Welfare ranchers don`t like Wyoming`s Wolf Plan

[1_pointer]

As long as the 'tree hugger' meets the requirements of holding a grazing permit they're good to go. That is one of the reasons that the time period for taking non-use has been extended from 3yrs to 5yrs in the new grazing regs that were, for the most part, implemented this past Aug. IIRC the precendent setting case was in So. Utah and involved the Grand Canyon Trust. Also, there is very little if any pressure from those in charge to actually take action on a permit if the permittee, regardless of who they are, has been in non-use for more than the allotted time periods.

The two main problems many groups have faced in buying out permits are; 1. that they did not have base property/water which is a requirement of holding a permit and 2. they wanted the permit retired. Retireing a permit or closing an allotment requires a land use planning decision, which is a sticky and costly process, as I'm sure you are aware. Also, by having to close an allotment/permit by decision allows those opposed to the decision to exercise the protest/appeal process. Yes, pro-grazing folks and even ranchers can use this process to appeal decisions that would close areas to grazing.

This issue also begs the question of how much use has to be made to keep one's grazing preference? I'm not sure if this issue has been settled by regulation or the courts, but will find out.

 

[BuzzH]

Middleton,

You're either real stupid or you're a liar...I think a liar.

Middleton said, "we had been told that inside the park and the wilderness they could be big game and outside that area they could be a predator its the fws that is holding it up."

Really?

Could you please find the reference in the EIS where the FWS said WY could classify wolves as predators or big-game and where they could classify each.

I also dont believe your friend had a house illegally plowed up by the F.S. If such a case happened, I'm sure you could provide some sort of proof? I bet you post nothing but more redneck crazy talk.

Good luck.

Pointer,

You're saying that its totally legal for trout unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, Ted Turner, etc. to bid on federal leases...obtain the lease and then never graze it?

I sure hope you're right, but me thinks it isnt true.

 

[Ithaca 37]

You're saying that its totally legal for trout unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, Ted Turner, etc. to bid on federal leases...obtain the lease and then never graze it?

Don't forget John Marvel!

cmiddleton, Have you ever thought about how much damage you do when you spread misinformation? Most of what you say is nothing but redneck bar talk. Why would anyone with a brain want to spread that kind of BS? It's time to start posting some links to articles that will back up what you're saying, or at least do some copying and pasting of something to prove you're not making stuff up.

You said,

What closed the US steel mine out of lander?

I'm curious. Exactly what did close it?

 

[cmiddleton]

look it up it happened in Oregon and my uncle was blocked out in Idaho.
guess you never heard of Rubie ridge or Waco both of theses are from the same time period. i bet others have some run ins from that time too.
check Oregon's court cases i know it happened and jack and his wife and five kids were left living in a 16' camper and tent.
they made sure they bulldozed over everything in the house too.
i got a Christmas card from his mom and she told me they moved back to town this year. jack and his wife split up and he has the kids.
she said that jacks new girl is like Jane trying to modernize Tarzan.
his name is Jack Strubel I'm sure you guys who like searching the net could find the court case. like you say its imposable for someone to beat the government. yep i ran with him in school and he is the most woods wise man i ever met. I followed my dad in work he followed his heart and became a real mountain man/prospector a life a lot of us only wish we could live for a year he did for 20 yrs. he almost got his kids raised in that lifestyle too. his boys are 16, 14, 12. his wife got the girls but one was 18 the other was 20 they lived their lives in the mountains.
Clinton gore closed the mine that's what all the wilderness they designated did drove a lot of folks out of work. i don't mind wilderness but existing operations should have been grandfathered in. I'm not sure what they did to make it close but the locals in lander said it was due to the same legislation that designated all the new wilderness.
yep I'm redneck don't feel anything is wrong with that. I'd rather be a long haired country boy than you city raised wanna be country boy. thinking you one week a year hunting trip make you guys some kind of expert. i was raised on ranches and spent more time improving the range and wildlife than most. why would we ever over graze anything this is our livelihood. I see some land that's overgrazed but that is not the normal ranching operations or we would all be starving by now. the pasture that i think is over grazed where i hunt coyotes and deer sheds is not over grazed buy the rancher but buy the rabbit population yes he did take all stock out of the pasture but tell we have the rabbit die off it is not going to help. we have shot hundreds of jacks without making a dent in the population and there in nothing we can do about the cottontails. yes I'm letting the coyotes alone out there but will shoot every jack i see. it takes three jack rabbits to eat the same as one sheep that comes from a UW report so they have one sheep grazing for every 50' sq ft. and the cottontails are thicker than that.
he has one pasture of 4500 acres with 2 fillies and a colt in it he had to move them due to lack of feed. You can't blame the ranchers for a drought they are suffering threw it just like the wildlife
yes I'm a redneck but i haven't been in a bar for over 20 yrs. i do drink a drink sometimes when the wife and i go out to dinner last year i drank two Jim beam and cokes and one beer none of them the same night or month even. i guess you can say I'm the soberest redneck around.
last time i remember going to the bar i was 23 yrs old. Woke up the next morning engaged that a hangover i never got over. Don't care to do that again

 

[1_pointer]

You're saying that its totally legal for trout unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, Ted Turner, etc. to bid on federal leases...obtain the lease and then never graze it?

Don't know about the USFS, but BLM permits do not come up for bid, as in an auction type of scenario. State leases in UT/ID do. The two easiest ways to get a BLM permit are through transfer or purchase of the base property. Transfer of a permit from one entity to the other occurs quite often. I don't know the particulars on what goes on as far as money between the two parties, but do know that the transfer part is pretty much a paper excercise for the BLM and is pretty straightfoward. Through signed documents Party A aggrees to transfer all or part of their grazing preference to Party B. The BLM fills out a few papers, changes some things on a billiing program and that's it. However, to hold a permit Party B still has to meet the requirements of holding the permit; mostly base property. The other way to obtain a permit is to buy/lease the base property tied to that permit. Same process as above.

As far as not using a permit, non-use can be taken for 5 years with no impact to ones ability to retain that permit. Action can be taken on that permit after that five years, but I have not heard of that happening yet. The allotment is still open to grazing, but not getting grazed. However, after that five years of non-use the BLM can then allow others to utilize those AUM's if they are applied for. The sticky part becomes, what is considered using a permit? I don't know if the regulations or courts have made that determination yet, but will find out.

So, yes if someone obtains a permit they can choose not to use that permit for 5 years with no repurcussions. After that time period it gets a bit murkier.

Clear as mud?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Middleton,
Is it this Jack Strubel, the one that got fined by the state of Oregon for illegal discharge from a Gold mine?

May 10
Jack Strubel
Merlin, Or
Illegal discharge of wastes from a placer gold mine
fined $3,000

http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplay.asp?docID=459

 

[JoseCuervo]

Don't know about the USFS, but BLM permits do not come up for bid, as in an auction type of scenario. State leases in UT/ID do. The two easiest ways to get a BLM permit are through transfer or purchase of the base property. Transfer of a permit from one entity to the other occurs quite often. I don't know the particulars on what goes on as far as money between the two parties, but do know that the transfer part is pretty much a paper excercise for the BLM and is pretty straightfoward. Through signed documents Party A aggrees to transfer all or part of their grazing preference to Party B. The BLM fills out a few papers, changes some things on a billiing program and that's it. However, to hold a permit Party B still has to meet the requirements of holding the permit; mostly base property. The other way to obtain a permit is to buy/lease the base property tied to that permit. Same process as above.

As far as not using a permit, non-use can be taken for 5 years with no impact to ones ability to retain that permit. Action can be taken on that permit after that five years, but I have not heard of that happening yet. The allotment is still open to grazing, but not getting grazed. However, after that five years of non-use the BLM can then allow others to utilize those AUM's if they are applied for. The sticky part becomes, what is considered using a permit? I don't know if the regulations or courts have made that determination yet, but will find out.

So, yes if someone obtains a permit they can choose not to use that permit for 5 years with no repurcussions. After that time period it gets a bit murkier.

Clear as mud?

1-Ptr,
It is a requirement to have a base property, correct?

 

[1_pointer]

Yep, gotta have base property/water.

 

[Ithaca 37]

cmiddleton, I'm still waiting to hear what caused the US Steel mine to close.

 

[mtmiller]

Don't know about the USFS, but BLM permits do not come up for bid, as in an auction type of scenario.

Actually there are some that do. Fort Meade, SD is one of them. One of my hunting buddies from SD had the lease two or three years ago, and 10 or so years prior, and were paying just over $20/AUM. IIRC, it is a two year permit. They have not had the lease since then. I just gave him a call and it is now about $31/AUM. As a rancher, he just shakes his head when I tell him what the going rate for BLM is around the rest of the country.

I understand so-called "tree-huggers" can get a permit get non-use, but as you stated, they need base property is tied to the permit. My point is the Wilderness Society just can go and start buying out federal leases.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Yep, gotta have base property/water.

So your claim that it could be a "rich treehugger" is, for the most part, pure nonsense. It has to be a person who meets the BLM's qualifications, including owning a base property (not sure the definition, but my perception is that it is a working ranch).

If ranchers really are the best stewards, then they should all want to quit grazing the land, correct?

 

[1_pointer]

Miller-
I am unaware of an buyout program. However, TWS could get permits transferred to them from a permittee, which I assume wouldn't be free. But to keep the permit they need to meet the requirements.

Jose-
Main reason for base property is that the livestock has to have somewhere to go when they are not on the allotment or in case of emergency closures (ie drought, fire, etc). But the main reason for this inclusion into the Taylor Grazing Act was to eliminate tramp herders.

Your last comment assumes that grazing can't be a part of good stewardship. I don't agree with that assumption, so won't answer your question.


Here is the requirements for base property:
Title 43: Public Lands: Interior
PART 4100—GRAZING ADMINISTRATION—EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA
Subpart 4110—Qualifications and Preference


Browse Previous | Browse Next


§ 4110.2-1 Base property.
(a) The authorized officer shall find land or water owned or controlled by an applicant to be base property (see §4100.0–5) if:

(1) It is capable of serving as a base of operation for livestock use of public lands within a grazing district; or

(2) It is contiguous land, or, when no applicant owns or controls contiguous land, noncontiguous land that is capable of being used in conjunction with a livestock operation which would utilize public lands outside a grazing district.

(b) After appropriate consultation, cooperation, and coordination, the authorized officer shall specify the length of time for which land base property shall be capable of supporting authorized livestock during the year, relative to the multiple use management objective of the public lands.

(c) An applicant shall provide a legal description, or plat, of the base property and shall certify to the authorized officer that this base property meets the requirements under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(d) A permittee's or lessee's interest in water previously recognized as base property on public land shall be deemed sufficient in meeting the requirement that the applicant control base property. Where such waters become unusable and are replaced by newly constructed or reconstructed water developments that are the subject of a range improvement permit or cooperative range improvement agreement, the permittee's or lessee's interest in the replacement water shall be deemed sufficient in meeting the requirement that the applicant control base property.

(e) If a permittee or lessee loses ownership or control of all or part of his/her base property, the permit or lease, to the extent it was based upon such lost property, shall terminate immediately without further notice from the authorized officer. However, if, prior to losing ownership or control of the base property, the permittee or lessee requests, in writing, that the permit or lease be extended to the end of the grazing season or grazing year, the termination date may be extended as determined by the authorized officer after consultation with the new owner. When a permit or lease terminates because of a loss of ownership or control of a base property, the grazing preference shall remain with the base property and be available through application and transfer procedures at 43 CFR 4110.2–3, to the new owner or person in control of that base property.

(f) Applicants who own or control base property contiguous to or cornering upon public land outside a grazing district where such public land consists of an isolated or disconnected tract embracing 760 acres or less shall, for a period of 90 days after the tract has been offered for lease, have a preference right to lease the whole tract.

[43 FR 29067, July 5, 1978, as amended at 46 FR 5788, Jan. 19, 1981; 49 FR 6450, Feb. 21, 1984; 53 FR 10233, Mar. 29, 1988; 60 FR 9962, Feb. 22, 1995; 71 FR 39503, July 12, 2006]

 

[cmiddleton]

to graze land every three years is the most beneficial to the wildlife, it take out the old growth and lets higher quality feed come threw the next year. if you look at not grazing at all it can be a detriment by leaving old growth it will choke out new growth. i have seen this when we ran sheep, you graze it the 1st year and the deer and antelope move in when you rotate them out due to easy access to new growth grass the second year they really like that pasture. the third year they will move into the pasture you grazed that year and stay tell the third year. by then you have great grass on the first years pasture and you start the cycle all over again. who needs a biologist to tell you what you have learned by experience.
could be jack, Jose i don't know what started the fuid but i do know what the government did before he had his day in court. a 3000 dollar fine is just a fine they had no right bulldozing his house and belongings. i know he and his kids are the only ones who worked the mine. they did make a living so it must have been a good find. i bet the government starts mining it now. how much discharge could have that been for a whopping 3000 dollar fine. if you ever deal with a DOT audit you have been fined more than that. does not matter how much paper work you keep its never enough for the DOT they will leave with at least their wages every time. hell if we get caught without a safty harness its 250,000 bucks from OHSA.
green river high school the general contractor had their scaffolding set up out side and it didn't make OHSA standards they got a 1 million fine and we got a 250,000 because we didn't make them re do it. they were our boss we were not theirs. when we can get fined that much just because we were there jack might have spilled a 5 gallon bucket of oil to get a 3,000 dollar fine.
drive one of my trucks without a cdl and you could get a 6000 dollar fine.
the charge didn't justify the deed. i would get that big of fine for having a plastic gas can on a mine site or worse a can of pvc glue without a label.

 

[BuzzH]

Middleton, you said, "Clinton gore closed the mine that's what all the wilderness they designated did drove a lot of folks out of work. "

Could you please provide a list of all the Wilderness areas and acreages involved with said wilderness areas that Clinton and Gore designated.

Thanks in advance.

What a clown.

 

[mtmiller]

to graze land every three years is the most beneficial to the wildlife, it take out the old growth and lets higher quality feed come threw the next year. if you look at not grazing at all it can be a detriment by leaving old growth it will choke out new growth. i have seen this when we ran sheep, you graze it the 1st year and the deer and antelope move in when you rotate them out due to easy access to new growth grass the second year they really like that pasture. the third year they will move into the pasture you grazed that year and stay tell the third year. by then you have great grass on the first years pasture and you start the cycle all over again. who needs a biologist to tell you what you have learned by experience.

Sweet, we have two RMS's on this thread. Great grazing strategy you have there middleton. Your expertise in a gamut of disciples is amazing.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Your last comment assumes that grazing can't be a part of good stewardship. I don't agree with that assumption, so won't answer your question.

]

Can you agree that if we didn't have grazing on BLM lands, then our Range Management Scientists could be out on the range, improving it, instead of sitting in court rooms???

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose i don't know what started the fuid but i do know what the government did before he had his day in court. a 3000 dollar fine is just a fine they had no right bulldozing his house and belongings. i know he and his kids are the only ones who worked the mine. they did make a living so it must have been a good find. i bet the government starts mining it now. how much discharge could have that been for a whopping 3000 dollar fine. if you ever deal with a DOT audit you have been fined more than that. does not matter how much paper work you keep its never enough for the DOT they will leave with at least their wages every time. hell if we get caught without a safty harness its 250,000 bucks from OHSA.
green river high school the general contractor had their scaffolding set up out side and it didn't make OHSA standards they got a 1 million fine and we got a 250,000 because we didn't make them re do it. they were our boss we were not theirs. when we can get fined that much just because we were there jack might have spilled a 5 gallon bucket of oil to get a 3,000 dollar fine.
drive one of my trucks without a cdl and you could get a 6000 dollar fine.
the charge didn't justify the deed. i would get that big of fine for having a plastic gas can on a mine site or worse a can of pvc glue without a label.

I am not sure why you think that was the only violation that your buddy had. The little bit of searching I did provided a history and pattern of lawlessness on your buddy's part.

And I am glad you don't think much of a $250k fine. Our government needs the enforcement penalty dollars from people like you in order to fund the enforcement efforts required to keep people like you from getting somebody killed on the jobsite.

Do you have any clue why there are OSHA rules? Do you have any clue why there are CDL licenses?

Dude, I saw in a post earlier that you were bragging about having something to do with Meth, and I believe it.