Cows on the forest

I’d be perfectly fine and supportive paying more for beef if it meant less over grazing on public ground which has been constant for decades from the earlier sheep to the now constant cattle.
 
Heelll bring back the bison and any one worth a chit as far as hunters wouldn’t need Gov subsidized beef, lotta lazy ranchers running on blm for years and years feel entitled and special.
 
For those that haven't noticed, agriculture is a national defense issue.

After Covid, and seeing how vulnerable we were to China for everything, it's not a great idea, to be dependent on other nations for food.

Just watch the famine this winter as Russia shuts down Ukraine exports
 
I really dont like cattle on public land. But.... one good thing i can say about it, their one redeeming factor, is that they make nice trails through the mountains that enable me to walk a lot more quietly through crunchy brushy jungly timber. And those trails also get used heavily by wildlife. Still, id rather not have free range cattle around. As it is, theyre there, so i just deal with them june-oct, and have my nice trails through the brush to kinda make it seem tolerable. It is what it is. Aint worth it to me to be angry about it. Lots of other things much more deserving of my hate.
 
Here is some food for thought, pun intended. If you eliminate public land, or make it unaffordable to use, what happens to those properties where the rancher lives? Many of them are important overwintering grounds. Last thing we need are a bunch more 40 acre out of state castles.
 
BeanMan said:
Here is some food for thought, pun intended. If you eliminate public land, or make it unaffordable to use, what happens to those properties where the rancher lives? Many of them are important overwintering grounds. Last thing we need are a bunch more 40 acre out of state castles.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying ranchers can’t make a profit unless they graze public land? Bullshit.
 
I for one will say grazing is good for the land and wildlife. Particularly short duration, high intensity grazing.

A classic example was upper Millcreek and Lambs canyon's above Salt Lake. In the mid 80's when I moved here from Montana, the Osguthorpe's ran sheep all over up there on their checkerboard at the tops of the canyons. There were many unimproved roads, even one right up the stream bed of Millcreek. They virtually eliminated predators and the under brush was held in complete check. The deer were abundant times times times what they are now.

In the years after they did the land swap for the whole west fork of Lambs and the top of Millcreek for all of Iron Mtn, the area became virtually impassible back in there. Over the last 10 years the elk have started to move back in, in relatively large numbers and were doing a pretty good job of having it be habitable again, at least for elk and moose. Still very few deer up there in comparision.

Move on to last year and we now have a Forest Service crew that is cutting all the under growth from Lambs to Provo Canyon over the next 5 years. Needless to say there are zero elk and even fewer deer up there anymore. You can't expect to run a crew of 15 guys with chainsaws 8 hrs a day for 8 months a year and expect any wildlife to be around.

All I can say is I'd take Osguthorpe's sheep any day :)

Cheers, Pete
 
The Osguthorpe families don’t more for that area in the last 75 years than most would ever realize. For one not aimlessly selling out for curb and gutter developments, and cowering to the mon local masses. Sheep get a bad rep from hunters, mostly due to there herd social dynamic and grazing in large clusters. Sheep don’t erode the Mt and ruin water sources like cattle do. I personally would rather have sheep over cows in most area I hunt. Sheep men are also a lot more hands on and involved especially with predators.
 
Absolutely get rid of the horses first.

But I have seen some areas WAY overgrazed by cattle and sheep. Hard to fully define overgrazed until you see it. They are definitely hard on water sources too. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if it went away.
 
smokepolejohnson said:
The Osguthorpe families don’t more for that area in the last 75 years than most would ever realize. For one not aimlessly selling out for curb and gutter developments, and cowering to the mon local masses. Sheep get a bad rep from hunters, mostly due to there herd social dynamic and grazing in large clusters. Sheep don’t erode the Mt and ruin water sources like cattle do. I personally would rather have sheep over cows in most area I hunt. Sheep men are also a lot more hands on and involved especially with predators.
Click to expand...
Domestic sheep are absolute DEATH to wild sheep. They carry ovipneumoniae which regularly wipes out wild sheep herds. As a big fan of wild sheep, I always smile when I see cows instead of mountain maggots on public land.
 
littlebighorn said:
Domestic sheep are absolute DEATH to wild sheep. They carry ovipneumoniae which regularly wipes out wild sheep herds. As a big fan of wild sheep, I always smile when I see cows instead of mountain maggots on public land.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you on the wild sheep vs the domesticated smut face variety. Rubys in NV being a classic example. They shouldn’t be within a 100 miles of each other. I’d smile to see neither cow or sheep and more wild sheep, deer and elk and throw a few bison in there for the carrying capacity of public lands. I just hate to see the erosion due to bovine and feral horses as opposed to the “Mt maggots”
 
You guys are too hard on those poor ranchers. Hell this popped up on my Instagram today.
84276BA4-77AF-42B4-8A8E-8CD65F067B32.jpeg
 
c3 said:
I for one will say grazing is good for the land and wildlife. Particularly short duration, high intensity grazing.

A classic example was upper Millcreek and Lambs canyon's above Salt Lake. In the mid 80's when I moved here from Montana, the Osguthorpe's ran sheep all over up there on their checkerboard at the tops of the canyons. There were many unimproved roads, even one right up the stream bed of Millcreek. They virtually eliminated predators and the under brush was held in complete check. The deer were abundant times times times what they are now.

In the years after they did the land swap for the whole west fork of Lambs and the top of Millcreek for all of Iron Mtn, the area became virtually impassible back in there. Over the last 10 years the elk have started to move back in, in relatively large numbers and were doing a pretty good job of having it be habitable again, at least for elk and moose. Still very few deer up there in comparision.

Move on to last year and we now have a Forest Service crew that is cutting all the under growth from Lambs to Provo Canyon over the next 5 years. Needless to say there are zero elk and even fewer deer up there anymore. You can't expect to run a crew of 15 guys with chainsaws 8 hrs a day for 8 months a year and expect any wildlife to be around.

All I can say is I'd take Osguthorpe's sheep any day :)

Cheers, Pete
Click to expand...
I hate cows, but they are the closest thing to fire suppression we have here. Whether we need more fires is another question.
 
I have absolutely no problem with regulated grazing on public lands. All public lands should be multiuse and as such grazing is part of that use...

Many people are far to short sighted on this issue... Between the predator control that happens for ranching, the water source development (there are many places through out this country that would have very limited water sources if it were not for the actions of ranchers and the agencies developing tanks. Etc. As mentioned food is a national security issue, beef are a vital source to our security and as such I am fine with cattle being around. I have seen far more water sources developed, created and maintained by ranchers and cattle than I have seen destroyed...

I still have yet to meet a "lazy" rancher who actually runs animals on the forest?
 
elks96 said:
I have absolutely no problem with regulated grazing on public lands. All public lands should be multiuse and as such grazing is part of that use...

Many people are far to short sighted on this issue... Between the predator control that happens for ranching, the water source development (there are many places through out this country that would have very limited water sources if it were not for the actions of ranchers and the agencies developing tanks. Etc. As mentioned food is a national security issue, beef are a vital source to our security and as such I am fine with cattle being around. I have seen far more water sources developed, created and maintained by ranchers and cattle than I have seen destroyed...

I still have yet to meet a "lazy" rancher who actually runs animals on the forest?
Click to expand...
you obviously have not gotten out a lot
 
Cows suck when you run into them hunting. That said, like anything, there are pros and cons.

Biggest pro I've seen is in northern AZ- like unit 10. Ranchers own over half of it. Most allow hunting. 90% of the water available to the elk are tanks provided by ranchers. It's an amazing place to hunt.

Biggest con I've seen is in Wyoming range. On early hunts, the cows are still on the forest. Running into a heard of cattle while moving through good elk country plainly sucks. I don't see any advantages to hunters there.

Last- ranchers are a long-standing tradition in the west- would hate to see it change. I really don't know enough about their model of using public lands for grazing, but imagine that taking that away would cause beef prices to go up.
 
I would like to clarify my stance a bit. I don't have a problem with responsible public grazing and I've seen a ton of it throughout the west. But one bad apple here and there is too much. I wish there was more accountability.

As said above a lot of country wouldn't have viable water sources if not for cattlemen. Responsible cattlemen. But in some of the steep blacktail country I hunt that has anywhere from some to a lot of water sources throughout cattle have made a real mess of a lot of water sources.

Just like many things in society, including hunting, responsible use and accountability for irresponsible use go a long way.
 
P.T. Jeffers said:
you obviously have not gotten out a lot
Click to expand...
Nice thoughtful post... How long did it take you to form that riveting and insightful comment?

I get out plenty and many of the areas I hunt would be pretty void of wildlife if it were not for the efforts and work of water development for cattle...
 
Do most people assume that the reason they are not seeing elk/deer is due to cattle? I am truly curious if they believe that the cattle push the elk out? If so I hope you continue to believe that as there are plenty elk and deer that hang with cattle year round...
 
elks96 said:
Do most people assume that the reason they are not seeing elk/deer is due to cattle? I am truly curious if they believe that the cattle push the elk out? If so I hope you continue to believe that as there are plenty elk and deer that hang with cattle year round...
Click to expand...
Only if the land is overgrazed and waterholes are trampled into mud pits or dry.

I've only seen a few cases over the years, but I've seen them.

And I'm also not diluted enough to think they were the only ones or that my anecdotal personal experiences are indicative of the norm....

If folks here say they see it far too often I believe them, if you say you don't then I believe you, both can be true.
 
grew up in my early teen years driving cows from the alfalfa fields up in the national forests in idaho. it was a great experience as a young man. never got to bring them back down cause school always started.
it wasn’t until my late teens i got to see what damage the herds would do to the creeks and meadows in my local area. it’s hard to deny the damage but i also can’t help to think that it could be manage sustainably. you have to also admit it’s no fun walking on miles on cow **** on the trail
 
BeanMan said:
Here is some food for thought, pun intended. If you eliminate public land, or make it unaffordable to use, what happens to those properties where the rancher lives? Many of them are important overwintering grounds. Last thing we need are a bunch more 40 acre out of state castles.
Click to expand...
They get bought out and paid for by open space programs.
 
As we all become more polarized with our opinions and ideas. One thing is clear. People who are for or against something need to educate themselves better before becoming social warriors and try to stop something they know little to nothing about. When your only exposure to ranching is seeing cows on the mountain, which might be ruining your hunting spot. Your ideas on grazing aren't valid in any sense of the term. This comes up every year during hunting season and every year more people feel empowered to make the wrong difference.

SFW did this back in the early 2000's. They purchased a lease on the grazing permit to a large basin next to my home town. Within 4 years the area started to grow in with brush and wildlife started to avoid it. Within 6 years, they recognized their mistake and allowed grazing. By then it was too late. Not even sheep could get back into most of the area. Now 22 years later it's impossible to access the area, and little to no wildlife access it either. So if SFW and the left leaning forest service see value in grazing, as a benefit for wildlife, fire control, access, and hunters alike we need to look more into it and not rush to judgement because a cow messed up your hunt.
 
DBLung said:
As we all become more polarized with our opinions and ideas. One thing is clear. People who are for or against something need to educate themselves better before becoming social warriors and try to stop something they know little to nothing about. When your only exposure to ranching is seeing cows on the mountain, which might be ruining your hunting spot. Your ideas on grazing aren't valid in any sense of the term. This comes up every year during hunting season and every year more people feel empowered to make the wrong difference.

SFW did this back in the early 2000's. They purchased a lease on the grazing permit to a large basin next to my home town. Within 4 years the area started to grow in with brush and wildlife started to avoid it. Within 6 years, they recognized their mistake and allowed grazing. By then it was too late. Not even sheep could get back into most of the area. Now 22 years later it's impossible to access the area, and little to no wildlife access it either. So if SFW and the left leaning forest service see value in grazing, as a benefit for wildlife, fire control, access, and hunters alike we need to look more into it and not rush to judgement because a cow messed up your hunt.
Click to expand...
You hit a key point. 90% of the people anti grazing do not fully understand the process and the benefits etc. It simply is not a clean issue.
 
DBLung said:
As we all become more polarized with our opinions and ideas. One thing is clear. People who are for or against something need to educate themselves better before becoming social warriors and try to stop something they know little to nothing about. When your only exposure to ranching is seeing cows on the mountain, which might be ruining your hunting spot. Your ideas on grazing aren't valid in any sense of the term. This comes up every year during hunting season and every year more people feel empowered to make the wrong difference.

SFW did this back in the early 2000's. They purchased a lease on the grazing permit to a large basin next to my home town. Within 4 years the area started to grow in with brush and wildlife started to avoid it. Within 6 years, they recognized their mistake and allowed grazing. By then it was too late. Not even sheep could get back into most of the area. Now 22 years later it's impossible to access the area, and little to no wildlife access it either. So if SFW and the left leaning forest service see value in grazing, as a benefit for wildlife, fire control, access, and hunters alike we need to look more into it and not rush to judgement because a cow messed up your hunt.
Click to expand...
So.... if cattle dont save a basin by grazing on it, the brush will grow over it and it will become impossible to access with little to no wildlife on it?

i have a hard time buying that one.
 
With the largest landowner in the country being Bill Gates , I’ll be take up for all ranchers in this nation! Every time you cut into a steak or eat a burger! Remember to thank a rancher!
Sheep … I think I can do without those.
 
When I was in range class in collage, MT FWP gave a presentation on the Wall Creek wildlife management area. When FWP first acquired the winter range they eliminated all grazing by cattle. It wasn't long and the elk wintering on Wall Creek moved to private land and Wall Creek was almost unused by wintering elk. The reason. Ungrazed grass produces less forage than grazed grass. There may look as if there is a lot of feed but most of the grass is old grass from years past and has little feed value. Elk did not want to pick through the old grass to eat the grass with feed value. FWP implemented a grazing program and the elk returned.
 
DBLung said:
As we all become more polarized with our opinions and ideas. One thing is clear. People who are for or against something need to educate themselves better before becoming social warriors and try to stop something they know little to nothing about. When your only exposure to ranching is seeing cows on the mountain, which might be ruining your hunting spot. Your ideas on grazing aren't valid in any sense of the term. This comes up every year during hunting season and every year more people feel empowered to make the wrong difference.

SFW did this back in the early 2000's. They purchased a lease on the grazing permit to a large basin next to my home town. Within 4 years the area started to grow in with brush and wildlife started to avoid it. Within 6 years, they recognized their mistake and allowed grazing. By then it was too late. Not even sheep could get back into most of the area. Now 22 years later it's impossible to access the area, and little to no wildlife access it either. So if SFW and the left leaning forest service see value in grazing, as a benefit for wildlife, fire control, access, and hunters alike we need to look more into it and not rush to judgement because a cow messed up your hunt.
Click to expand...
When did pot become legal in Utah?
 
If pigs can be raised in pens for a profit so can cows.

Why isn’t there free range pigs? Chickens?

If you care about elk and mule deer you will gut shoot every cow and sheep you see on public land.
 
BUGLEnmIN said:
With the largest landowner in the country being Bill Gates , I’ll be take up for all ranchers in this nation! Every time you cut into a steak or eat a burger! Remember to thank a rancher!
Sheep … I think I can do without those.
Click to expand...
I believe the largest land owner in the US is John Malone, second is SPI/Emmerson family, third is Ted turner. Gates owns less than 300,000 acres. The top three own around 2 million acres each.
 
Many years ago, Utah State University did an extensive study on habitat and the effects of cattle grazing on Deseret Land and Livestock. They found that as long as the cattle were forced to move, rather than take up a homestead in one canyon, the grazing and movement of cattle actually helped the forage for wildlife. Cow hooves actually act like a harrow, or disk to turn up the land for new seed to grow. Then as long as they didn't stay too long and beat it down, new seedlings appear. It's a pretty interesting read.
This practice requires a few more cowboys, but some time ago DLandL took up the habit of regularly moving their cattle across their property and they now have really nice habitat that supports a pretty successful hunting operation to supplement their ranching as well. It's a model that other private properties are trying to mimic.
Reading that study turned me into a believer that ranching can benefit wildlife, as long as it's done the right way.
 
littlebighorn said:
Many years ago, Utah State University did an extensive study on habitat and the effects of cattle grazing on Deseret Land and Livestock. They found that as long as the cattle were forced to move, rather than take up a homestead in one canyon, the grazing and movement of cattle actually helped the forage for wildlife. Cow hooves actually act like a harrow, or disk to turn up the land for new seed to grow. Then as long as they didn't stay too long and beat it down, new seedlings appear. It's a pretty interesting read.
This practice requires a few more cowboys, but some time ago DLandL took up the habit of regularly moving their cattle across their property and they now have really nice habitat that supports a pretty successful hunting operation to supplement their ranching as well. It's a model that other private properties are trying to mimic.
Reading that study turned me into a believer that ranching can benefit wildlife, as long as it's done the right way.
Click to expand...
See my link in post 22.
It certainly can be done. But changing grazing allotment practices it not easy.
 
littlebighorn said:
Many years ago, Utah State University did an extensive study on habitat and the effects of cattle grazing on Deseret Land and Livestock. They found that as long as the cattle were forced to move, rather than take up a homestead in one canyon, the grazing and movement of cattle actually helped the forage for wildlife. Cow hooves actually act like a harrow, or disk to turn up the land for new seed to grow. Then as long as they didn't stay too long and beat it down, new seedlings appear. It's a pretty interesting read.
This practice requires a few more cowboys, but some time ago DLandL took up the habit of regularly moving their cattle across their property and they now have really nice habitat that supports a pretty successful hunting operation to supplement their ranching as well. It's a model that other private properties are trying to mimic.
Reading that study turned me into a believer that ranching can benefit wildlife, as long as it's done the right way.
Click to expand...
All of the water holes, springs and meadows that I have seen destroyed have been by a heard that sets up and claims it as the summer home. Keeping the heard on the move may solve this. Sounds like a win-win.
 
SS! said:
If pigs can be raised in pens for a profit so can cows.

Why isn’t there free range pigs? Chickens?

If you care about elk and mule deer you will gut shoot every cow and sheep you see on public land.
Click to expand...
Gut shoot cattle and sheep? Really?
 
Shadow said:
Gut shoot cattle and sheep? Really?
Click to expand...
Yes. Or you can SSS. but do you know how big a focking cow is?

You must not care about deer and elk. Every time you buy a mcdonalds burger you're inadvertently killing a deer or an elk.

Shame on you.
 
SS! said:
Yes. Or you can SSS. but do you know how big a focking cow is?

You must not care about deer and elk. Every time you buy a mcdonalds burger you're inadvertently killing a deer or an elk.

Shame on you.
Click to expand...
Right? and.....

Every time you kill a deer or an elk you are deliberately killing a deer or an elk.

Shame on you.

Wait.... Huh?
 
SS! said:
If pigs can be raised in pens for a profit so can cows.

Why isn’t there free range pigs? Chickens?

If you care about elk and mule deer you will gut shoot every cow and sheep you see on public land.
Click to expand...
I think I'll start with gut shooting bears and mountain lions first
 
Grouse Legs said:
So.... if cattle dont save a basin by grazing on it, the brush will grow over it and it will become impossible to access with little to no wildlife on it?

i have a hard time buying that one.
Click to expand...
It really depends on the area, but yes, that does happen. It is the reason why Native American for centuries had a history of burning the lands to open them up. If you do not graze it, log it or burn it, the value to wildlife greatly decreases. Especially in habitats that many of us consider transition zones. Think the Areas below the alpine and above the sage flats, where there is a mix of species etc.

If you do not create the chaos needed for species diversity then yes, you will see a significant decrease in wildlife use and diversity... Ultimately either extreme (think feral horses on the extreme grazed end, and think preservation land on the extreme natural end) both ends have the same result in term of species use, diversity etc. SO in the middle we need a significant amount of chaos and stress on the range.
 
elks96 said:
It really depends on the area, but yes, that does happen. It is the reason why Native American for centuries had a history of burning the lands to open them up. If you do not graze it, log it or burn it, the value to wildlife greatly decreases. Especially in habitats that many of us consider transition zones. Think the Areas below the alpine and above the sage flats, where there is a mix of species etc.

If you do not create the chaos needed for species diversity then yes, you will see a significant decrease in wildlife use and diversity... Ultimately either extreme (think feral horses on the extreme grazed end, and think preservation land on the extreme natural end) both ends have the same result in term of species use, diversity etc. SO in the middle we need a significant amount of chaos and stress on the range.
Click to expand...
Yeah i get how fire works. Trying to equate cattle and natural fire cycles with wild land health is a joke. Id think you could do better. Maybe thats the best you got.

Unfortunately the ranching industry is flailing and needs huge support from the government. Too bad yall cant get it together. I think the first step is admitting to what the real situation is and not lying to yourself and everybody else about it.
 
Madmax13 said:
The typical "i cant kill big bucks so its the cows fault" conversation.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen that in this thread??

That would be like me replying to your comment with...

Typical, " I kill big bucks and bulls every year on my 6,000 acre ranch and the 40,000 acre land locked public oasis that only I can graze cattle and hunt on, what's everyone else whining about" conversation...
 
@SS! You could get rid of every public land grazing animal, and the herds are not going to instantly rebound. It's the easy thing to blame at the moment so it must be true
 
elkhunter81 said:
@SS! You could get rid of every public land grazing animal, and the herds are not going to instantly rebound. It's the easy thing to blame at the moment so it must be true
Click to expand...
No one said they would instantly rebound. But it’s a start. Not only will the ungulates benefit but so will everything else.
 
@ss If you believe strongly in this what have you done to help remove all feral animals from the land. Get it started and let us know how we can help.
 
DBLung said:
As we all become more polarized with our opinions and ideas. One thing is clear. People who are for or against something need to educate themselves better before becoming social warriors and try to stop something they know little to nothing about. When your only exposure to ranching is seeing cows on the mountain, which might be ruining your hunting spot. Your ideas on grazing aren't valid in any sense of the term. This comes up every year during hunting season and every year more people feel empowered to make the wrong difference.

SFW did this back in the early 2000's. They purchased a lease on the grazing permit to a large basin next to my home town. Within 4 years the area started to grow in with brush and wildlife started to avoid it. Within 6 years, they recognized their mistake and allowed grazing. By then it was too late. Not even sheep could get back into most of the area. Now 22 years later it's impossible to access the area, and little to no wildlife access it either. So if SFW and the left leaning forest service see value in grazing, as a benefit for wildlife, fire control, access, and hunters alike we need to look more into it and not rush to judgement because a cow messed up your hunt.
Click to expand...
Not true. If you personally place a higher value on a quality elk hunt on public land than cattle grazing, how is your view not valid? In case you were confused, the way it works under multiple use doctrine is that all uses of the forest are to be given equal consideration. That means that many times that package of uses DOES NOT mean giving priority to the over-all output of consumptive use.

Yes, in some cases grazing is a benefit and/or has little negative impact if applied correctly in regard to timing, duration, and intensity and where.

Yes, in some cases grazing negatively impacts springs, riparian areas, species diversity, decreasers and increaser impacts, pugging, hummocking, bank stability, water quality, over utilization, etc. etc.

Your rush to over-simplify and cherry pick one spot (allegedly) that you base your comments on, simply don't apply across the landscape. Upland grazing versus grazing riparian areas is different. Palouse, tall, and short grass prairie grazing are all different. Climate change impacts, conifer encroachment, fire suppression, weeds, all sorts of moving parts that must be considered in grazing plans. The ability to make fluid changes is also important.

You want to paint with a broad brush and you just can't, too many moving parts.

For the record, I am not opposed to public land grazing if done correctly in particular if other uses are equally considered.
 
Last edited:
Big issue I've been seeing here where I live in Idaho is the cattle are left out longer on the public. Use to be ranchers had their animals off by say mid sept to avoid hunter confortations. I've noticed the longer cattle (last year was almost year round) are kept out the less food there is on these wintering grounds. Now there is really no ascentive for these animals to stay on public and forage wild grasses now these ranchers are bitching about elk on private destroying fields. Let the forage grow on public for at least a month before the first snows hit in Nov.
 
BuzzH said:
Not true. If you personally place a higher value on a quality elk hunt on public land than cattle grazing, how is your view not valid? In case you were confused, the way it works under multiple use doctrine is that all uses of the forest are to be given equal consideration. That means that many times that package of uses DOES NOT mean giving priority to the over-all output of consumptive use.

Yes, in some cases grazing is a benefit and/or has little negative impact if applied correctly in regard to timing, duration, and intensity and where.

Yes, in some cases grazing negatively impacts springs, riparian areas, species diversity, decreasers and increaser impacts, pugging, hummocking, bank stability, water quality, over utilization, etc. etc.

Your rush to over-simplify and cherry pick one spot (allegedly) that you base your comments on, simply don't apply across the landscape. Upland grazing versus grazing riparian areas is different. Palouse, tall, and short grass prairie grazing are all different. Climate change impacts is all, conifer encroachment, fire suppression, all sorts of moving parts.

You want to paint with a broad brush and you just can't, too many moving parts.

For the record, I am not opposed to public land grazing if done correctly in particular if other uses are equally considered.
Click to expand...
Very well said. I agree completely
 
SS! said:
I’m ok with painting with a broad brush. Actually it’s a focking sprayer. Cows and sheep belong on private land.
Click to expand...
That's a legitimate argument since you're an equal owner of public lands. You have an equal voice with the rest of the 340 million public land owners.

I don't happen to agree with it, but I certainly understand your position. My "broad brush" statement was more that you cant apply the same grazing prescriptions on every piece of public land. It was not an indictment of your absolute right to not want any grazing on public land.
 
Grouse Legs said:
Yeah i get how fire works. Trying to equate cattle and natural fire cycles with wild land health is a joke. Id think you could do better. Maybe thats the best you got.

Unfortunately the ranching industry is flailing and needs huge support from the government. Too bad yall cant get it together. I think the first step is admitting to what the real situation is and not lying to yourself and everybody else about it.
Click to expand...
Actually the government is the single largest issue facing the the ranching industry. It is a oculus you lack any knowledge on the subject. For starters look up COOL and how we allow foreign beef to be labeled as a product of the US without the animal never being alive on US. Soil then look at trade agreements and policy that puts an artificial price ceiling in place and then let me know how much ranching and ranchers need the government. The truth is, if we got rid of the government, all the regulations and allowed our food industry to compete in a true free market system, then the ranchers and all producers will be much better off….


Oh and in terms of grazing have benefits similar to fire…. Many of the benefits parallel each other. Do
Some research and try not being as ignorant…
 
elks96 said:
Actually the government is the single largest issue facing the the ranching industry. It is a oculus you lack any knowledge on the subject. For starters look up COOL and how we allow foreign beef to be labeled as a product of the US without the animal never being alive on US. Soil then look at trade agreements and policy that puts an artificial price ceiling in place and then let me know how much ranching and ranchers need the government. The truth is, if we got rid of the government, all the regulations and allowed our food industry to compete in a true free market system, then the ranchers and all producers will be much better off….


Oh and in terms of grazing have benefits similar to fire…. Many of the benefits parallel each other. Do
Some research and try not being as ignorant…
Click to expand...
So you don't think one rancher having to either:

1. raise his cattle entirely on private.
2. pay private land AUM rates.

Is at any disadvantage to another rancher that pays $1.35-$1.40 a month per AUM on a federal lease?

Which rancher has the highest cost per pound to raise a beef, the guy paying $1.35 an AUM or someone paying $10-$20 an AUM on private or state?

Not in every case is grazing beneficial to the landscape, and that's just a simple fact. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

Also if your position is that "ranchers don't need the government" than ask them to either stop leasing federal lands, or at the very least to pay comparable lease rates to private and state. Also ask them to quit feeding their cattle with subsidized corn, etc. Also ask them to do away with APHIS predator control, that tax payers pay for. Or meat inspectors, or....the list goes on and on.

I would contend you've not done a fair and balanced amount of research either.

Cant cherry pick the favorable things the .gov does for your business and then howl about the things that you don't agree with and maintain any kind of credibility.

I think there needs to be adjustments in many of the grazing programs, meat processing, regulations on foreign markets like you brought up, etc. but again, you can't broad brush on the one hand, cherry pick on the other.
 
Last edited:
elks96 said:
Actually the government is the single largest issue facing the the ranching industry. It is a oculus you lack any knowledge on the subject. For starters look up COOL and how we allow foreign beef to be labeled as a product of the US without the animal never being alive on US. Soil then look at trade agreements and policy that puts an artificial price ceiling in place and then let me know how much ranching and ranchers need the government. The truth is, if we got rid of the government, all the regulations and allowed our food industry to compete in a true free market system, then the ranchers and all producers will be much better off….


Oh and in terms of grazing have benefits similar to fire…. Many of the benefits parallel each other. Do
Some research and try not being as ignorant…
Click to expand...
Run em on your own land then. Stand up and be your own man, dont use the publics land for your business. Or, if you cant handle that get a job that doesnt require government welfare. Get ajob on a jobsite or something.

Hey i did some research too. Looks like if we got rid of government thered be no law and then ranching would be a little harder.

Haha yeah im ignorant. Funny thing is, if i posted on a liberal website saying we should get rid of ebt cards there would be people calling me ignorant because they felt attacked. Same thing for saying cows shouldnt be on public land on a right wing mormon hunting website. I guessim ignorant. Hahaha
 
I’ve always bought beef straight from the rancher, allows you to custom finish/ slaughter the way you want and puts more money into the ranchers pocket, eliminates the Goverment control and the commercial slaughter houses filled with a lot Brazilian junk . Would be nice if everyone could do it that way and eliminate the big business/Government aspect of it. Pretty good thread for a right wing stormin mormin muley website.
 
smokepolejohnson said:
I’ve always bought beef straight from the rancher, allows you to custom finish/ slaughter the way you want and puts more money into the ranchers pocket, eliminates the Goverment control and the commercial slaughter houses filled with a lot Brazilian junk . Would be nice if everyone could do it that way and eliminate the big business/Government aspect of it. Pretty good thread for a right wing stormin mormin muley website.
Click to expand...
I agree and if I were a rancher that is exactly how I would try to market my cattle.

There is enough local demand, but it takes work, relationships with butcher shops, restaurants, local consumers, etc.

Some are very successful in doing it, but they're the go-getter types. Not everyone is.
 
Grouse Legs said:
Haha yeah im ignorant. Funny thing is, if i posted on a liberal website saying we should get rid of ebt cards there would be people calling me ignorant because they felt attacked. Same thing for saying cows shouldnt be on public land on a right wing mormon hunting website. I guessim ignorant. Hahaha
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever accused MM of being a mormon website?????? Yep definitely smarter than the rest of us.
 
As with anything, there are people that abuse the system, are lazy, and dont take care of things. Just like hunters...

Most ranchers have made their pastures better, developed springs and water holes, and manage the grass as best they can. Water holes have most certainly became better and more prevalent because of the ranchers.

My best buck was killed right in the middle of several hundred head of cows, in eastern Nv. The presence of sheep or cattle is a piss poor excuse for not getting your tag filled.

Just my opinion....
 
SS! said:
If pigs can be raised in pens for a profit so can cows.

Why isn’t there free range pigs? Chickens?

If you care about elk and mule deer you will gut shoot every cow and sheep you see on public land.
Click to expand...
Yep and go to jail do not pass go do not collect your 200 dollars.
 
smokepolejohnson said:
I’ve always bought beef straight from the rancher, allows you to custom finish/ slaughter the way you want and puts more money into the ranchers pocket, eliminates the Goverment control and the commercial slaughter houses filled with a lot Brazilian junk . Would be nice if everyone could do it that way and eliminate the big business/Government aspect of it. Pretty good thread for a right wing stormin mormin muley website.
Click to expand...
Does the rancher you buy from have a feedlot operation?

For example, I think most ranchers in Wyoming sell to feedlots (which may well be located in other states).
 
I live in the sticks and have the acreage and space to grain finish them for a few months. A lot of custom beef to direct sellers will feed lot them on a smaller scale, going either grass fed or grain finished. Grass fed beef is over rated in my opinion, bigger negative carbon footprint as far as the hippies are concerned and not any better for taste at similar hanging wt
 
Easier to import beef from other countries cuz we continually increase regulation whether its on private or public lands. Want more Brazilian or Argentine beef then keep imposing more restrictions. Keeping cattle off public lands is just one more step closer to national dependence.
 

Similar threads

D
National forest grazing
Replies
7
Views
559
montezumarchery
montezumarchery
H
Bulls bugling and herding cows
Replies
2
Views
752
twopointdn
twopointdn
N
Repairment of Guzzlers
Replies
4
Views
444
BradA
BradA

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_8973.jpeg
20120BCA-EF0A-4F42-BB40-D07BB4FE52A7.jpeg
IMG_4091.jpeg
IMG_4094.jpeg
Super Wide Cheater Buck
7316EA95-F9E4-401D-B3AE-D6DD1AC56862.jpeg
3A5CB080-025A-461A-84D1-CE690F5AB322.jpeg
9669DDF0-A5E2-437F-8DF6-9EF68D217EA3.jpeg
9F07BB9E-9445-4CF5-B656-E226D54BC2B6.jpeg
IMG_6625.jpeg
327B1CAD-6345-4DCC-B6FA-A670B1FCD0CD.jpeg
VideoCapture_20211113-093348.jpg
Back
Top Bottom