# Tensions between rural ranchers and our elk



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

After last nights meeting, I must say, it worries me a little. You had the same ranchers who went to the state meeting, and who were the ranchers that signed a letter to the BLM and Forest Service stating they were done listening to them and "aren't taking another cut permit on those mountains". The hostility towards the BLM and Forest Service is just beyond the point of frustration and has morphed into a complete emboldened rebellion from the two agencies. They are at this point, an enemy. The DWR last night got plenty of hostility as well, and it seems to me the situation between the DWR and these same individuals is heading towards the same relationship they have with the BLM and Forest Service. Listening to the same statements I heard a year ago at the state meeting, even after hundreds upon hundreds of additional tags were approved because of these individuals is as frustrating as it gets.

Vance made it clear they flew all the units and they are currently under objective. He said the Monroe herd has been cut back quite significantly, and despite the DWR meeting decent numbers and trying to deal with depredation pretty heavily down here, these men are still just as hostile and uncompromising as ever. Their deep hate of the elk is probably because over the past few decades the Forest Service has cut grazing permits to allow for more elk. And yes we do have more elk, there is only so much that can be pulled from one resource. As I stated in another thread as one guy was leaving I heard him tell another guy "we ought to just start shooting the sons a *****, that's what we ought to start doing." I honestly don't believe these ranchers which numbers 20-30 probably, will be happy until the elk and pronghorn are wiped away and they have free reign on public land with no one to answer to. I also can't imagine being the Forest Service or BLM employee trying to work with them. I can't imagine being the DWR trying to keep them happy. With the criticism I have given the DWR, and with the constant hostility the federal agencies get, next time you see one of their employees out in the woods give them a thank you. They are far under paid for the BS they deal with from every angle. I didn't enjoy the criticism given to our DWR biologists who brought reasonable numbers to strike an even balance. The problem is these ranchers aren't there for reason, they want it there way or the highway, and I hope one of these days they can realize that wildlife have a right to be there, and the public lands they believe they have an entitlement to do not belong to them and they aren't the only decision makers for it.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

It really is a mis-direction of frustration. The cattle business is fading away. It is not profitable to do as a side thing, or even as what some might consider a fairly large ranch operation. Operation costs of just fuel have increased, which hits transportation costs really hard. And local sale of cattle isn't a real option for any significant number of animals. Put differently, only so many friends will buy a beef from you, and the local butcher shop in a small town can only take so many, when every kid in the county has a 4-H steer to sell. So on the bigger markets,you have to compete with the real big corporate beef manufacturing operations in Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida. These are the kind of places that can spread operation costs over hundreds of thousands of animals. And these are also places that can support a dozen cows per acre, instead of grazing them at 1 cow per section. The little guy trying to make a living off his herd of 250 herferds can't make it bank-roll, regardless of subsidized grazing on public lands. Other costs that are not subsidized are just too high. 

Small scale family farming/ranching never was a lucrative business. No one every got rich with a small ranch. But now it is impossible. So in the frustration of doing something that can't be done, the ranchers can accept the situation and get supplemental incomes, which most already have, they can change careers - which most won't, or they can blame others for the problems inherent in the industry they have chosen - blame the Forest Service or BLM. And that seems to be the chosen thing at this point. It's like they are going through the stages of grief over the demise of the ranching industry as it exists in central and southern Utah. Blaming the elk and pronghorn is just one more place to shift responsibility to their own inability to understand the beef manufacturing industry that has taken over cattle ranching. 

The harsh reality of all of it - is that they could kill all the elk, they could put as many cows out on the Forest or BLM lands that they want, and they could not pay a single grazing fee - and things still aren't going to bank roll because they still will not be able to compete with the mega operations of the real cattle states. Not even close.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

No different than small timber towns, that were cut out by the big guys.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I wrote this in the other thread, but it reminds me of the now defunct communist East Germany. When I was in East Germany not long after the wall came down many of the unemployed east Germans were wising the wall never came down. They wanted their jobs back and easy lifestyle...because they couldn't compete with the West. Nevermind that the West offered better products, more efficient ways of doing things, and more luxury. They wanted the old ways and were having a hard time adjusting.

These small time ranchers who have traditionally lived off forest service and BLM land to graze their cattle are inevitably going to have to change and adapt. I don't believe that their way of life is at all sustainable...just like the old East German communism wasn't--there are more efficient ways of producing beef and these small time ranchers are being outcompeted.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Living in Nebraska for a few years really opened up my eyes to the world of beef manufacturing. Everything from the confined feeding operations, finishing lots, REAL grazing lands, on down to national processing operations like Iowa Beef Products, that processes a couple thousand cows every day to ship to Walmarts across the country. Beef production is a manufacturing business these days. It is not a romantic, horse riding fences while the sunsets kind of lifestyle like days gone by. Beef is manufactured, not grown. Cows are produced, not raised. And that is a really tough pill to swallow you are a hard working son of a gun that feels a personal connection to the land, the livestock, and all that goes with it. That can still exist, but not as an economically viable business. 

And yes. As you pointed out, it is EXACTLY like small, localized timber operations. A local post and pole operation in Smallville, Utah might have a place, but there are only so many posts and poles that people need in the local market, and then what? Then you are competing against private timber operations in Georgia, Alabama, and Alaska native corporations that can operate without environmental constraints, in areas that can re-grow entire forests faster than Utah can grow 8 foot christmas trees. So, yea.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I brought up timber because you see the same misplaced anger, and poor SOBs sucked into the proxy wars that are fought over some of these things they just can't even begin to comprehend. I have no doubt that the elk issue is just that, a BS proxy war. That is what some people do when they are not in control of the chaos that is taking them down, they create their own chaos that they are in control of. Even if it will take them down as well, they at least feel like they are control of that descent.

About 17 years ago I was in South West OR, and looking to possibly move there. So I was talking with some locals, and getting the run down on the local economy. A guy in his late 20s/early 30s quipped about how the timber jobs are all gone, so I should not waste my time with the mills(Machining), becaus ethey feds were shutting it all down. One of the old boys jumped in and things got lively. This was at a neighborhood barbecue. He started telling these younger guys that the big timber companies that they thought were saving everything, were just going to cut and run, and were going to be the death nail. He said they would cut up all of "OUR" timber, sell it overseas, and save their own for later. 

All these years later, looking back on it, he was more accurate than anyone could have believed. That mill did close a few years later. It was bought by GP like everything else, and they moved all their milling out of there.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

GaryFish said:


> Living in Nebraska for a few years really opened up my eyes to the world of beef manufacturing. Everything from the confined feeding operations, finishing lots, REAL grazing lands, on down to national processing operations like Iowa Beef Products, that processes a couple thousand cows every day to ship to Walmarts across the country. Beef production is a manufacturing business these days. It is not a romantic, horse riding fences while the sunsets kind of lifestyle like days gone by. Beef is manufactured, not grown. Cows are produced, not raised. And that is a really tough pill to swallow you are a hard working son of a gun that feels a personal connection to the land, the livestock, and all that goes with it. That can still exist, but not as an economically viable business "quote"
> 
> Great post on beef production Gary, I toured 4 plants in Iowa And Neb. a few years ago, and was stunned to see the magnatude of production going on. Beef comes in on a rail,is graded? by USDA dudes who were confusing the heck out of me and I've been doing this for 50 years! Beef is broken down and sent different directions to different machines where the operator puts in how many chuck roasts he wants and how many chuck steaks he needs. It proceeds through the machine and comes out all cut and ready for packaging.(this is the same on all the beef primals), it goes down a conveyer belt to the workers who just pick it up and place it in a package, then it goes to the wrapping machine where it is wrapped and filled with oxygen(they say) and given a 15 day or so shelf life. I will never ever buy prepacked meat as long as I can hold my knife. When I say prepacked I mean processed some other place than the store. Glad I am getting out of the business cause 10 years from now it will all be different-O,- Ya the poor farmer is not getting rich, it is all the big producers,and they are slowly becoming one:!: It won't matter what the farmer is getting from their cattle, the producers will drive the price regardless of what they pay the farmer. Meat business retail used to be fun, not anymore:!:


----------



## surf n' turf (Oct 20, 2008)

http://www.truthandaction.org/utah-sheriff-warns-blm-will-deputize-everyone-arrest-federal-agents/2/

Now we have a genius sheriff who wants to arrest federal agents. this whole thing is going to go over like a fart in church.


----------



## Jmgardner (Sep 17, 2014)

dunkem, not to be a stickler per se, nor get off topic, but you paint a bad picture of the beef industry with some incorrections. 1) chuck cutters get paid more than anyone in the entire plant fab wise. It takes a lot of skill to be a "chuck roller" I can assure you no machine is somehow miraculously cutting your chucks. 2) no meat is packaged and filled with oxygen. that would diminish your shelf life to about 7 days tops, as it would super ramp up microbial growth. if your meat was cut at a particular store, it is likely already 14-21 days old depending on packaging and likely has another 40ish days of shelf life if no gasses were added. what you are aluding to is Modified atmosphere packaging where the package is not gas permeable and the package is filled with CO2 to hamper bacterial growth. it is perfectly healthy and more than triples shelf life, with no negative effects to the meat. 3) was gonna be shelf life, but ive already covered that. yes beef production is PRODUCTION. But it is necessary for today's day and age. very few people buy guns custom, most are factory made. and we still demand safe quality products, and that's what we receive. beef is no different in today's technology driven world. 

as to the original point, I agree with the majority of posters. the small romantic farm is a bygone thought monetarily speaking. our meat lab manager here at school raises 15 ish head of cows for therapy. and then works a real job. that's about how it goes these days.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Ya know these guys won't be Happy until they get the populations down. and the Elk Herds go the way of the Speed Goats out on the Parker Range..They have Screwed that up SOOO bad..Don't know what the Goat Numbers are. I only seen one good Buck all last summer. in 1998 they were everywhere... Someone should b ashamed!!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Old Fudd said:


> Ya know these guys won't be Happy until they get the populations down. and the Elk Herds go the way of the Speed Goats out on the Parker Range..They have Screwed that up SOOO bad..Don't know what the Goat Numbers are. I only seen one good Buck all last summer. in 1998 they were everywhere... Someone should b ashamed!!


Were these "Serengeti" antelope?


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Jmgardner said:


> dunkem, not to be a stickler per se, nor get off topic, but you paint a bad picture of the beef industry with some incorrections. 1) chuck cutters get paid more than anyone in the entire plant fab wise. It takes a lot of skill to be a "chuck roller" I can assure you no machine is somehow miraculously cutting your chucks. 2) no meat is packaged and filled with oxygen. that would diminish your shelf life to about 7 days tops, as it would super ramp up microbial growth. if your meat was cut at a particular store, it is likely already 14-21 days old depending on packaging and likely has another 40ish days of shelf life if no gasses were added. what you are aluding to is Modified atmosphere packaging where the package is not gas permeable and the package is filled with CO2 to hamper bacterial growth. it is perfectly healthy and more than triples shelf life, with no negative effects to the meat. 3) was gonna be shelf life, but ive already covered that. yes beef production is PRODUCTION. But it is necessary for today's day and age. very few people buy guns custom, most are factory made. and we still demand safe quality products, and that's what we receive. beef is no different in today's technology driven world.
> 
> as to the original point, I agree with the majority of posters. the small romantic farm is a bygone thought monetarily speaking. our meat lab manager here at school raises 15 ish head of cows for therapy. and then works a real job. that's about how it goes these days.


Sir I am talking about the plants where the meat is cut for the Wall Marts etc, I watched the primals go through the machines and come out the other end, These were not people, BUT CUTTING MACHINES.(cant remember what they were called). Not talking about breakdown plants where the primals are prepared for shipping and then further processing. You are correct on the co2 part my mistake. And we usually age our meat 14 or more days BEFORE it is cut. Been in a WalMart? Watch the guys put the meat out already cut and packaged from a box delivered to them in gas flushed packages. Ever eat that prepacked burger that comes in gas flushed with 2 weeks on it? UGH!
Ask them to cut something special, hard to do without a bandsaw. In the future you will see less and less beef cut at the store, I've been watching this for 15 years and it is not going to change. And by the way our shelf life on products cut at the store is 4 days, ground beef 1 day. Yes the beef industry is declining and I've got 50 years dedicated to what once was a skilled profession and is now turning into a anybody can stock a shelf kind of thing. I made more managing depts 25 years ago than I can make now.
Off my soap box. SORRY,B ACK TO SUBJECT.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Here's a good article on public land grazing:
http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/privatizing-public-land-start-with-grazing-fees


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

That article brings up some good points and I do agree with the overall sentiment. However, the author made a few mistakes that happens often in the literature on the subject. Citing the $144 million spent to oversee the program is not quite accurate. That number includes a lot of the overhead and other projects that BLM and Forest Service would be doing anyway. When I wrote a paper on this issue last spring, I found that the direct costs of the grazing program were about $50 million. That is still about 3x the amount of revenue brought in and is an egregious waste, but not the 10x figure stated.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> The little guy trying to make a living off his herd of 250 herferds can't make it bank-roll, regardless of subsidized grazing on public lands. Other costs that are not subsidized are just too high.


A private land herd of 250 hereford mother cows, bred to black angus bulls, calving in March would produce $240,000 in revenue with costs of around $120,000 and a net well over $100,000. I don't know about you boys, but a 6 figure income would work fine for me. Oh and last I checked, calves from Utah can be shipped to feed lots in Neb, KS, ID, CO, or almost anywhere. And a Western hereford cross will carcass better than a southern state brahma cross. Or so I'm told.

On a serious note, the whole rural vs urban or local vs not is a mess. In wildlife management, public lands management, taxes, water, etc.... it is a true mess.

Gotta go, my herefords are in the middle of calving-- just wish I had 250.......


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Packout said:


> A private land herd of 250 hereford mother cows, bred to black angus bulls, calving in March would produce $240,000 in revenue with costs of around $120,000 and a net well over $100,000. I don't know about you boys, but a 6 figure income would work fine for me. Oh and last I checked, calves from Utah can be shipped to feed lots in Neb, KS, ID, CO, or almost anywhere. And a Western hereford cross will carcass better than a southern state brahma cross. Or so I'm told.
> 
> On a serious note, the whole rural vs urban or local vs not is a mess. In wildlife management, public lands management, taxes, water, etc.... it is a true mess.
> 
> Gotta go, my herefords are in the middle of calving-- just wish I had 250.......


Heh,heh. Spoken like a true farmer.;-) You then have to figure in the percentage of your cows that don't get pregnant/miscarriages, replacement heifers, calving and neonate mortality, vet bills, the unforeseen, etc,etc,etc,etc.

That said, if one knows what he/she is doing, one can indeed make a go of it. The price of beef is decent right now.

Good luck with your calving season.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Hey, I'm not a farmer. I'm a cattleman. haha And I did include all those costs-- except for replacement heifers. I don't calve 1st calf heifers anymore. I'd stop doing it if I lost more than 2% of my calves each year. 

Thanks for the update on the meeting. It is disconcerting to hear that the few who don't compromise ruin it for the many who do. The Wildlife Board meeting could be very interesting.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Packout said:


> Hey, I'm not a farmer. I'm a cattleman. haha And I did include all those costs-- except for replacement heifers. I don't calve 1st calf heifers anymore. I'd stop doing it if I lost more than 2% of my calves each year.
> 
> Thanks for the update on the meeting. It is disconcerting to hear that the few who don't compromise ruin it for the many who do. The Wildlife Board meeting could be very interesting.


That's why I think it is important for sportsmen to show up, and send emails so the wildlife board has some support from our side.


----------



## Bucksnort (Nov 15, 2007)

I think we as hunters need to realize we need our ranching friends. I get as ticked off as anybody when the cattle trash my favorite spring when I am hunting, but having ranchers around will help hunting better than the alternative. If avrancher goes out of business, he will sell his ranch and pretty soon our beloved public lands are surrounded by ranchettes. Our game animals will have less winter ground and over all it hurts us as hunters. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Bucksnort said:


> I think we as hunters need to realize we need our ranching friends. I get as ticked off as anybody when the cattle trash my favorite spring when I am hunting, but having ranchers around will help hunting better than the alternative. If avrancher goes out of business, he will sell his ranch and pretty soon our beloved public lands are surrounded by ranchettes. Our game animals will have less winter ground and over all it hurts us as hunters.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


This isn't so much about private land, as it is about public grazing permits, federal gov. Oversight, and eventually privatization of public lands.

The chain goes something like this

over objective elk/any good reason the blm can come up with=Grazing permits reduced=unhappy ranchers=strife over current system=push for state/local land management=for sale signs on public land=no more public land.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Packout -- I can guarantee that my extended family that runs cattle in Garfield county is NOT making a 6 figure income!

My father-in-law could see the writing on the wall 16 years ago when he sold the last of his cows. I promise, he doesn't regret getting out of the cattle business.

Now he capitalizes on tourists.

Piute County has so many opportunities for growth.
Their unwillingness to adapt to constant changes will be their demise.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Come on PBH, keep up and deal with reality. We are talking about today. Not 16 years ago. The last 2 years a 500-600 lb calf has been worth $1,000-1,500. 16 years ago the same calf was worth $500-600. Good for him being content with his decision. Glad he is happy-- doesn't mean everyone has to follow the same path. 

Berry has an excellent point. 

Just for the record- I'm not defending the guys in Piute County. I feel that any user of our public lands who is doing illegal activity should be held accountable. Be it a grazer, atv rider, hunter, fisherman, tourist, etc. The grazers and ranchers in the first post are out of control. As are many other issues of rural vs urban.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> Come on PBH, keep up and deal with reality. We are talking about today. Not 16 years ago.


I am keeping up. I am talking about today. My extended family continues to operate a cattle business in Garfield county. I know he (an uncle) is not making 6 figures.

My father-in-law is immediate family. He got out. He got out because grazing was becoming harder and harder -- because public land grazing isn't as easy as it once was.

The facts are that things have changed in these rural areas of Utah. The timber industry is gone. Mining is much more difficult. Cattle ranching is not as profitable as it once was. But things are not all bad! Tourism has grown immensely! Those who are willing to change have taken advantage of the tourism boom and have replaced their cattle / timber / mining income with tourism income. It's just those stubborn few who refuse to adapt that continue to struggle. They refuse to see that the world around them is changing. They want everything to remain how it was 50 years ago. Those who have adapted seem to thrive, while those who haven't seem to complain and fight.

The money is there for the making.


----------



## toymanator (Dec 29, 2010)

There are so many variables to this discussion that it is difficult to formally write out a response here. This has been a healthy discussion however so I want to contribute, I apologize if this gets lengthy. Full disclosure, I own a few personal cows and land. However I don't anticipate ever having my cattle be my main source of income. I do have a number of friends who are ranchers and I support there lifestyle. I don't think the answer is to "kick all the cows off the mountain" I also think it is dangerous when cattlemen feel entitled to the grazing permits and hunters feel a right to an animal. 

That being said, I have never been in a position where my livelihood and family heritage has been in danger because the land that I have grazed my cows on for the last 100 years is worth more today than it was when my family received the grazing rights. And I can't afford to cover that increase. As a man who provides for his family that is a scary thought to have, the inability to provide because the costs of my operations will increase so much that I will be run out of business. So I understand why emotions are high. 

I also think we lose focus of what the real commodity here is. The thing we are fighting over isn't cows vs elk, ranchers vs hunters. The commodity is grass and habitat. Utah's climate is such that grass is not available on the mountain during the winter for either elk or cattle. Therefore both species must migrate to where the grass is available. This is where the conflict arises. 

I think one of the larger issues that we don't often address is education. I think there needs to be more accountability on both sides for education and responsibility. The last thing any rancher wants is for the DWR to tell them how to properly run the cows on the mountain. But if we are focusing on the issue of utilizing the precious resource of grass and habitat there needs to be more discussion and responsibility. I have a friend who was hired on at a ranch just over a year ago. He was hired because of his background in rangeland management. The ranch historically had been operating around 300 mother cows. Through his implementation of what he refers to as "holistic grazing techniques" he has been able to get the production up to 520 head in just over a year. He is currently limited by drinking water but thinks if he can get more water for his cows he can get up to around 800-1,000 cows in the next few years. Through this last year he has been able to almost completely eliminate the need to buy hay for the cattle. This has been possible because the grass has responded to the techniques, he specifically focuses on building the soil, and maintaining the body condition of the cows. The land he was given has not changed or increased, but the way he used the land has. His experience is a real eye opener for me. We all need to learn to adjust to the country that we have been given. 

Through all of this we often get stuck on the number of head per land area (objectives) and don't focus on increasing the objectives. This doesn't happen through the biology of the elk, it happens through horticulture. 

I recently read a book that posed the following question, "There are many historical reports of pristine grasslands and savannahs teeming with large herds of grazers. Areas that come to mind are the Prairies of America, the grasslands of South Africa, the savannas of East Africa and the Steppes of Asia. The most amazing account refers to herds of up to 100 million Springbok (estimated from the width and length of the herd) moving through the arid grasslands of the Karoo of South Africa (now predominantly shrubs) leaving "devastation" in their path. Any thinking person must pose the question: Was this impact responsible for the productive grasslands modern man inherited and is it still necessary today?" Makes you think... 

The Statewide Elk plan does include utilizing livestock to improve Elk habitat. I think some of the disconnect has come from feeling as though one is against the other. Proper management of these resources is essential for continued growth (not decline) in elk objectives. I think there needs to be more awareness from the majority of ranchers in how they utilize the grazing permits. Perhaps they should be incentivized for increasing Elk/wildlife habitat? We all have seen the effect of reckless ranchers who over graze and destroy the habitat. Not all ranchers are like this (although I have dealt with a few who are unreasonable) I appreciate the work that the DWR puts in each year to work together.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Guys have to understand, this is a beef between ranchers and federal agencies tasked with dealing with them. The state agencies have been indirectly drawn in due to the wildlife and working political relationships.

Basically the fed has used the excuse of too many elk to cut the legs out from under the ranchers. Range managers send them to the state agencies to deal with this supposed issue. The reality is, if we were under objective then it would be the drought. Or rabbits, or whatever excuse was needed to continually cut AUM's.

Now it's headed down a path that ends in Nottingham. All public land gone to the highest bidder sold off for its mineral value, or as school trust land.

Can you just for one second imagine the good old boys network that would be set up if the local agencies got management of the land?? The fed sure as heck isn't perfect, but as long as they have the ground, IT WILL NEVER EVER BE PRIVATE.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Of course when it comes down to dealing with cows, or dealing with tourists - Not sure I wouldn't rather deal with cows.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

COWS


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Berry has made me think more about the situation and look at it from a different perspective. That is an interesting way to roll the rural masses into a frenzy. The issue is how do you fight against the vocal minority when they are backed by the decision makers (Politicians)? And the Wildlife Board will have much of the say in the issues pertaining to wildlife, but it won't stop the complaining of those who complained last year and got much of what they wanted. Frustrating state of affairs when the sides are unwilling to work with one another.

PBH- whatever you say. Gotta be the truth I guess, if the rancher you are talking about has less than 250 cows then he is making less money or maybe he is a poor business/cattleman. I know the facts of the business because I live them. No need to argue more about it, I'll let you have the last word as I have to go check on the calves.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

toymanator said:


> There are so many variables to this discussion that it is difficult to formally write out a response here. This has been a healthy discussion however so I want to contribute, I apologize if this gets lengthy. Full disclosure, I own a few personal cows and land. However I don't anticipate ever having my cattle be my main source of income. I do have a number of friends who are ranchers and I support there lifestyle. I don't think the answer is to "kick all the cows off the mountain" I also think it is dangerous when cattlemen feel entitled to the grazing permits and hunters feel a right to an animal.
> 
> That being said, I have never been in a position where my livelihood and family heritage has been in danger because the land that I have grazed my cows on for the last 100 years is worth more today than it was when my family received the grazing rights. And I can't afford to cover that increase. As a man who provides for his family that is a scary thought to have, the inability to provide because the costs of my operations will increase so much that I will be run out of business. So I understand why emotions are high.
> 
> ...


Great post. This is the very thing lacking in wildlife management as well, it is called ecology, and like what your friend has done it is "holistic". Life begets life, and death begets death. You don't come in and poison everything, sterilize the soil, and then attempt to plant a small assortment of what are perceived to be high priority plants, there is allot more to it than that. With in the soil you build the bacteria, fungus, and litter base. These in turn drive your nutrient cycles, along with the animals introducing urea, other chemicals, and oxygen, by turning the soil with their hooves. This oxidation further drives that nutrient cycle through redox potential, creating more life, which in turn, creates more life.

Currently we start with death, and that is what we end up with, death......


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Alright, now that I'm in front of a computer I thought I'd weigh in a little more about what I understand concerning this issue. It's complicated, convoluted, and messy to say the least.

First off, let me state unequivocally, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE RANCHERS. I do sympathize with them, but cannot support them, and will in most cases openly oppose them.

Johnnycake has a better handle on this then I do, so hopefully he can steer me correctly if I've misstated or misunderstood somethings.

Lets start with how we got to where we are. This is why I sympathize with the AG guys. A couple years back we started to hear stories on national TV about the Bundy family in S. Utah/nevada. They were fighting the BLM over some range issues. A bunch of people jumped on the band wagon in open support of this heroic Robin Hood type story. Then the story started to come out. Cliven hadn't been paying his range grazing fee's for quite some time. Owing well over a million dollars if I remember right. He was claiming a previous 'right' to the land based off of prior stewardship that his family had over the land for decades. Range improvements, water shed protection, all were in his reasoning.

This is where it gets really interesting, and VERY muddy. We started to hear/understand that for a considerable amount of time, the Bundy cattle herd had been diminished by the federal government due to quite a few excuses. Drought, animals, range damage, you name it. Heck I even read one story that said too many rabbits had eaten all the grass so they couldn't have as many cows. The same thing is happening to southern and central utah right now. Just the excuse is excess elk. The range managers say go complain to the state agencies that deal with your elk. And bada bing bada boom we have our current RAC and WLB meetings. 

Now this is dirty, low brow federal corruption. It's whats going on in Oregon. Just blatant awful government overreach. It does beg the question why? Why is the fed doing this? They already hold an enormous percentage of the free range in the west, why are they after a few small privately held tracts? Some speculated it was dirty underhanded business by Harry Reid. As much as I'd love to jump on this and throw another liberal under the bus I can't. The truth lies in some ANCIENT legislation called the Taylor Grazing Act. 

If any of you have ever attended a wildlife board meeting, you've heard AG guys citing some 'constitutional right' that they have to graze on public land. Somehow they've managed to connect the TGA with the constitution, I haven't figured this one out quite yet. The essence of the TGA is that it is the legislative protection that blankets all the public land grazers. The problem with it is that the Fed roughly has to spend $3.00 to administer and enforce it for every $1.00 they see in return. Here is the simple reason for them to go after the grazing permits. It's one giant pit that they just toss dollars into.

So that's where we sit. The federal government is sick of dealing with ranchers that are a GIANT drain on tax dollars. They've orchestrated this underhanded plan to just get rid of the problem. The ranchers are entrenched and refuse to come out from under the existing protection they are offered under the TGA. This leaves but one solution for them. It's one they really like. As hunters it's one we CANNOT allow.

As the Bend Oregon occupation drew on longer and longer, the news outlets started to hear that the occupiers wanted the federal government gone. They wanted the land transferred to state and local management agencies. It was a great political atmosphere to push for this. People ARE PISSED OFF at the federal government. It took hold, get the feds out. Now I'd really like this too, if I hadn't noticed these chunks of state land with signs that say School Trust Land FOR SALE. It'd be really cool for the state to have the land, if I hadn't seen these protested land auctions that made the news for selling public land to oil companies for speculation. See the states have this nasty habit of selling land to balance budgets, generate educational funds, and for mineral rights.

To sum it up, the ranchers have a legitimate reason to be PISSED off. But the avenue they are pursuing for a solution is unacceptable to me, and should be unacceptable to any sportsman. If they want to come out from under the TGA and work and push for legislation that gives them a protected future and the federal government some financial reprieve I'll back them 100% no doubt! If they are happy then we get more animals. However, for now, they are on their own, and the harder they push for state management the harder we have to push back.


----------



## SLCHunter (Dec 19, 2013)

berrysblaster said:


> Alright, now that I'm in front of a computer I thought I'd weigh in a little more about what I understand concerning this issue. It's complicated, convoluted, and messy to say the least.
> 
> First off, let me state unequivocally, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE RANCHERS. I do sympathize with them, but cannot support them, and will in most cases openly oppose them.
> ...


I appreciate this explanation, together with other posts ... am learning something here.

What has me so puzzled is _why would the feds not raise the grazing fees to $3 to cover their costs?_ ... that would either balance the range-related budget, or it would make range-management obsolete as cattle-running goes off-range. Or?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

SLCHunter said:


> I appreciate this explanation, together with other posts ... am learning something here.
> 
> What has me so puzzled is _why would the feds not raise the grazing fees to $3 to cover their costs?_ ... that would either balance the range-related budget, or it would make range-management obsolete as cattle-running goes off-range. Or?


The TGA doesn't allow them to raise the grazing permits. This is one of the reasons the AG guys don't want to revisit it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Sure Glad these cow guys aren't trying to live on Social Security..It really sucks..


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Well said berry. Personally, I think the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act needs to be more stringently enforced and public land practices need to be scrutinized under it. This would possibly lead to a reform/repeal of the Taylor Grazing Act as it currently sits. MUSY requires that the Fed agencies manage the lands for, you guessed it, multiple uses--insofar as those uses provide a sustained yield. I think the numbers are cut and dry that without raising the grazing fees, public grazing is not a sustainable program. Were it a privately run industry, it would have gone bankrupt 80 years ago. At a minimum, to satisfy MUSY the fees should raise from $2.11/AUM (they did a 25% increase this year, the largest on record for a single year) to ~$5.00/AUM to "break even". That is I guess sustainable...but more appropriately would be to increase the price of public land leases nearer to comparable private land rates in the region. That would translate to ~$15-22/AUM. Sure, private land could make the arguments of better forage, predator protection, etc. so the public leases should still be less, but not an 80% discount. This is why you hear the term "welfare ranching". The system is broke, AND it causes environmental and ecological damages that are far reaching. Water quality, endangered species, big game/small game conflicts, the list goes on and on. 

Although berry, one thing. If anybody doubts rabbits ability to eliminate forage on a given range, go drive on the parker plateau right now. There are very few areas that are not bare dirt and stripped sage brush--and those areas were in pretty good shape 2 months ago. The tens of thousands of mummified jackrabbits that died by starvation that I found last Saturday painted a very clear picture. Luckily, the deer and the antelope we saw were still managing to find food that was out of the rabbits reach, and were in good shape--we didn't find any winter kill in ~4 miles of hiking.

If you can ranch on private land without your livestock getting loose, or otherwise negatively affecting public resources, then go for it. But if your private animals inflict a very real, tangible harm on a public resource (such as bighorn sheep with pneumonia, or elk/bison with brucellosis, etc) then you should absolutely be held responsible for every penny of the calculable damages--as an economist turned almost-lawyer, trust me, there is an estimated value for everything!


----------

