Posted on 01/30/2011 4:07:03 PM PST by jazusamo
The leasing of public lands has been going on for decades. The problem we see now is that to the environmentalists 'public lands' means nobody can use them.
I’m not sure but there’s one whole heckuva lot of USFS and BLM land in OR.
“You have a point but the real purpose of this isn’t to help salmon, its to hurt the ranchers.”
Not only hurt the ranchers, but so the attorneys for environmental groups can get fat at the taxpayers expense under the Equal Access To Justice Act.
Here’s a link to the Treasury Dept. guidelines these attorneys use to get compensated- At our expense!!
SD
You are sadly mistaken regarding the public lands - ranching issue. Cattle producers do pay a rate for grazing albeit less than private lands. However, grazing areas are remote and sorely lacking in improvements. Production costs are subsequently higher.
Additionally, grazing allotments are regulated quite closely to prevent overgrazing. Moreover, they must deal with the exploding feral mustang and burro populations that are our lilly livered politicians refuse to address.
Consider that > 75% of Western US lands are federal “owned”. Many ranchers own small deeded properties adjacent to public lands be it BLM, Forest service, grasslands or what have you. Without cattle grazing, existing lands would be over grown with brush over time.. Post climax plant communities.
The day is coming when we will rely on beef mostly produced in South America.
MFO
I used to go out there a lot as a kid. There is nothing out there but sky. The Feds should just leave them the hell alone. More proof that we need to hit a reset button on a lot of issues in the USA once we get our country back.
“I am not anti-rancher or anti-cattlemen. But a person who can’t run their operation profitably without using public lands, well, they had better change what they’re doing.”
Give me a minute to clean up the beer on my keyboard.
You, sir, are a cretin. Most of those ranchers have been
ranching there for a hundred years and during those years, have been practicing conservation principles before the world “environmentalist” was even coined. Doesn’t it seem strange, that all of a sudden, after decades of taking care of their range, that someone stands up and starts screaming about the fish? Did the fish just suddenly decline after
100 years of ranching?
Get a good NF or BLM map and look at the government owned
land vs the privately held land up in the Blue Mountains.
The privately held land is scattered into small islands,
totally surrounded by fed and state land that has been
leased to these ranchers for decades. A lot of these ranches were operating before statehood, and yet, over the
years, the feds have been slowly squeezing the ranchers
with arbitrary and capricious rulings that are the result
of political pressure from city and urban dudes that wouldn’t know what a cow unit was in the field.
Top of my list is the BLM and F&G, with their heavy handed
ruling, based on who knows what, about what the ranchers can or cannot do.
You seem like a good case for SSS.
Just picturing that makes me laugh
FYI: SSS stands for Sears Service Sucks.
“If I’m recalling correctly, Oregon has the most Federally owned land of all States.”
Nevada is king.
Amen! It’s beautiful country and suited to ranching, hunting and recreational activities but enviros want it shut down. To he** with them!
Great post, you said it better than I ever could. In high desert areas there’ll be a section, or half section that’s private surrounded bu BLM, same in USFS areas and it’s that way for miles in every direction.
“I am not anti-rancher or anti-cattlemen. But a person who can’t run their operation profitably without using public lands, well, they had better change what they’re doing.”
___________
I also doin’t understand why any enterprise counts on public handouts, including use of public lands. I know in the southeast it is common for the feds (largely Forest Service) to do land swaps and sales so private owners can connect fragmented parcels.
Well said.
Not handouts.
Ranchers and sheep herders pay rent plus other in-kind services as required in the lease-—grazing allotment.
Federal Lands in the US
http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343
1.Nevada 84.5%
2.Alaska 69.1%
3.Utah 57.4%
4.Oregon 53.1%
5.Idaho 50.2%
6.Arizona 48.1%
7.California 45.3%
Let me tell you a story.
There is a farm near where I live (southwest Washington State). This farm, about 20 miles west of Toledo, grows high quality alfalfa hay on 389 acres, all highly prized by dairyman. This hay is sold before it is even baled. This farm sold (not to developers - it is zoned agricultural only) this past week for one and half million dollars.
The owner of the 900 acre ranch in the article owns 450 head of cattle. An individual bovine usually requires 7 acres grazing to survive and this rancher has only two acres for each animal. In addition, he is growing hay and must graze his cattle somewhere else so he can make money, and relies on the Federal Government for grazing land.
Anyone could tell this is a business plan in trouble.
I don’t know what the quality of the hay he bales and sells is, but if he improved the quality he could make more money using less acreage. As for his cattle, selling much of his stock and only keeping what he can support on his land will not make him a potful of money, but independent of the Feds.
Things are tight for everyone right now. This rancher must, if he wants to survive, adjust to the times.
And don’t call me names. It can get you thrown off of Free Republic.
I’m not ignorant of the past practices of grazing on Federal lands in the NW.
It used to be almost all the West had open grazing, but that disappeared. So will grazing on Federal lands.
My reason for making the comments I have is that ranchers will have to change.
I think the Congress needs to sell some of that Federal land to reduce the National Debt, don’t you?
Wrong. Ranchers lease the land, it's not given to them. They also make improvements like water holes, guzzlers, maintain fencing and truck water to their livestock in dry years which also benefits wildlife. The land we're talking about is not lush green pastures, for the most part it's dry harsh land that only a few types of grass can grow due to harsh winters, dry summers and fertility of that land.
Thanks for the ping, George.
Do you REALLY think they are “handouts”?
Well, if they change it means the ranches they now have will no longer be ranches. You can’t compare land here in SW WA to land in Eastern OR, WA, ID, etc. Over there it’s high desert and low mountains. See my post 38.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.