, rather than run as cattle enterprises. Case in point I know the 4 largest ranches in the town I grew up in, are owned by very wealthy individuals. The cows certainly won't make/break the owners finances if they were to get rid of them. You don't invest $10-20M on land to turn a $50-100,000 profit a year from running cows. You'd be stupid to do so. Its bought for the appreciation value of the land, not by why the land can grow/raise.

I know a number of family ranches that take out operating loans to manage the land they own outright, and they're running 350+ head of cows and have FS allotments. Those type operations are getting to be fewer and fewer every year as they sell out to someone who doesn't care if they make money off cows or not. The value of land has far out paced the value of crop/animal that can be raised on it, in many places in the west.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm with @SFC B (except for the little meat part ) , I'm always amazed when the "self-sufficient free-market conservatives" of the west look to govt for subsidizing their industries. The markets will work. That doesn't mean the market guarantees a 4th generation business, but it doesn't guarantee that in any other industry either. Fourth-generation furniture businesses didn't make it in the Carolinas, but we did nothing. A 4th generation grocery store didn't make it in just about any mid-sized town in America but we did nothing. In fact, there are extremely few 4th gen businesses outside of ag in the country at all. Why do we need to turn Ag into a welfare state?

 

[shootbrownelk]

My understanding is that there is a big tax break on property taxes if the ranch is a working cattle ranch. Ranchers who have BLM/State grazing leases would lose them if they didn't run a certain amount of cattle on them. I could be wrong, but that's what I was told by a rancher.

 

[Jwill]

Interesting, thanks Oak! A couple things that jumped out to me...

• Only 20% of Americas beef comes from the 11 western states, about half of those graze on public land.
• 85% of public lands are grazed.
• The USFS and BLM spend twice as much on range management as they bring in in grazing fees.

 

[Busyfarmin]

Being a crop farmer and cattle feeder i have a different look at this then most people on here. I eat beef 6 days a week and am scheduled to work 7 days a week no holidays no sick pay no overtime no benefits. I'm not complaining I enjoy it even on the 30 below mornings. I do think it's quite funny how some of the hardest working people in the country that make one of the things that is essential for like "food" are viewed badly in the publics eye. The reason for the subsidies and farmer welfare is because our government wants cheap food for its people. If you look at the percentage of wages in the United States spent on food compared to the rest of the world it is one of if not the lowest.
My grandpa always said it's been to long since the people in this country have been hungry. Until people get hungry they will just think that food is over priced and farmers are the cause of all the world's troubles.
I am not totally familiar with how subsidies and government leases in the west work and I'm sure people abuse them to make ranching look bad.
Just throwing my .02 cents in what feels like but was not meant to be rant with bad grammar.

 

[Dinkshooter]

OTC tags are going to be nearly impossible to eliminate when we find ourselves needing to for the sake of herd health.

That happened along time ago in Colorado in regards to OTC elk and CPW budget. And it’s not for the sake of herd health.

 

[SFC B]

Being a crop farmer and cattle feeder i have a different look at this then most people on here. I eat beef 6 days a week and am scheduled to work 7 days a week no holidays no sick pay no overtime no benefits. I'm not complaining I enjoy it even on the 30 below mornings. I do think it's quite funny how some of the hardest working people in the country that make one of the things that is essential for like "food" are viewed badly in the publics eye. The reason for the subsidies and farmer welfare is because our government wants cheap food for its people. If you look at the percentage of wages in the United States spent on food compared to the rest of the world it is one of if not the lowest.
My grandpa always said it's been to long since the people in this country have been hungry. Until people get hungry they will just think that food is over priced and farmers are the cause of all the world's troubles.
I am not totally familiar with how subsidies and government leases in the west work and I'm sure people abuse them to make ranching look bad.
Just throwing my .02 cents in what feels like but was not meant to be rant with bad grammar.

While it is important to acknowledge our food security I think that a major reason that people (myself included) get annoyed at those who must take subsidies to make their business viable intermingle that with "tradition", "keeping a way of life" going and an attitude where this somehow makes them/their choice of work/business more noble or necessary than anyone else's. Please don't take this to be a blanket statement but many of us have had similar experiences on a regular basis.

Here is an example. Where my wife is from (Northern IN) the most of the county is owned by +-20 families. None of those families acquired their large tracts of land in this or the last century, all at various stages of the 19th century. Their control of the real estate (and the fact that the tillable land there is VERY productive) has led to incredibly inflated land prices to the tune of $10k/acre+ which has effectively precluded any new large scale land acquisitions by anyone one who might want to farm. The price for land isn't just for tillable acres either since they have cartel-like control of the market, meaning that even those who might just want a few acres to build a house on or even hunt are subjected to the whims of those families. Add to that the pervasive amount subsidies these folks use that we as citizens fund, disproportionately low property taxes along with we as consumers buying their products compounded with the continual "whoa is me my life is so hard" song being sung by landowners sitting on tens of millions worth of land that was inherited and that might give a picture. Oh, and don't forget the money acquired from leasing hunting rights and the ability to shoot deer whenever/however many they see "damaging" their land without the need for even a license.

The model here in the west is different but ends in a similar place. Folks with LOTS of land (tens of thousands of acres) having their business subsidized, enjoying the sole use of those huge tracts, profiting from hunting (another very lucrative form of subsidy) who get incredibly favorable treatment from all forms of government lamenting their troubles. While farmers and ranchers work hard to be successful, there are LOTS of people who work equally as hard doing all kinds of work that could NEVER hope to enjoy some of these benefits.......seeing just how ugly the sausage making process is makes it worse. Perspective on this colors all of our opinions for sure.

 

[rustednuts]

One thing to consider when it comes to food production is our national security. We have been blessed with many decades free of major world wars, but conceivably this could change in the future. What is a surplus today could turn into critical food production capacity if major war does ever break out again. Once land/people are removed from the production of food it doesn’t typically come back. What might seem excessive now could look very different in the future. My viewpoint of the subsidies is that they are a form of insurance the government is securing to ensure there is adequate food production capacity going

The national security points falls apart when you realize most of the corn, soy, and grains grown aren’t for human consumption or require process to make them fit for consumption. I’ve worked on dairy and beef operations and had some fail. We producing more food with less land. Farms need to fail for the sake of the greater good so that those farmers that are actually well managed can make real money and not skimp by on some government controlled price setting or participation trophy subsidy.

 

[Goatshoes]

I went down a rabbit hole this morning searching for something else after reading a post here on HT and found this clearly dated page from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. I found the "Private Lands" section particularly interesting, in that over 20 years ago they were conceding that many ranches must offer paid hunting to stay viable. Clearly, the point being made is that they have an incentive to help maintain healthy game populations, but the other conclusion we can draw is that they need reliable access to licensed hunters. Seems relevant to other recent conversations here.

The Ranching Economy - NCBA

The rural economy of the West is based on sustainable resource-based activities including ranching and, increasingly, wildlife-derived dollars. In 1995, cash receipts from the marketing of cattle in 11 of the western states totaled $7.3 billion (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995). Ranching...

www.ncba.org

Reminds me of Cows Around by Corb Lund.

If your not familiar with it... Corb Lund | "Cows Around" (Live at Red Ants Pants) - YouTube

 

[ART_SKYD]

It is important to note that there are several different forms of agriculture (crops, beef, dairy, etc.) as well as many forms of subsidies. I can only speak to dairy specifically but very little come in the form of direct payments. Most are assistance in the purchase of “greener” equipment or projects that are lead to climate friendly practices. Most of which become necessity based on political policy, the cost to do these things has become more than most farms can afford. You’ve seen the increase in the price of a new pickup over the last ten years now imagine that percentage increase on a new tractor or new construction. All the while commodity prices the farmer receives do not increase at those same levels. Dairy for example, milk prices are set by the government, a dairyman doesn’t have control over the price he is paid for his milk. Agriculture is a world market, agriculture in America continues to have an increased cost of production while the rest of the world can produce those goods at a fraction of the price. American agriculture is held to some of the safest and cleanest food standards in the world, those come at a cost to the producer, subsidies help to offset a portion of those costs. Any other country that also has high standards is subsidized by the government probably even more so than American ag. As world population continues to grow we have to be able to do more with less all the while land is lost every year to development. We produce using sustainable practices and markets continue to drive those practices to become more efficient every day. Subsidies help drive clean, safe, sustainable and efficient practices. If a farmer doesn’t move his business model in that direction they won’t be in business for much longer even with subsidies.

 

[F250]

I'd rather pay crop and cattle subsidies to farmers growing food and caring for the land, than paying subsidies to the production of windmills, solar panels, and electric cars. The "green stuff" should be a stand alone industry or fail on it's own. Just my opinion.

 

[mdhunter]

There certainly seems to be more people and money than there is land, so I doubt prices will be going down anytime soon.

As for anyone that makes a living which is reliant on a government subsidy...My own advice would be to seriously consider a career change (or be very prepared for it to cease unexpectedly).

 

[MTTW]

A lot of the ranching in Mt today is more of a costume party. They are set up to operate at a loss until sold.

 

[406LIFE]

I appreciate you bringing this up, @Oak Much is said about public lands, especially on this forum (which I would fully expect). Yet, there is a great deal that has to be said about private lands and wildlife management. Simply put, without both, there won't be any wildlife.

I would submit to your original point that ranches don't need hunting to stay viable, but do use the income generated by it to offset the cost incurred by keeping wildlife on their places. I have yet to interact with a rancher who really just wants all wildlife wiped off their operation. I have met many who get frustrated with what a resident elk herd does to feed or the annoyance of whitetails running around like rabbits (and dropping antlers that blow out tractor tires). And so they outfit/guide to keep populations managed and recoup much of what they lose. The alternatives are for them to build fences and keep wildlife out, which longterm would be more financially stable and frankly easier. But again, they want to see wildlife.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Being a crop farmer and cattle feeder i have a different look at this then most people on here. I eat beef 6 days a week and am scheduled to work 7 days a week no holidays no sick pay no overtime no benefits. I'm not complaining I enjoy it even on the 30 below mornings. I do think it's quite funny how some of the hardest working people in the country that make one of the things that is essential for like "food" are viewed badly in the publics eye. The reason for the subsidies and farmer welfare is because our government wants cheap food for its people. If you look at the percentage of wages in the United States spent on food compared to the rest of the world it is one of if not the lowest.
My grandpa always said it's been to long since the people in this country have been hungry. Until people get hungry they will just think that food is over priced and farmers are the cause of all the world's troubles.
I am not totally familiar with how subsidies and government leases in the west work and I'm sure people abuse them to make ranching look bad.
Just throwing my .02 cents in what feels like but was not meant to be rant with bad grammar.

I agree food has never been cheaper - and I add, safer. Farmers need to have a living wage just like anybody else, but I believe free markets better allocate resources to achieve these goals than picking and choosing which farms, which crops and and how to do it from DC. Our dairy pricing regime is a perfect example of why govt needs to resist the urge to “manage”.