BLM and Forest Service GRAZING Rates for 2023 have been SET

antlerradar said:
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.
Click to expand...


I agree 99%.


But your guilty of the same thing too many others in our sphere are. You assume this is about cows and sheep.

It's not an unintended consequence that ranchers would be forced out. It the goal. And they really don't try hiding it anymore.
 
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.
Click to expand...
You should read up on what happened when MT FWP purchased the Wall Creek WMA and ended cattle grazing on the former ranch land so the elk would benefit. Just a hint It didn't become an elk paradise.
 
hossblur said:
I agree 99%.


But your guilty of the same thing too many others in our sphere are. You assume this is about cows and sheep.

It's not an unintended consequence that ranchers would be forced out. It the goal. And they really don't try hiding it anymore.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%, I am not going to waist my time trying to pres wade johnny or WYO, I wrote that for the users that may be on the fence or reading an not posting at all. The two above are so fixed with they want that they are willing to shoot themselves in the foot if they get what they want.
 
Last edited:
johnnycake said:
State owned public lands in the west are dwarfed by federally owned public lands. And the feds have long since stopped pretty much all disposal of public lands into private ownership. And there's really not a credible threat to the whole "turn fed lands into state lands" push.

It ain't gonna happen anytime in the next century, and I would wager a lot that I'm right.
Click to expand...
I sat in a meeting a long time ago when the cold springs land swap took place with the nutter ranch, the ranch wanted the blm to include some blm parcels in the swap, specifically the steer ridge parcel to join all the private acreage continuously. Never happened. Pretty sure you are spot on for this one.
 
Themaddness said:
Cows are private property not public? I am missing something in your statement here.
Click to expand...

Maybe I misunderstood you.

I assumed you were quoting states that have constitutional rights to hunt.

Those rights are for hunting, not hunting on fed public ground.

If I misunderstood you, my bad
 
hossblur said:
Maybe I misunderstood you.

I assumed you were quoting states that have constitutional rights to hunt.

Those rights are for hunting, not hunting on fed public ground.

If I misunderstood you, my.
Click to expand...
Excluding national parks, military, and special use areas, I don't see the difference. I do not have a law that I can cite that shows the difference for State rights to hunt are a state rights for state ground only. Do you? Doesn't seem like a realistic argument to say that the state guarantees our rights to hunt but only to state ground.
would be an interesting read for sure.
 
Themaddness said:
Excluding national parks, military, and special use areas, I don't see the difference. I do not have a law that I can cite that shows the difference for State rights to hunt are a state rights for state ground only. Do you? Doesn't seem like a realistic argument to say that the state guarantees our rights to hunt but only to state ground.
would be an interesting read for sure.
Click to expand...
I actually don't know. Utah has a constitutional right to hunt. I can't imagine that extends to fed lands, but I don't know for sure.

We are unbelievably blessed to live in public land states. I start hunting in Aug, and just finished geese last week. Every week I'm on public land.

That's where the fire comes from. Be it my a hole Senator Mike Lee, or CBD, the end result if either get their way, is the end of that public land pursuit.

I don't own livestock. I hunt with a guy who gave up his permit to grow hay.

I see grazing issues I'm not wild about. I see more beer cans, left tree stands, camp garbage than that.

But that's not the point.

CBD, Western Watershed, SUWA, and and a myriad of other well financed, super left groups, have decided that public lands should be museums. Logging, mining, HUNTING, etc run contrary to their openly states goals.


So ya. When hunters, who are in the crosshairs anyway, decide to friendly fire on other groups in those same crosshairs, I get pissed.

Anyone named Wyo resident shouldn't have to be explained what CBD does. Wolves, grizzlies, etc, Wyoming is the battleground.

Johnny for all I know is a great dude.


But the arrogance of thinking "they won't come for me", sets me off.

They will come for you. They already are. If you hate grazers more than you hate the CBD of the world, as a hunter, I have concerns.


I live on the Wasatch Front. I e watched first hand what happens when ag producers het forced out, either by price, or regulation, or both. That's why grazers have a friend in me.

If I misunderstood your post, no harm meant
 
Themaddness said:
Excluding national parks, military, and special use areas, I don't see the difference. I do not have a law that I can cite that shows the difference for State rights to hunt are a state rights for state ground only. Do you? Doesn't seem like a realistic argument to say that the state guarantees our rights to hunt but only to state ground.
would be an interesting read for sure.
Click to expand...
No lawyer, but I am pretty sure that federal law takes precedent over state law or state constitutions. If law makers from the West and East coasts decide that there is to be no hunting on federal land, there is going to be no hunting on federal land and a state constitution is not going to stand in their way. Kind of why hunters need allies in Washington.
 
Last edited:
antlerradar said:
No lawyer, but I am pretty sure that federal law takes president over state law or state constitutions. If law makers from the West and East coasts decide that there is to be no hunting on federal land, there is going to be no hunting on federal land and a state constitution is not going to stand in their way. Kind of why hunters need allies in Washington.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that analysis.
The premises of our conflicts of hunting and grazing are to large to argue here.
My opinion is the wildlife gets the short end of the stick when determining AMU's. Not who has more right to public land. Hunters or non hunters? Cow? Who gets canceled first?
Cattle do clear unwanted vegetation and do create space for more grass to grow for the elk and deer. For this to happen you have to have the right conditions. Not over grazed and a decent ammount of rain. Very tough to maintain.
If there is government money to give away as a supplement to an industry I rather it be the Agricultural industry than any alphabet group.
But make no mistake I do not believe that a cow has more right than a deer or elk. Private property or not.
Stand your ground, the world needs balance.
 
Themaddness said:
What I don't see is other grazers improving the ground they lease from the state/blm. Never one time have I seen a cowboy fix a spring that has been stomped in by cows for water. (Utah only) my understanding is most grazers believe it is the governments job to fix them for the grazer due to the grazer leasing the AMU.
Click to expand...
Not sure were you are getting the info on public grazers believing the it is the gov. job to fix water projects. That is often a benefit of a private grazing lease to have the lessor pay the bill for improvements, a federal lease not so much. On a federal lease the government may, but not always provide materials, but it is up to the lessee to do the installation and maintenance.
It may also not be the ranchers fault that spring has not been fixed. If said spring has not gone through NEPA, the rancher can not fix the spring until it clears NEPA. It can take years for a project to get NEPA clearance, especially if it is not high on the priority list and sometimes the project is denied,
 
Themaddness said:
I would agree with that analysis.
The premises of our conflicts of hunting and grazing are to large to argue here.
My opinion is the wildlife gets the short end of the stick when determining AMU's. Not who has more right to public land. Hunters or non hunters? Cow? Who gets canceled first?
Cattle do clear unwanted vegetation and do create space for more grass to grow for the elk and deer. For this to happen you have to have the right conditions. Not over grazed and a decent ammount of rain. Very tough to maintain.
If there is government money to give away as a supplement to an industry I rather it be the Agricultural industry than any alphabet group.
But make no mistake I do not believe that a cow has more right than a deer or elk. Private property or not.
Stand your ground, the world needs balance.
Click to expand...
In the last thirty years the Custer Forest near me has reduced permitted Cattle AUM's by thirty thousand. Enough grass for roughly five thousand elk. Last year dew to the drought of 2020 and 2021 grazers took temporary reduction of an additional 40%. You may think elk and deer get the short end of the stick when it comes to grazing, but a bunch of the ranchers here are thinking the opposite, With the grazing cuts and the recent big fires the range has never looked better in recorded history. The hunting however is as bad as I have seen in my 45 years of hunting.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was about grazing fees....

Anyway, the average beef producer in the US has 43 head, and the cheap federal grazing is being subsidized by the vast majority of those producers as US taxpayers . grazing fees are running $25-$45 on private these days , if we're not going to open these allotments for bidding unlike other government assistance programs it's a subsidy only benefiting a select few and giving them an unfair advantage.

It's a lot easier when the mother cows know the allotment and where home is. but herds come and go all the time it's just more work but it can be done, lots of allotments are leased under the table . GPS tracking has really improved and is becoming more popular too. one guy is using GPS shock collar technology and he can move the boundary on the map from his laptop. I expect it will be required on allotments in the future it's amazing how you can keep them off the creeks.

Anyway the fees are insultingly cheap in spite of the hassles and losses. 600 weights are bringing $1300 plus right now and a few can pay for the entire allotment for the season. and if you really like to whine the feed assistance programs in years like this will pay several times what the full bill will be for the year. so in reality you're paying them to run on the public.

Keep in mind the values of allotments vary widely on where they are and their production capability. but fees don't, all the more reason for an auction based free market in my opinion.

All that said, nothing is going to change so this conversation is useless.
 
You’re right Tog. I understand your numbers and your rational. Your personally invested and sound like a successful operator at this stage in the business.

Having said that…… and while the OP was originally an allotment price discussion, this is a public hunting website for most of us and it has naturally brought public land grazing, and many of its components into the discussion because of the interconnected issues between the two life styles. Clearly, you have issues with allotment rates vs the profit and lose costs as you and other private grazers compete with Fed land permittees.

So…… as these issues get discussed, back and forth between the parties/individuals the discussion focus broadens into issues could or would influence that sport hunters are concerned with. That been hunters future access and the share of the pie they are going to get, out of the Multiple Use system or a new system not conducive with growing larger big game populations and our share land access to those animals. Hence the discussion. You see auctioning AUMs as a better system for you and other in your line of work. I see a threat to Multiple Use, a threat to more over grazing and abuse which in turn would have a negative impact what I want to preserve.

We have a desire for different outcomes. That’s why I don’t care what the cost of AUMs are, I don’t see where they will have an impact on me if they are $1 to $45 or more. I’ll leave that price up to your industry to balance.
 
Last edited:
antlerradar said:
Not sure were you are getting the info on public grazers believing the it is the gov. job to fix water projects. That is often a benefit of a private grazing lease to have the lessor pay the bill for improvements, a federal lease not so much. On a federal lease the government may, but not always provide materials, but it is up to the lessee to do the installation and maintenance.
It may also not be the ranchers fault that spring has not been fixed. If said spring has not gone through NEPA, the rancher can not fix the spring until it clears NEPA. It can take years for a project to get NEPA clearance, especially if it is not high on the priority list and sometimes the project is denied,
Click to expand...
Told first hand.
My point is if my animals were destroying something that They rely on I would fix it my self for their benefit. The blame game to fix problems never works. Take accountability and fix it. But that never happens does it.
 
Themaddness said:
Told first hand.
My point is if my animals were destroying something that They rely on I would fix it my self for their benefit. The blame game to fix problems never works. Take accountability and fix it. But that never happens does it.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt it. Some ranches have gotten into the mind set that the gov owes them something. One of the problems with big government. Once you start handing out candy some people will always want more. People get fat and lazy on candy.
Like I pointed out above, sometimes you can not get clearance for the fixing. Have to disturbed a minor archeological sight or move dirt to get equipment to the spring the and the chances of getting the okay go way down or the hoops you need to do are cost prohibitive. I can think of several spring where the rancher was told no because doing so would require a temporary road or the spring is in an archeological sight.
 
This is complicated stuff. Remember that ranchers have developed water for both irrigation and for livestock water, In arid places, those water sources (and the additional feed associated with them) are perhaps the single most important contribution to wildlife habitat. And as has been stated, the riparian areas on deeded and the hayfields provide critical habitat. Most of those in eastern Wyoming are on deeded. And a fair percentage are even in western Wyoming.

There are timber sales/project going on where the Forest Service is actually paying the contractors to remove the trees. Is that the same as in the open market on deeded lands? Doubtful..

Don't forget that in eastern Wyoming, a big percentage of the public lands are interspersed with deeded lands. These aren't huge parcels. Sometimes even an 80 or a 40. Lots of quarter and half sections. Even in the checkerboard lands, the majority of the water sources are on deeded. The landowners take care of those public lands just like they do their deeded lands. Sometimes the lands are overgrazed, but most ranchers are intelligent enough to understand that the land is their long-term factory and if it is abused, productivity will decline and long-term sustainability will be negatively affected.

I've talked with several ranchers in the last few days. Most of them are as worried about the wildlife resources as they are their cattle. Three of them have large ranches (25,000+ acres) and allow zero deer hunting because they feel there are not enough deer right now. They could make big $$ off of deer hunts, but will not compromise the resource for the money. The well-being of the wildlife resource is more important to them than the money. We need those "reservoirs" of well-maintained wildlife because the public lands are generally hammered.

People get to camp for free on BLM and FS lands in Wyoming unless you are in an established campground. I bet all those people running around on ATV's/UTV's tearing around the mountains cutting ruts and leaving piles of toilet paper along every road don't have any cost or negative impacts on the lands or resources.

This multiple use stuff is complicated and picking on one set of users can lead to a can of worms. I bet if you asked the urbanites in NYC or LA if the piles of poop and TP along the USFS roads in the Snowies are aesthetically appealing, they'd blast you. Makes cow manure look pretty mild by comparison.

I don't like to get into these fracases, but it's inappropriate to complain about one aspect of multiple use. You'll need a huge data set and a holistic perspective to draw any meaningful comparisons or conclusions.
 
Hossy Will Probably Argue?

But Here Goes!

The USFS Had Most Of The Land Closed To Any Kind of Timbering/Timber Sales!

The USFS Had The Beetles Located In a Fairly Small Area in The Beginning!

Could Have They Prevented It Spreading To Several States?

Probably Not!

But In Today's World We gotta Do The PC Thing!

Let's Watch It & Study It And See What Happens!

I Thought Good Timber Was Valuable In Today's World?

But Beetle Killed Timber?

It's TOTAL TRASH!

Build You A House Out Of it & Let's See The Longevity of The GARBAGE Wood!

It Doesn't Even Make Good Fire Wood!

The Fire We Had Here A Couple Years Ago destroyed anything that wasn't Already Dead!

And Like ICM Said above:

Now We Are Paying Loggers To Haul The Trash Out!

PISS POOR MANAGEMENT of a Forest At It's Best!

Anybody PISSED At What This Mighta Cost?
 
Let's Not Thin The Timber!

Let's Keep it Closed!

Let's Not Let Anybody Cut Firewood!

Maybe When You See Your Next 2X4's With a MADE IN CHINA Stamp on them Maybe Somebody Will Realize Maybe We Shoulda Done Something Different!

Ya!

These BIG Yellow Pines Will Be Back in 200-300 Years!

The World Should Be Destroyed Before Anybody Gets To See Them Though!
 
the facts show that the monthly rent for 1 AU is $1.35/month. The cost to administrate this AU is $8.00 which is a net loss of $6.65 a month to the taxpayer.

Overgrazing on public land is just not someones imagination, it's a fact and it's done at 4.5 cents per AU per day. Want to see overgrazing that's gravely affected both wildlife and fisheries habitat? Check out the Burgess Junction area of the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming. There's more black cows then mayflies in the river, which has been stomped down into a manure filled sludge channel.

This Hossbur guy doesn't sound like a dude who actually gets out there and probably only argues here for the sake of arguing
 
SS! said:
Jose and the jalapeños probably don’t let him have his phone at work.
Click to expand...
I was out walking my dog in the 2ft of new snow we had 8 miles deep in the oak creeks I've been told that's what people do, thought I'd join in
 
SS! said:
He blames autocorrect. Does your autocorrect change your to your? Neither does mine hahahaha
Click to expand...

Do I need a restraining order?

Your(in honor of SS) now testing auto correct?

I FLATTERED, but I will not "put the lotion on my skin"
 
Overgrazing is absolutely a problem. and when you see it call it in, when the USFS or BLM get enough complaints they should contact the permit holder and demand the cattle are pushed off the bottoms . ask me how I know.

Some range cons are harder to motivate than others , depends on who's side they're on. so you have to get more people involved.
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20240712_204741.jpg
Pablo 2023.JPG
Screenshot_20240209_084323_Gallery.jpg
2E80C881-5240-45B3-9E66-EB8D97EE4E4D.jpeg
IMG_9537.png
1727279197782.png
Elk mount pic.jpg
IMG_3580.JPG
6FDAEA46-C8A5-43E4-9A8A-C87723C78485.jpeg
image000000(3).jpg
IMG_0216.jpeg
FullSizeRender.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom