BLM and Forest Service GRAZING Rates for 2023 have been SET

You can choose your interpretations , but you can't choose your facts. The most cut and dry facts there are in this matter to me are these: $ BLM/USFS spend to run the grazing programs and $ brought in by permits through the program.

No way to look at those and see anything other than a large taxpayer subsidy to a minority of livestock producers.
 
johnnycake said:
You can choose your interpretations , but you can't choose your facts. The most cut and dry facts there are in this matter to me are these: $ BLM/USFS spend to run the grazing programs and $ brought in by permits through the program.

No way to look at those and see anything other than a large taxpayer subsidy to a minority of livestock producers.
Click to expand...
It's true that the government spends ridiculous amounts managing it. Not exactly sure what they do, but they sure spend a ton of money doing it.

Here's a fact- for a couple hundred years it was free to graze on public land. Then the government decided to charge for it in the 1930s. Then, the government being what it is, has managed to turn it into a money losing proposition.

Don't get me wrong, things change over time. I like that there isn't unbridled cattle grazing on public land. Not too concerned about them paying X or Y for it- just that it is reasonably controlled.
 
johnnycake said:
You can choose your interpretations , but you can't choose your facts. The most cut and dry facts there are in this matter to me are these: $ BLM/USFS spend to run the grazing programs and $ brought in by permits through the program.

No way to look at those and see anything other than a large taxpayer subsidy to a minority of livestock producers.
Click to expand...

ALL ag is subsidized. All of it.

That's the fact. Singling out one because you don't like sheep in your secret spot, isn't a fact.

Like I said. If you want ag sold on an unregulated, open market, fine.

But it's not. And like it or not, there are economic realities in rural western states that outweigh you shooting an elk. That's a fact.

And, I'm still waiting.

At what AUM are you ok with grazing?

Because it seems as though, like CBD, you use AUM as a disguise for your desire to eliminate grazing all together.

Show me a single ag product in the US that doesn't have a subsidy tied to it
 
WyoResident said:
I'm not going to be quoting or cut/pasting here but....

Hossblur, obviously, I'm in your head, living rent free :love: and have made you my b!tch
carry on
Click to expand...

Yup.

That's it.

Sorry Keystone exposed you.

Maybe quote Wikipedia next time, really drop knowledge on the people?
 
I'm a cattleman and I ran on USFS allotments for years. I know what it's about and there are some facts most people don't consider.

The prices is cheap, stupid cheap, but it's not as cheap as it appears when you know the pitfalls of doing it by the rules. and that's an issue by itself.

The effect it has on the price of beef is inconsequential. the effect it has on some ranches is life or death.

From a hunters perspective the biggest upside to it is if allotments weren't available the private landowners would graze their own land down harder and be even less tolerant of game in the winter. very fer herds can survive in the northern regions without going on private in the winter. increased conflict with landowners could be devastating for the game far beyond the effects of grazing.

Im my opinion , looking at it more as a hunter than a producer I have always believed the allotments should be put out for bid and managed far better than most are. if you don't like the terms don't bid, or bid accordingly. I do realize this could be devastating for some ranches, but the allotment system has been an entitlement way too long and someday the public is going to demand it's fixed. let's get ahead of it and start by making it a market value program to take the subsidy claim away, because that claim is true.

I believe the public lands can be multiple use as they're required to be, we're just not doing a good job of it and we can do better.
 
Serious question Tog.......lots and lots if not most permit areas are difficult country. Out to bid sounds great but the mother cows almost have to go with the area....for them to actually survive.....I can't imagine cutting a totally new herd loose an a huge permit. Might never see them again.....
 
HikeHunt61 said:
It's true that the government spends ridiculous amounts managing it. Not exactly sure what they do, but they sure spend a ton of money doing it.

Here's a fact- for a couple hundred years it was free to graze on public land. Then the government decided to charge for it in the 1930s. Then, the government being what it is, has managed to turn it into a money losing proposition.

Don't get me wrong, things change over time. I like that there isn't unbridled cattle grazing on public land. Not too concerned about them paying X or Y for it- just that it is reasonably controlled.
Click to expand...
According to ancient rumors and nothing more, on my account, the public, meaning mostly farmers/ranches asked the government to take control, to stop hostilities and over grazing. That when and why the FS and BLM agencies were established. Like so many other programs, it was a good idea at the the time but has since evolved into a mismanaged mess. Our current bickering are evidence it’s not working as well at it should be and the fault is with those who have the control, and we know who that is, as a nation and as local individuals.

Human infrastructure needs a make over.
 
Togwotee said:
I'm a cattleman and I ran on USFS allotments for years. I know what it's about and there are some facts most people don't consider.

The prices is cheap, stupid cheap, but it's not as cheap as it appears when you know the pitfalls of doing it by the rules. and that's an issue by itself.

The effect it has on the price of beef is inconsequential. the effect it has on some ranches is life or death.

From a hunters perspective the biggest upside to it is if allotments weren't available the private landowners would graze their own land down harder and be even less tolerant of game in the winter. very fer herds can survive in the northern regions without going on private in the winter. increased conflict with landowners could be devastating for the game far beyond the effects of grazing.

Im my opinion , looking at it more as a hunter than a producer I have always believed the allotments should be put out for bid and managed far better than most are. if you don't like the terms don't bid, or bid accordingly. I do realize this could be devastating for some ranches, but the allotment system has been an entitlement way too long and someday the public is going to demand it's fixed. let's get ahead of it and start by making it a market value program to take the subsidy claim away, because that claim is true.

I believe the public lands can be multiple use as they're required to be, we're just not doing a good job of it and we can do better.
Click to expand...
I respect this post- so take this response accordingly.

Could bidding have unintended repercussions? One- small ranchers might be put out of business in areas they compete with larger outfits. Two- many areas may go for less than the current price. Especially those areas with few ranchers in proximity. Three- it would add a whole other layer to government regulations to ensure fairness, etc. We all know what that costs. And lastly, I could see some very concerned billionaire(s) strategically bidding on allotments for just a couple years to put ranchers out of business. That last one seems crazy, but there are some super anti-cow folks with serious money.

Just food for thought...
 
NO WAY.......can anyone but bonafide experienced livestock producing companies be allowed to bid....or public land grazing is OVER...forever
 
Homer said:
NO WAY.......can anyone but bonafide experienced livestock producing companies be allowed to bid....or public land grazing is OVER...forever
Click to expand...
Why not? That's the dream.

Let me bid and allocate those AUMs to wildlife for the period of the allotment. Or let a rancher of they are willing to outbid me/whoever. Have the government set the AUMs and the permit period for each allotment then let the market determine a fair price. Set the reserve bid price such that the program will at least break even.
 
johnnycake said:
Why not? That's the dream.

Let me bid and allocate those AUMs to wildlife for the period of the allotment. Or let a rancher of they are willing to outbid me/whoever. Have the government set the AUMs and the permit period for each allotment then let the market determine a fair price. Set the reserve bid price such that the program will at least break even.
Click to expand...
do you have an example of a federal anything that breaks even?
 
johnnycake said:
Why not? That's the dream.

Let me bid and allocate those AUMs to wildlife for the period of the allotment. Or let a rancher of they are willing to outbid me/whoever. Have the government set the AUMs and the permit period for each allotment then let the market determine a fair price. Set the reserve bid price such that the program will at least break even.
Click to expand...

We putting that "break even" rule on all gov?

This is that idea that creates every monopoly, which are always great for consumer.


This is CBD, SUWA, wet dream.

Can't wait for that "market". Then we as hunters can pay that rate for crop damage. Or, more likely, wildlife gets gunned down by ranchers, we can have more depredation hunts because pasture and crop land is far to valuable to let deer eat it.

Hay prices skyrocket, land comes out of crp to grow the new cash crop, and we watch the west further dry up. Conservation easements go away.


But hey. Won't see a cow in the forest?
 
Last edited:
Ranchers go **** up, Bill Gates continues his buying spree.

Beef prices plummet, the rest of the country culls their herds as feed prices skyrocket.

We gain a bunch more wild horses as hay it too expensive.

Rural west collapses, poverty takes hold, drug use skyrockets(same scenario as we've seen in Appalachia), we import lower quality questionably sources meat from 3td would nations, controlled 100% by massive conglomerates like con agra or Chinese owned Smithfield.
 
Homer said:
do you have an example of a federal anything that breaks even?
Click to expand...
As I said, that's the dream.

And if you think there was no game north of the grand canyon before livestock owners "developed water" then you probably need to reread reports from before the tidal wave of Mormons and gold miners brought livestock en masse to the west. Native wildlife did just fine with the naturally occurring water sources before livestock fouled them up requiring mitigation from landowners.

But for livestock, bighorn sheep would be one of the most common western game species.
 
johnnycake said:
As I said, that's the dream.

And if you think there was no game north of the grand canyon before livestock owners "developed water" then you probably need to reread reports from before the tidal wave of Mormons and gold miners brought livestock en masse to the west. Native wildlife did just fine with the naturally occurring water sources before livestock fouled them up requiring mitigation from landowners.

But for livestock, bighorn sheep would be one of the most common western game species.
Click to expand...


Ya, that and the hundred million PEOPLE that live in the west, simply existing kinda played a role.

I guess we could of just market hunted, that went well for wildlife?
 
hossblur said:
Ya, that and the hundred million PEOPLE that live in the west, simply existing kinda played a role
Click to expand...
The bighorn sheep disappeared way before the were millions of people living in the west. But there were millions of mountain maggots brought by the settlers, and it's pretty clear how that plays out for bighorns.
 
johnnycake said:
The bighorn sheep disappeared way before the were millions of people living in the west. But there were millions of mountain maggots brought by the settlers, and it's pretty clear how that plays out for bighorns.
Click to expand...

How did using wildlife as the primary food source work out?
 
hossblur said:
How did using wildlife as the primary food source work out?
Click to expand...
Got any proof for that claim? Trappers sure, but western settlers brought livestock with them and supplemented food with game. Definitely wasn't done well, but for bighorn sheep it was absolutely diseases from livestock that extirpated them from nearly all of the native range.
 
johnnycake said:
Got any proof for that claim? Trappers sure, but western settlers brought livestock with them and supplemented food with game. Definitely wasn't done well, but for bighorn sheep it was absolutely diseases from livestock that extirpated them from nearly all of the native range
Click to expand...

My gawd Johnnycrack.....there would be no west if not for the brave pioneers of the Livestock, extraction, and timber companies....your dream is unreasonable in the real world. Bighorn Sheep are great...they just don't enable successful society.
 
The wildsheep in California were decimated by market hunters....feeding miners...sheep are dumb...they were no match to market hunters
johnnycake said:
Got any proof for that claim? Trappers sure, but western settlers brought livestock with them and supplemented food with game. Definitely wasn't done well, but for bighorn sheep it was absolutely diseases from livestock that extirpated them from nearly all of the native range.
Click to expand...
 
johnnycake said:
Got any proof for that claim? Trappers sure, but western settlers brought livestock with them and supplemented food with game. Definitely wasn't done well, but for bighorn sheep it was absolutely diseases from livestock that extirpated them from nearly all of the native range.
Click to expand...

You mean like Bison near extinction?

Beaver near extinction?

Near extinction of Elk?

Several bird species extinct.


No, other than just EVERY species of wildlife being pushed to the brink to supply food, leather, fur for warmth, etc. I have no proof?

Yes, we heard, bighorn got pneumonia.

Of course your ancestors didn't, they had fur, wool, etc.

And, you don't speak German because of wool growers supplying soldiers with clothing, but yup, bighorns took the brunt.

And for that, we should of course crash the livestock industry for "payback"
 
Or, I guess they should have just gone to Starbucks and Walmart, so as to not hurt the bighorns and all?
 
johnnycake said:
As I said, that's the dream.

And if you think there was no game north of the grand canyon before livestock owners "developed water" then you probably need to reread reports from before the tidal wave of Mormons and gold miners brought livestock en masse to the west. Native wildlife did just fine with the naturally occurring water sources before livestock fouled them up requiring mitigation from landowners.

But for livestock, bighorn sheep would be one of the most common western game species.
Click to expand...
Picked a skull out of a cave when I was 15, lion hunting south of emery, 1200 years old according to the local price city museum. Just confirming what yer preaching.
 
hossblur said:
You mean like Bison near extinction?

Beaver near extinction?

Near extinction of Elk?

Several bird species extinct.


No, other than just EVERY species of wildlife being pushed to the brink to supply food, leather, fur for warmth, etc. I have no proof?

Yes, we heard, bighorn got pneumonia.

Of course your ancestors didn't, they had fur, wool, etc.

And, you don't speak German because of wool growers supplying soldiers with clothing, but yup, bighorns took the brunt.

And for that, we should of course crash the livestock industry for "payback"
Click to expand...
Nice dodge. You claimed that wildlife was used as the "primary food source". That just ain't true, and then you try to prove it by adding other uses for wildlife that were all abusive of the resource...and this is somehow supposed to convince people that they should be ok with/grateful(?) to today's welfare ranchers that require massive subsidy by the taxpayer for the privilege of reducing available resources and degrading habitat for native wildlife.

Now ain't that somethin?
 
johnnycake said:
today's welfare ranchers that require massive subsidy by the taxpayer
Click to expand...
Jcake- there is literally nothing in the USA that doesn't in one way or another owe homage to the government. The regulations, the forced pay, the fees, the whatever. It's just the way it is. The fact our government has the right to force ranchers to pay them so their cattle can eat grass is just one of 1000s of ways.

Not complaining here- but pretending that the cattle ranchers are on welfare more than any other ag group, or the energy industry, or the defense industry, or the millions of government workers, or, or, or- is silly.

You hate cattle in the woods. Honestly, I wish there were less of them myself. But the whole welfare thing is BS. Just a good rationale to destroy what you hate.

Although I'm not a fan of running into a herd of cattle while hunting- those ranchers have been around for centuries. Centuries. It's their way of life. I respect that.
 
WyoResident said:
I'm not going to be quoting or cut/pasting here but....

Hossblur, obviously, I'm in your head, living rent free :love: and have made you my b!tch
carry on
Click to expand...
You are not someone special. hossblur is an ass ? to everyone including me, (but I do agree with him on this one).
Wyoresident you are not nearly in hossblur league.
 
johnnycake said:
Nice dodge. You claimed that wildlife was used as the "primary food source". That just ain't true, and then you try to prove it by adding other uses for wildlife that were all abusive of the resource...and this is somehow supposed to convince people that they should be ok with/grateful(?) to today's welfare ranchers that require massive subsidy by the taxpayer for the privilege of reducing available resources and degrading habitat for native wildlife.

Now ain't that somethin?
Click to expand...

What damn planet did you take history on?

Honest question?

The 49ers came 2 ways.

By boat from around the tip of south America, or overland, OVER THE SIERRA NEVADAS. They DID NOT drive livestock in either example. They ate wildlife, and in some cases, ate each other.

The Mormons, for the most part, walked here, their expenses staked by funds set up.

For the most part they ate jerky and hard tack, and fished or hunted, but few could afford livestock.

It's a silly fantasy to think that wild game could sustain 330 million people, regardless how many bighorns roamed the west.

And, check out how the sheep on AI got pneumonia. It wasn't from grazed domestics.

The revisionist history you spew, "abuse of the resource" is about the most first world garbage I've read, at least since you quoted CBD.

The truth is most folks starved to death or died of disease caused in part by dehydration and malnutrition.

Folks did what they had to do to survive, both white and Indian.


Your idealism is childish. There is ZERO gov agency that "breaks even". All agriculture is subsidized. And pretending ending grazing is a zero sum game is backed by no actual facts.

The group you quote, and apparently walk lockstep with is an enemy to not just livestock producers, but hunters.

They sue the gov to create revenue to sue the gov.

Check out their grizzly and wolf lawsuits.

They are not, honest brokers in public land use.

The more you write, the more obvious it has become that not only do you not understand agriculture and ag BUISNESS, substituting your lack of understanding with garbage "science".

This navel gazing from 200 years ago isn't just silly, it's sad.

You CANNOT FEED THE COUNTRY ON WILDLIFE. At today's levels, or 200 years ago. Call it what you want, but it unsustainable.


Thanks @Keystone. You pegged these two in one post
 
Bidding on allotments, if at all, would require a lot of sideboards before I could see it working effectively. If there are allotments that are over grazed and abused now, and there are….. it’s not a stretch to think there are a lot more allotments would become over graved/abused……….. if a bid winner believes it could be a one term lease, and he would.

If it’s one and done, I’ll just take all I can out of it this year because who knows if I’ll ever run cows here again.

In theory, at least, a allotment owner is investing a significant amount each year in infrastructure on the allotment, to enhance his/her ability to produce maximum pounds of increase on the slaughter cattle and the health and productivity of the mother cows.

Depending on the allotment, there are countless investments that can and should be made by the lesser what would be difficult to justify if there was a possibility that he could loose the lease next time around.

These lesser investment may well be part of the rational for the feds. keeping the AUM at a lower rate than the lesser of a private pasture is paying.

That’s just one reason I think bidding on the AUM/allotment may not be a good idea, in the big picture. I suppose they could chose an area and give it a twenty year trial test, to flush out both positive and negative outcomes.


Regarding the suggestion of purchasing AUM’s and converting them to big game animals………… I believe a hunting conservation group took a run at that…… apparently didn’t work as well as expected.

I can’t speak to the facts but the story was when they purchased the AUMs from the previous owner and told the Feds they were not planning to turn out cattle, and intended to ask the Fish & Game agency to increase the number of the big game mouths on the allotment, for public hunting, the Feds said, “no”.

Further, it’s rumored they said (Feds) these allotment are for domestic live stock, not wildlide. If the owner chooses not to graze domestic live stock, the Federal government will retire your AUMs and reissue new AUMs and offer them to a lesser willing to graze domestic livestock.

Again, apparently, legal opinions were reviewed and it was found the Federal Agency had the right to do what they threatened to do. The result was the hunting conservation group subleased the leases to a ranching operation out of Colorado, who are currently running cattle on the conservation groups AUMs. This has been the situation for over ten years….. as I understand it.

If you are really interested you may be able to get more factual information by calling this Office of the BLM

Henry Mountains Field Station - Utah
Phone: 435-896-1500

There are complexities to these old systems that we never see or understand from an arms length away, like most of us are.

I support AUM price the Agencies and the farming/ranching industry agree to, be it $1.00 or $15.00 more or less. What I care about is responsible sharing of the public owned natural resource, with mining, petroleum, timber, live stock, and sport hunting/recreation. Key word is sharing, sharing in a respectful relationship between the multiple users, without one over ruling another in a significant way. If that relationship cannot be maintained and maintained at a reasonable degree for all or players, the mining, petroleum, timber, live stock, and sport hunting/recreation users are all going to be worse off…….. worse off in a major way. I’ve we over gig anyone of another group, we’re all going to suffer.
 
notdonhunting said:
You are not someone special. hossblur is an ass ? to everyone including me, (but I do agree with him on this one).
Wyoresident you are not nearly in hossblur league.
Click to expand...


I am, especially to dishonest brokers.

Had they just posted CBD says....... about grazing to start with, and not had Keystone exposed them, I'd still be an ass, but at least we'd know where the "info" came from.

Tell the fellas how Gunnison Res and 9 mile have faired as the valley switched from livestock and birds to hay.
 
Homer said:
Serious question Tog.......lots and lots if not most permit areas are difficult country. Out to bid sounds great but the mother cows almost have to go with the area....for them to actually survive.....I can't imagine cutting a totally new herd loose an a huge permit. Might never see them again.....
Click to expand...
A few years ago, a cattlemen that was not from the Sanpete area, purchased a grazing permit for the Manti-La Sal and brought in a herd of cows and calves, and they could not keep them up the mountain. He only lasted a few years and then he sold his permit to a rancher that was local.

The forest service already has rules in place that prevents none cattleowners from purchasing these grazing alotments.
 
Themaddness said:
Picked a skull out of a cave when I was 15, lion hunting south of emery, 1200 years old according to the local price city museum. Just confirming what yer preaching.
Click to expand...
Careful.

The group Johny is so in love with he spews their crap word for word, ain't real fond of cat hunting
 
HikeHunt61 said:
Jcake- there is literally nothing in the USA that doesn't in one way or another owe homage to the government. The regulations, the forced pay, the fees, the whatever. It's just the way it is. The fact our government has the right to force ranchers to pay them so their cattle can eat grass is just one of 1000s of ways.

Not complaining here- but pretending that the cattle ranchers are on welfare more than any other ag group, or the energy industry, or the defense industry, or the millions of government workers, or, or, or- is silly.

You hate cattle in the woods. Honestly, I wish there were less of them myself. But the whole welfare thing is BS. Just a good rationale to destroy what you hate.

Although I'm not a fan of running into a herd of cattle while hunting- those ranchers have been around for centuries. Centuries. It's their way of life. I respect that.
Click to expand...
Oh, I am well aware of that. Doesn't mean I don't equally oppose subsidization of those other industries--just that none of those are the focus topic in this thread. Pointing to other industries being subsidized is just a whataboutism, and not a valid line of reasoning to counter why subsidization of public grazers should continue.

And I'm under no obligation to respect somebody's way of life because that's how they lived for "centuries" (realistically less than 2 centuries).

We allowed various industries to rampantly pollute the air and waterways for roughly as long as ranchers have grazed public lands in the west. That was the way of life that supported many people. Doesn't mean it shouldn't have been required to change--and as a whole we're all better off for it. Will the benefits to society from discontinuing public grazing be as drastic as that from the clean water/air acts? Of course not, but there will be some benefits and the principle holds true as a counter against 'letting people continue to live the lifestyle and earn their living as they have done for a really long time before'.


hoss, there is a ton of information about how livestock was brought west by boat, wagon train, cattle/sheep drives and later rail. You're delusional. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.issuu.com/utah10/docs/uhq_volume57_1989_number4/s/157706

Keep putting the blinders on and shoving your lips so far up the poor, noble cowboy's rectum that you can lick the coffee off his mustache.
 
For anyone interested in the amount of wildlife that was here before the Mormons and miners arrived, read the history from the Jedediah Smiths two trip through Utah, basically following Highway 89 and I-70 south of Richfield, and learn what he and 19 of the best Mountain Men/Trappers found to eat after they left Spanish Fork on their way to Southern California in 1826 and 1827.

Those harder hunters didn’t eat their horses to keep from starving to death because they preferred horse over venison. There was literally nothing but the odd jack rabbit. The Puites and Goshutes were living on mice and locusts for a reason.
 
johnnycake said:
Oh, I am well aware of that. Doesn't mean I don't equally oppose subsidization of those other industries--just that none of those are the focus topic in this thread. Pointing to other industries being subsidized is just a whataboutism, and not a valid line of reasoning to counter why subsidization of public grazers should continue.

And I'm under no obligation to respect somebody's way of life because that's how they lived for "centuries" (realistically less than 2 centuries).

We allowed various industries to rampantly pollute the air and waterways for roughly as long as ranchers have grazed public lands in the west. That was the way of life that supported many people. Doesn't mean it shouldn't have been required to change--and as a whole we're all better off for it. Will the benefits to society from discontinuing public grazing be as drastic as that from the clean water/air acts? Of course not, but there will be some benefits and the principle holds true as a counter against 'letting people continue to live the lifestyle and earn their living as they have done for a really long time before'.


hoss, there is a ton of information about how livestock was brought west by boat, wagon train, cattle/sheep drives and later rail. You're delusional. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.issuu.com/utah10/docs/uhq_volume57_1989_number4/s/157706

Keep putting the blinders on and shoving your lips so far up the poor, noble cowboy's rectum that you can lick the coffee off his mustache.
Click to expand...


Last I checked, hunting provided no benefit to the public at whole, and is defended by us as a way of life for our families.

There is tons of information on how wildlife fared as the primary food source.

Curious.

What do you do for a living?

Where, do you live?(general area)


Ya, it matters, again, you've been such an honest broker so far, quoting CBD literature as your own and all.


Further. My family escaped Missouri at gunpoint, and came west with Brigham, on foot, with little more than clothes.

They then headed to Sanpete the next spring, and lived in rattlesnake caves hiding from Blackfeet for the better part of a year, eating not much, but jackrabbits and kangaroo rats. There's a cemetery west of Ephraim containing whole families proving as much.

What livestock Brigham sent down, which was little, was stolen by Blackfeet, or eaten by grizzly.

That was settlers into Sanpete.

And they had it pretty good compared to the ones in Carbon County, and those further south, who basically slow starved to death.


There was no rail lines into central and south Utah for decades to bring in livestock.


Your historical knowledge of this area, and the Mormons who came, is pretty lacking.

Yup, bighorns got pneumonia. Still do.
 
Last edited:
2lumpy said:
For anyone interested in the amount of wildlife that was here before the Mormons and miners arrived, read the history from the Jedediah Smiths two trip through Utah, basically following Highway 89 and I-70 south of Richfield, and learn what he and 19 of the best Mountain Men/Trappers found to eat after they left Spanish Fork on their way to Southern California in 1826 and 1827.

Those harder hunters didn’t eat their horses to keep from starving to death because they preferred horse over venison. There was literally nothing but the odd jack rabbit. The Puites and Goshutes were living on mice and locusts for a reason.
Click to expand...

Bull. There was swarms of bighorn sheep, EVERYWHERE.

Don't interject fact into Johnny's fantasy
 
johnnycake said:
I don't equally oppose subsidization of those other industries
Click to expand...
You missed an important point- the government puts those industries in positions to be subsidized. Then, of course, everyone can claim they are.

And you are right- you don't have to respect ranching. It's ok to be against it- I'm just calling out the rationale.
 
HikeHunt61 said:
You missed an important point- the government puts those industries in positions to be subsidized. Then, of course, everyone can claim they are.

And you are right- you don't have to respect ranching. It's ok to be against it- I'm just calling out the rationale.
Click to expand...
If you read the complete sentence of mine you quoted you'll see the double negative "Doesn't mean I don't equally oppose..."
 
OK. Just stating that the rationale that they are on welfare is BS. Pure and simple, no crazy logic required.

The government sets up a system to manage something, it costs money, and you want the people being managed by it to pay for it.

Meaning- it's not the ranchers asking for that cost. It's being forced on them. They are not on welfare because the government decides to spend crazy amounts of money on it. Clear enough?
 
HikeHunt61 said:
OK. Just stating that the rationale that they are on welfare is BS. Pure and simple, no crazy logic required.

The government sets up a system to manage something, it costs money, and you want the people being managed by it to pay for it.

Meaning- it's not the ranchers asking for that cost. It's being forced on them. They are not on welfare because the government decides to spend crazy amounts of money on it. Clear enough?
Click to expand...


No.

He doesn't want public land grazing period. The pricing has nothing to do with it, it's just a smokescreen.

The "dream" as he put it, is no livestock on public land, period.


He's been quoting CBD for 2days. They aren't secretive, they have ending grazing in their mission statement and causes statements. They've been suing the FS and BLM to accomplish that for years.

They are anti hunting too, but he's diluted himself into thinking they will stop after grazing.


It's the divide and conquer strategy. Livestock, motors, hunting. Pick one off at a time, roll to the next.
 
Last edited:
You see some interesting things argued about. Groups mainly. Sfw, bha, mdf, rmef, etc. Each has flaws, but thise are outweighed by positives.

I read the tread title and was intrigued. Reading Wyo and Johnny statements however set off alarm bells. I'm reading, on a hunting site, practically word for word material put out by the Center for Biological Diversity.

Now we all disagree on calibers, trucks, beer, etc, but thus is a different animal.

I really can't believe that any hunter, in any forum, for any reason would cite CBD mantras. They are one of, if not the most radical, anti hunting, anti land use org in existence, and here I was reading in a hunting forum their filth, disguised as a taxpayer issue.

More troubling, is even after I pointed out that guys were citing this group, and perhaps weren't aware, Johnny seems to have doubled down, trying to do what CBD does, create smokescreen to divert attention from their actual goal.

I don't know Johnny, I see he isnt a new member, so I'll assume him not a troll.


He should however be ashamed to join causes with CBD. That's just a fact.

There are a handful of organizations, that no hunter should ever find common cause with, PETA, WWF, and CBD. ITS INEXCUSABLE.

I encourage guys to look up CBD, read their mission statements, read their goals, see who their finances come from. It's eyeopening and frightening.

Wyo seems to have quietly retreated, I'm assuming because when confronted with where his info comes from, he realized the error.


Johnny on the other hand, seems pretty proud of his embrace of the CBD goals.


Beware.
 
Keystone said:
You see some interesting things argued about. Groups mainly. Sfw, bha, mdf, rmef, etc. Each has flaws, but thise are outweighed by positives.

I read the tread title and was intrigued. Reading Wyo and Johnny statements however set off alarm bells. I'm reading, on a hunting site, practically word for word material put out by the Center for Biological Diversity.

Now we all disagree on calibers, trucks, beer, etc, but thus is a different animal.

I really can't believe that any hunter, in any forum, for any reason would cite CBD mantras. They are one of, if not the most radical, anti hunting, anti land use org in existence, and here I was reading in a hunting forum their filth, disguised as a taxpayer issue.

More troubling, is even after I pointed out that guys were citing this group, and perhaps weren't aware, Johnny seems to have doubled down, trying to do what CBD does, create smokescreen to divert attention from their actual goal.

I don't know Johnny, I see he isnt a new member, so I'll assume him not a troll.


He should however be ashamed to join causes with CBD. That's just a fact.

There are a handful of organizations, that no hunter should ever find common cause with, PETA, WWF, and CBD. ITS INEXCUSABLE.

I encourage guys to look up CBD, read their mission statements, read their goals, see who their finances come from. It's eyeopening and frightening.

Wyo seems to have quietly retreated, I'm assuming because when confronted with where his info comes from, he realized the error.


Johnny on the other hand, seems pretty proud of his embrace of the CBD goals.


Beware.
Click to expand...
We all have some strange bed fellows.

Good to hear the perspectives from others. Creates a broader understanding. While I’m pretty completely at odds with Johnny on this subject, he hasn’t called me fag or a moron yet,that’s an improvement over some previous discussions…….. in my case anyway.. Course there still time, so it could happen………..
 
I’m all for grazing and wild game. I like options both taste great and most western states you might not get a tag every year. We definitely need to work together hunters and livestock producers cause one thing we both have in common we don’t care for the granola nut jobs.
 
wstrntines said:
I’m all for grazing and wild game. I like options both taste great and most western states you might not get a tag every year. We definitely need to work together hunters and livestock producers cause one thing we both have in common we don’t care for the granola nut jobs.
Click to expand...
Wow, bet that stung a little Homer!
 
Here's the difference, and I have said as much: while in my perfect world there'd be no livestock grazing on public lands (which let's be clear, less than 4% of livestock on the US graze on public lands this is not a crazy pipe dream to shift them to private lands too), I would at least tolerate public land grazing if it went up for auction and the winning bidder could choose how the AUMs are allocated. Which would require changes to the Taylor Grazing Act, as somebody pointed out earlier that this approach has been tried and rejected under the current system.

CBD wouldn't accept public grazing even if the poor cowboy with hoss's lips stuck between his chaps was willing to pay more than about else for those grazing rights.

And while I aspire to be a troll, I haven't ever managed to care to post much here compared to other forums over the years. Hell, I didn't register for an account here until I'd been lurking for at least 6-7 years. Probably started reading here back in the early 2000s. Just wait until I really piss hoss off by advocating for the reintroduction of wolves and grizzlies everywhere across the West. They are cool.
 
Last edited:
WyoResident said:
$1.35 a Month for a Cow & Calf pair (4.5 cents Per Day) on both B.L.M. and USFS lands. Administration costs per month by the BLM & Forest Service average around $8 per pair. Animal Units for Sheep is 7 sheep so....that equals 6/10th of a cent per sheep per day.

Next time you find that your favorite public land fishing hole has cattle standing in it, pizzing and sheeting and stomping down the banks or that vast meadow where you plan to hunt deer or elk has been grazed down to rocks, stumps and strewn with livestock sheet, realize that the grazer holding the lease is allowed to do this to public land for almost free and your government is losing about $8 per animal unit per month
Click to expand...
If it is so cheap you should just go buy out the leases yourself…

Sorry but I have no issue with regulated grazing. Ranchers are often more our friends than our enemies. They develop water sources, provide minerals, and with out them there would be a **** ton more predators.

No place I have ever been are the cattle a limiting factor. Now I will get behind limiting sheep to area without any big horn potential…
 
Good! Predators are a hoot to hunt too!

As for cattle being a limiting factor, read up the Henry Mountains bison management plan. Cattle absolutely are a limiting factor.
 
johnnycake said:
Here's the difference, and I have said as much: while in my perfect world there'd be no livestock grazing on public lands (which let's be clear, less than 4% of livestock on the US graze on public lands this is not a crazy pipe dream to shift them to private lands too), I would at least tolerate public land grazing if it went up for auction and the winning bidder could choose how the AUMs are allocated. Which would require changes to the Taylor Grazing Act, as somebody pointed out earlier that this approach has been tried and rejected under the current system.

CBD wouldn't accept public grazing even if the poor cowboy with hoss's lips stuck between his chaps was willing to pay more than about else for those grazing rights.

And while I aspire to be a troll, I haven't ever managed to care to post much here compared to other forums over the years. Hell, I didn't register for an account here until I'd been lurking for at least 6-7 years. Probably started reading here back in the early 2000s. Just wait until I really piss hoss off by advocating for the reintroduction of wolves and grizzlies everywhere across the West. They are cool.
Click to expand...


Western Watershed.


Funny how shallow his attempts at hide it.

Johnny. Why the smoke?

Your quoting CBD, your quoting Western Watershed. Why try and pretend it's some original thought?

Why not just be honest?

You by definition are a troll. You aren't a hunter, your affiliations with the groups you represent don't allow it. So why not just be an honest broker.


You look silly trying to camouflage your "beliefs".
 
Never claimed it was an original thought. I just have no problem agreeing with a good idea regardless of whatever else the source of that idea might think on other issues.

But the claim that I'm not a hunter is absolutely hilarious. Thanks for the chuckle.
 
2lumpy said:
With respect for your opinion, I simply disagree. I am too old to live long enough to know which of us will prove to be correct, should the powers to be, take that course of action.

When it comes to influence, with public land government policies……. do not under estimate the power of the “Farm Bureau”, on both the Federally and State level.

Big picture, how much longer is coal going to have an influential voice at the table? Oil production? Sportsmen? (Who have hardly a seat at the table already.). Just who the hell is going to justify keeping public land out of the government’s hungry property tax collector’s access. Private property funds GROWING western States public schools/universities, police and fire departments, sewer systems, swimming pools, roads, bridges, etc etc. Western State that are under 50% private, see public lands as NOT contributing their “their fair share” to the State’s operating expenses, who but the “Farm Bureau” is going to hold together Multiple Use……. It dang sure isn’t going to be a bunch of disjointed hunter/sportsmen who general can’t stand to be in the same room together, let along bring forward a cohesive united front to tip the scale in favor of Multiple Use, if multiple use is no longer viable for anything but recreation.

I hope you right, I’d wager your wrong.
Click to expand...
You are spot on. It is stupid to attack anyone user group. The multi use is vital to keeping public access. If you split user groups and force any out, it is only a matter of time before they are all forced out.

As you said better management? Yes we need it, but that does not mean end all the mangment.

Just as one example, who is the only ally we have in keeping the feral horse populations. In check. There is no one else fighting to limit horses and have them removed. Not one other group with the sway and power of the AG community. If you remove the ranchers, there is no doubt that the idiots horse lovers would expand all the HMAs that alone will do far more harm than any rancher…

Push ranchers out, then next they will attack off road recreation, then next will be hunting and shooting, pretty soon all that is left is hiking and even then you might get pushed out…
 
elks96 said:
If it is so cheap you should just go buy out the leases yourself…

Sorry but I have no issue with regulated grazing. Ranchers are often more our friends than our enemies. They develop water sources, provide minerals, and with out them there would be a **** ton more predators.

No place I have ever been are the cattle a limiting factor. Now I will get behind limiting sheep to area without any big horn
Click to expand...

How to Stop Grazing on Public Lands: Buy Out the Permits | Grassroots Network

APRIL 17, 2019by GEORGE WUERTHNERFacebookTwitterRedditEmail Drawing by Nathaniel St. ClairAcross the West, it is well documented that livestock grazing is one of the most destructive land uses on public lands. Some 250 million acres of public lands including those administered by the Forest...
content.sierraclub.org content.sierraclub.org



You have to show a base of support for livestock operation(generally a private ranch)
 
johnnycake said:
Never claimed it was an original thought. I just have no problem agreeing with a good idea regardless of whatever else the source of that idea might think on other issues.

But the claim that I'm not a hunter is absolutely hilarious. Thanks for the chuckle.
Click to expand...
Pictures worth a thousand words
 
Keystone said:
Pictures worth a thousand words
Click to expand...
Kisses
20211009_190701.jpg
 
For those reading.

This isn't an honest thread.

You've been trolled.

Can't figure which group, but it's one of the usual.

Cbd. Western Watershed. Sierra Club. There's a few more minor groups associated, but they are basically the same.

This isnt about taxpayer loss. Or bighorns. Or Mormons or 49ers.

These groups, represented by Johnny, are opposed to multi use land practices, that's their common goal.

They differ only on their area of concentration.

Logging, mining, grazing, hunting, motorized travel.

As a group they know the various interests aren't defeatable. So they work at picking one off at a time, weakening the resistance.

You should believe him, he probably has lurked fir a while. I'm guessing if you search his name, you'll see lots of focus on non hunting, "environmental" threads.

I would also believe him on his wolves and Grizzlies threat. Just ask Colorado.


This entire thread was basically a combination of talking points from the likes of CBD, Sierra club, etc.

Enjo it for what it is, but save some time and just read those groups literature
 
That's the funniest **** I've read in a long time.

Thanks Keystone for making my long time dreams of being considered an MM troll come true!

Enjoy your thinking you are a real "hunter" with the joys of waiting years to draw tags in Utah and occasionally going out for a ride, sorry "hunt", in your SxS a few days a year. I'm very comfortable in the hunting I get out and do.
 
johnnycake said:
That's the funniest **** I've read in a long time.

Thanks Keystone for making my long time dreams of being considered an MM troll come true!

Enjoy your thinking you are a real "hunter" with the joys of waiting years to draw tags in Utah and occasionally going out for a ride, sorry "hunt", in your SxS a few days a year. I'm very comfortable in the hunting I get out and do.
Click to expand...


Here's a tip.

When claiming literature from green antihunting, anti land use orgs as your own thoughts, go deeper than a 1 page google search.

Go a little more off the beaten path than Cbd and Western waWatershed.

Try idausa, or wild earth guardians, they are more clandestine and sexy, will make you look more edgy
 
Keystone said:
Here's a tip.

When claiming literature from green antihunting, anti land use orgs as your own thoughts, go deeper than a 1 page google search.

Go a little more off the beaten path than Cbd and Western waWatershed.

Try idausa, or wild earth guardians, they are more clandestine and sexy, will make you look more edgy
Click to expand...
Oh honey, you couldn't even handle just my tip
 
hossblur said:
Last I checked, hunting provided no benefit to the public at whole, and is defended by us as a way of life for our families.

There is tons of information on how wildlife fared as the primary food source.

Curious.

What do you do for a living?

Where, do you live?(general area)


Ya, it matters, again, you've been such an honest broker so far, quoting CBD literature as your own and all.


Further. My family escaped Missouri at gunpoint, and came west with Brigham, on foot, with little more than clothes.

They then headed to Sanpete the next spring, and lived in rattlesnake caves hiding from Blackfeet for the better part of a year, eating not much, but jackrabbits and kangaroo rats. There's a cemetery west of Ephraim containing whole families proving as much.

What livestock Brigham sent down, which was little, was stolen by Blackfeet, or eaten by grizzly.

That was settlers into Sanpete.

And they had it pretty good compared to the ones in Carbon County, and those further south, who basically slow starved to death.


There was no rail lines into central and south Utah for decades to bring in livestock.


Your historical knowledge of this area, and the Mormons who came, is pretty lacking.

Yup, bighorns got pneumonia. Still do.
Click to expand...
I believe yours is also, Hickman, Oilers, Covington, Holts and Hatch is mine. Been there since the settlers also. Did have a family member killed by an Indian outside of Richfield. I know my family history well and hunting game For food lasted well into the 60's.
 
HA!!!! Looks like not only am I in the head of the 'blur, a couple of his boyfriends have checked in and have been mind controlled into a tizzy. Also, a relative newcomer to the West, Elks96, thinks it's pretty easy to buy out fed land grazing leases....again, Elks, you speak of something which you know nothing.

oh,, did I retreat? Naw....just don't live on the 'net 24/7

I'll try to get this topic back on tracxk:

FOUR and a HALF cents PER DAY....this is the rent paid for that big black cow and her calf that roams freely through your USFS campground, sheeting on everything, stomping the streams into a sludge ditch and eating all of the habitat

FOUR and a HALF cents PER DAY
 
Last edited:
Themaddness said:
I believe yours is also, Hickman, Oilers, Covington, Holts and Hatch is mine. Been there since the settlers also. Did have a family member killed by an Indian outside of Richfield. I know my family history well and hunting game For food lasted well into the 60's.
Click to expand...
Cool you guys have all that Utah history.

As for hunting for food- I never bought beef until I moved from Wyoming to Arizona back in 85. As a family we got multiple elk, deer, and antelope every year. Along with rabbits, fish, and occasionally some birds- that was the meal 90% of the time.
 
WyoResident said:
HA!!!! Looks like not only am I in the head of the 'blur, a couple of his boyfriends have checked in and have been mind controlled into a tizzy. Also, a relative newcomer to the West, Elks96, thinks it's pretty easy to buy out fed land grazing leases....again, Elks, you speak of something which you now nothing.

oh,, did I retreat? Naw....just don't live on the 'net 24/7

I'll try to get this topic back on tracxk:

FOUR and a HALF cents PER DAY....this is the rent paid for that big black cow and her calf that roams freely through your USFS campground, sheeting on everything, stomping the streams into a sludge ditch and eating all of the habitat

FOUR and a HALF cents PER DAY
Click to expand...

If only there were people, in white extended cab trucks, with black stickers on the door, that pull down good salaries, pensions, benefits that we could put in charge of a program like that.


And, again.

Why blow smoke?


If it truly as bad as you claim it is, is it ok at $4 a day?

What's the price point at which "sheet in your campground" is acceptable?

Oh, and how much per day do you pay to access our multiuser public lands?

And lastly. And I'll use your CBD numbers. If public grazers only account for 3% of beef, and that's a reason to end it.

What percentage of the public benefits from you shooting a deer?

Which program is of more value then?
 
'blur, you can obviously keep this sheet up 24/7....some of us do have to work and provide for our families, so just can't sit here and play with you.

I'll bet your long distance dial-up internet provider loves you burning up Google and....charging you by the minute. Will you have enough bread in your pocket to pay the bill at the end of the month?
 
WyoResident said:
'blur, you can obviously keep this sheet up 24/7....some of us do have to work and provide for our families, so just can't sit here and play with you.

I'll bet your long distance dial-up internet provider loves you burning up Google and....charging you by the minute. Will you have enough bread in your pocket to pay the bill at the end of the month?
Click to expand...


Biggest problem I got, is because a moo cow was on the forest I couldn't shoot an elk. Mamma keeps wondering why I would spend $10k on gear and weapons to try to kill $400 worth of meat.

It's totally immaculating, so, to save face for my failure, I'm gonna blame a sheep.


If it wasn't for those damn range maggots, there would be 400" bulls and 30" bucks lining the roads, obviously.

Now, I don't have the balls to stand up and call for outright bans on grazing, I live in Wyoming and that ain't gonna sit real well outside of Jackson, so I'm gonna pretend I'm a cost accountant and cloak my issues as a tax issue.


Its ok. Lots of dudes don't kill ****. I'm sure they agree it's the sheep too.

Here's some help.

Quote PETA next time. I mean if it wasn't for all those other hunters in the field, you'd brink home the elk, PETA agrees, they hate hunters too
 
I'm gonna back track a little bit.

I got heated, not because I own animals, I don't, but because of battles in the past that these same groups brought, which showed their dishonesty and outright bad intentions, mainly wolf reintroduction agreements they haven't kept nor have any intention of keeping.

That's not Johnny's fault, I got passed and went personally after him, I was wrong.

The bigger picture, and the one that blows my mind guts are not seeing, is the end goal.

The end goal isn't to get grazers off the landscape, then call it a day and go home.

The end goal is an end to ALL users.

These groups that Wyo and Johnny pulled "facts" and numbers from aren't secretive, it's out in the open, so it's mind-blowing to see hunters signing on to their agenda.

Hunters, are on their agenda. They make no bones about it. They aren't concerned with taxpayer money, their lawsuits against the taxpayer fund them.

They've tried lease buying in timber, oil, grazing. It's expensive and frankly with multiple use laws, it's illegal. They're trying with endangered species laws, but again, at some point species recover. So now they are trying g "conservative" small government anti tax waste rhetoric hoping guys in those areas won't look past the headlines and see what's in the footnotes.


This dream some dudes have of hunting public without grazers, is just that, a dream. You won't be hunting period if they succeed.

Don't become a useful idiot, because eventually your usefulness ends and your just an idiot, sitting around telling g grandkids about what hunting was back when it was a thing.
 
Keystone said:
I'm gonna back track a little bit.

I got heated, not because I own animals, I don't, but because of battles in the past that these same groups brought, which showed their dishonesty and outright bad intentions, mainly wolf reintroduction agreements they haven't kept nor have any intention of keeping.

That's not Johnny's fault, I got passed and went personally after him, I was wrong.

The bigger picture, and the one that blows my mind guts are not seeing, is the end goal.

The end goal isn't to get grazers off the landscape, then call it a day and go home.

The end goal is an end to ALL users.

These groups that Wyo and Johnny pulled "facts" and numbers from aren't secretive, it's out in the open, so it's mind-blowing to see hunters signing on to their agenda.

Hunters, are on their agenda. They make no bones about it. They aren't concerned with taxpayer money, their lawsuits against the taxpayer fund them.

They've tried lease buying in timber, oil, grazing. It's expensive and frankly with multiple use laws, it's illegal. They're trying with endangered species laws, but again, at some point species recover. So now they are trying g "conservative" small government anti tax waste rhetoric hoping guys in those areas won't look past the headlines and see what's in the footnotes.


This dream some dudes have of hunting public without grazers, is just that, a dream. You won't be hunting period if they succeed.

Don't become a useful idiot, because eventually your usefulness ends and your just an idiot, sitting around telling g grandkids about what hunting was back when it was a thing.
Click to expand...
Effective 1/1/2021
Article I, Section 30. [Right to hunt and fish.]
(1)The individual right of the people to hunt and to fish is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good.
(2)The right under Subsection (1) includes the right to use traditional methods to hunt and to fish, subject only to statute, and rules and regulations adopted as provided by statute, to:
 
Themaddness said:
Effective 1/1/2021
Article I, Section 30. [Right to hunt and fish.]
(1)The individual right of the people to hunt and to fish is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good.
(2)The right under Subsection (1) includes the right to use traditional methods to hunt and to fish, subject only to statute, and rules and regulations adopted as provided by statute, to:
Click to expand...
Now now, don't you dare bring actual facts to the discussion! You'll offend hossy's opinions!
 
johnnycake said:
Now now, don't you dare bring actual facts to the discussion! You'll offend hossy's opinions!
Click to expand...
Johnny, your correct, I don't believe Hoss is entirely wrong on his opinions. Very passionate person that guy is. Keystone has a very valid point also. This should not be a fight between ranchers and hunters but it is. This is the only social media I have. I became a member here to become more involved and educate on what's going on.
I tell my side because I see something firsthand. I tend to fight for the wildlife because to me it's something sacred that need to be saved.
I know a lot of good ranchers that do an excellent job of maintaining wildlife and cattle. But there are a few bad apples that boil my blood and abuse the privlage of grazing on public lands.
 
Themaddness said:
Johnny, your correct, I don't believe Hoss is entirely wrong on his opinions. Very passionate person that guy is. Keystone has a very valid point also. This should not be a fight between ranchers and hunters but it is. This is the only social media I have. I became a member here to become more involved and educate on what's going on.
I tell my side because I see something firsthand. I tend to fight for the wildlife because to me it's something sacred that need to be saved.
I know a lot of good ranchers that do an excellent job of maintaining wildlife and cattle. But there are a few bad apples that boil my blood and abuse the privlage of grazing on public lands.
Click to expand...
Everything you said is the truth and thanks for getting educated and carrying the fight forward to preserve and propagate wildlife and our treasured hunting tradition.

In your quest to push forward, just be sure to place the responsibility directly where it belongs.

If person violates a wildlife regulation, all kinds of people, old women, young boys, farmer, hunter, hair dressers, bar tenders, librarians, etc call the Game Warden and that person gets an immediate visit from Law Enforcement and gets a ticket and depending on the nature of the infraction, could get incarceration and hunting privileges are taken away. It gets published in every media source, locally and often National.

When a livestock permittee violates his agreement with the Feds, and an old women, young boys, farmer, hunter, hair dressers, bar tender, librarian, other permittee, etc calls the Forest Service, BLM Regional Forester or District Ranger and notify them that a permittee is violating the contract……….. what happens.

There’s what doesn’t happen…….. the permittee doesn’t get fined, doesn’t get incarcerated, doesn’t get put on probation, doesn’t loose his allotments, and he damn sure doesn’t stop what he’s been doing, in most cases for decades. And it doesn’t get reported in the local media much less reported Nationally.

What’s the message here?

Yes, the permittee is a piece of crap.

Who failed and what is the consequence of that institution’s failure?

How many decades did it take to stop the abuse of the Bundy operation? Who let that go, on and on and on, until the Federal government agencies looked like total imbeciles.

What did the Bundy fiasco teach other permittees?

That’s the core problem and suggesting otherwise is pure nonsense.

In your fight to help wildlife and sport hunting……. Make sure you are aiming your musket in the proper direction.
 
HikeHunt61 said:
I respect this post- so take this response accordingly.

Could bidding have unintended repercussions? One- small ranchers might be put out of business in areas they compete with larger outfits. Two- many areas may go for less than the current price. Especially those areas with few ranchers in proximity. Three- it would add a whole other layer to government regulations to ensure fairness, etc. We all know what that costs. And lastly, I could see some very concerned billionaire(s) strategically bidding on allotments for just a couple years to put ranchers out of business. That last one seems crazy, but there are some super anti-cow folks with serious money.

Just food for thought...
Click to expand...
There are more unintended repercussions than this.
I am going to take the Billion air angel one step father. What better way to buy your own "Yellowstone Ranch" than to out bid the long time rancher on the grazing lease and then buy the ranch when said longtime rancher has no other choice but to sell.
There are some other issues with putting grazing leases out for bid.
Some leases would not be competitive with only the current lease holder submitting a bid. For example I have several BLM leases where I control almost all the water. No one would bid against me as the cost of getting the cattle water would be cost prohibited.
Many leases would be competitive, but in time no one should expect those leases to fetch even close to as much money as private leases. @Keystone touched on this. During the homesteading days, the homesteaders claimed the best ag land and passed on the poorer land. When the homestead act was ended the unclaimed land became BLM. There are likely some BLM leases that are gems, but most would bring less money than the poorest of private leases. At first some prospective leasers would be lured in by the big shinny price tag, and over bid, but they would soon find out like @Togwotee pointed out. There are a lot of hidden costs in a pubic grazing lease. This ties in with another unintended repercussion.
The way grazing is done now has most rancher thinking in terms of generations. It is in their best interest to improve the lease. Likely the biggest contributing factor as to why range conditions have been improving since the days of the tragedy of the commons. Change leasing to competitive bid and rancher will look at the lease only in terms of the length of the lease. Many will use the lease like the rented mule it has now become. The Bundys are bad enough on there own, we don't need thousands more like them.
Make grazing rights a competitive bid and dividing up public land and auctioning off the hunting rights could very well be the next step. I am sure $FW would be happy to do the sale at the next Expo. Think of the money that could be raised for conservation, might even cover the cost of the money the public land agencies spend on recreation. Anyone here that thinks auctioning off public land hunting leases to the highest bidder is a good idea, raise you hand. Tristate raising both hands does not count as two.
 
Themaddness said:
Effective 1/1/2021
Article I, Section 30. [Right to hunt and fish.]
(1)The individual right of the people to hunt and to fish is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good.
(2)The right under Subsection (1) includes the right to use traditional methods to hunt and to fish, subject only to statute, and rules and regulations adopted as provided by statute, to:

Click to expand...

johnnycake said:
Now now, don't you dare bring actual facts to the discussion! You'll offend hossy's opinions!
Click to expand...
Where does it mention FS and BLM lands? I'll wait.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

C03595E5-06E5-442C-B933-DB49FB50377B.jpeg
6F01DEC8-4FE7-4F20-AA71-E2F3C7B9EEC9.jpeg
IMG_0922.jpeg
firstbuck[1].jpg
IMG_20230919_155249_822.jpg
IMG_1687.jpeg
colomuledeer.JPG
1AF58152-C2EC-4AEA-8052-BF1660004693.jpeg
IMG-0026.jpg
Nevada Bull for nvguy2
AZ 2019.jpeg
59B37502-3B58-43AC-94E5-7C94B360300F.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom