Elk Committee. -vs- Livestock

[Idahohay]

One VERY important part of the initial post that started this discussion was the statement ?It should also allow Utah to move to 80,000 elk, up from 65,000 as long as mule deer nor livestock operations are not impacted?.
One of the ?sleeper? mule deer groups will get fired up about the damage this will do to the already declining Mule Deer in Utah. Years ago, Utah was the destination for Mule Deer. In the 70's & 80's, it was a major holiday for the Utah Deer Hunt. Roads were jammed with travel trailers, horse trailer and every 4 wheel drive vehicle that would run, heading out to hunt Mule Deer. It was and still is (maybe not as large) a tradition for families and friends.
I believe Mule Deer addicts will weigh in on this big time. There are more Mule Deer hunters than Elk Hunters and tags are easier to come by. So far the big push (quest) is not for the 200" muley,for everyone.
However, from a agricultural perspective,( we moved our operations out of Utah to Idaho, due to urban encroachment), the big fight is going to be with the farmers and ranchers. Farm Bureau & the Utah Cattlemens Assoc. who on their website states that one of their 8 objectives ?To oppose the enactment of legislation designed to injure and / or destroy the cattle business?. will fight the elk committees recommendations for approval. I believe these two groups have alot more clout than SFW.
Many think that the issue is with less feed for cows and sheep, which will be a part of it. The biggest issue will be Crop DAMAGE. Farmers and ranchers will not put up with crop and hay stack damage without compensation from DWR. They already have a big problem and are not going to stand for more Elk so someone can kill a bigger bull.
I think and Todd can correct me, that the CWMU was mainly started to give the land owner an avenue whereby he could recover some of these damages by selling a few elk or mule deer tags for exclusive hunting on their property. These properties sell 3 to 4 times more cow tags than bull tags, and at an affordable price. Farmers & ranchers want these large wintering elk herds trimmed and killing cows is the way to do it.
So if your killing all these cows, how is the herd going to increase? Eventually, but in who's lifetime?

 

[hoytme]

They will be compensated. A dirty little secret is the livestock folks and landowners have been bribed with conservation tags. This reeks of being eerily similar to the nonsense in DC with bribing Senators with other peoples money, except the committee (SFW) are using our elk tags instead of tax money.

I want to know where the MDF is on this? I know they weren't invited to the committee meetings, but raising the elk population from 67,000 to 80,000 will have major impacts on deer populations.

 

[Daxter]

By federal law public lands are supposed to be managed for "multiple use" which includes both wildlife values and livestock grazing. If sportsmen have to compensate ranchers with permits when ranchers think there are "too many" elk on public lands, then I want ranchers to compensate me with beef when I think there are too many cows on public land. Sounds fair right? Oh, but the cattlemen are "paying" for their grazing you say. Well sportsmen pay for the management of wildlife through the federal excise taxes on sporting goods, and I know that sportsmen pay for lots and lots of acres of habitat improvement that benefits both wildlife and livestock. I see giving tags to public land ranchers as a subsidy to a subsidy, and the setting of a very bad precedent. We have already created some monsters in UT when it comes to what we do with the public's tags (ie conservation, convention, landowner, CWMU, etc.) lets not do it again.

Wildlife damage on private lands is another story, but even there I think sportsmen should only foot the bill if the landowner allows free public access for hunting on their property.

Just my own personal opinion.

 

[2lumpy]

Folks give this a thought regarding livestock and wildlife. Much of what you express is accurate but as a livestock operator what if your landlord (USFS/BLM) came to you and said, would you be willing to support (allow) a few more wildlife (elk/deer/moose/sheep) on your allotment if we could increase the forage by x thousand/million tons, would that be of interest you?. If we can develop/distribute and improve the water systems on your allotment so you can pull livestock into more of your otherwise marginal terrain would there be some room for a few more head of wildlife, could that work for you? If we can grow a few more wildlife and at the same time allow you to benefit more, would that be something that might create some new opportunities for both parties. And, sir, if your a hunter besides being a livestock operator maybe we could ask the DWR to compensate you by giving you an elk tag (from one of those extras we'll have), and if we can make this plan work well enough and we can get these elk old enough and large enough you might even decide to sell the tag for 14 or 16 thousand dollars.

Now if they made that offer to you and you where a somewhat reasonable man and had a good business mind, what would you say?

Now how do we go about getting the funds to allow the (USFS/BLM) to make this kind of offer?

Or should we just say to hell with it and take all we wrestle out of the federal lands management system and call it good?

DC

 

[388Net]

I hope you all want to pay $100.00 for a steak, what the hewk do you think feeds this country. Some of you don't think past the end of your nose. Maybe when you get hungry you will see what is more important.

 

[2lumpy]

I have and all I can saw is that it was a really really outstanding piece of meat.

388, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer so I'm not sure what your message is.

Are you planning to stop raise beef for some reason? Sure hope not, I rather eat beef than elk or deer any day. Can't we have a bunch of both?

DC

 

[388Net]

Lumpy,

I am saying if you start reducing the numbers of cattle or permits that the ranchers lease from the BLM or Forest Service, the price of beef will sky rocket. If a rancher had to feed his cows hay year round, it would be very expensive to do this. If I had to feed my cows year round hay that I raise or that I buy from someone the price to feed one cow would be close to $500.00 at the end of the year you would sell that cows calf for about $550.00 for a profit of about $50.00 per calf... So if I had 100 cows I would make $5000.00 not even close to being worth my time. So what I am saying is about 90%of the cattle in Utah are grazed on Public land, if you take cattle off the ranges you wouldn't be eating very many steaks. People don't realize that farmers and ranchers are what feed this country. I believe that the wildlife and the cattle can both to fine if they will be managed properly. I love to hunt more then anything, but I know if this country had to live on wildlife for meat it sure wouldn't last long...

 

[2lumpy]

Thanks for clarifying where your coming from and I couldn't agree more. The natural resources found on Federal Land is where much of the wealth of our Nation comes from. The feed it grows for livestock, the timber it produces for lumber, the minerals that are mined there, the oil and gas it gives us for energy, all these uses provide revenue for allot of businesses and allot of men and women like ourselves. Recreation too benefits from these lands and many jobs and many children from all our families are feed from the wages that come from those involved in hunting and fishing etc. families, the same as the children whose families work in the livestock, mining and timber industries. The lands truly are multiple use. What a great concept that the Europeans never had a change to do under their monarchy systems.

My earlier post was intended to purpose exactly what you articulated in you last post which is "wildlife and the cattle can both do fine if they will be managed properly". I truly believe they can, much like the families that farm the valleys for a living benefit the mountain cattle graziers and vs versa. Valley farmers need summer water for irrigation and have built mountain reservoirs to held spring water so it can be release in the summer. Mountain cattle graziers work together with valley farmers on these waster projects because holding those waters on the mountain in those reservoirs allows cattle to have water on the mountain in July, August and Sept. where without the reservoirs these Utah mountains would be pretty dry by the end of July.

So my point is these two groups benefit by helping each other. I believe the wildlife people and the cattle people can do similar things through habitat and water enhancement and restoration projects. The bottom line being more feed for both cattle and elk. More money for both families, the rancher's family and those families who spend their money on recreation or make there living from it. The children of both groups get what they need and both are better off for it. Those of us that see a bigger picture, a long term relationship see the need to work together because what's good for you has to be good for us and vs versa. And it can be.

Rational folks come up with solutions were both parties benefit. The only time we loose is when we decide one party or the other wants it all and the other party can look else where. That will not work nor should it.

Thanks for your input I have no problem with beef, love the stuff. There is ample room for us both when we work as a team rather than as competitors.

I hope this doesn't come across as a sermon, (I'd have not right to do that, for sure.) I really think we are both saying the same thing, both of us just need it work.

DC

 

[dkpeay]

As and Engineer and MBA, we are trained to design, build, and expand production and outputs. FRankly, a lot of what we were trained to do was do what people said, "couldn't be done".

More biologists and sportsmen need to go to engineering school !!

When Utah has treated nearly 1 Million acres of federal land, and taken this land that was maybee producing 100 pounds of forage an acre, to the same land that is not producing 1,000 to 2,000 pounds of food an acre - do the MATH, you can have MORE COWS and MORE ELK and MORE deer.

Deseret Land and Livestock has proven this. Make the land productive, have better grazing systems, you can have MORE LIVESTOCK and MORE WILDLIFE.

Without the TREATMENT of nearly 1 million ACRES of LAND - that is FOUR DESERET LAND AND LIVESTOCKS, we would NOT be proposing more ELK and MORE deer on Utah's public lands.

Any questions ?

YOu can have more, if you make the PRODUCTION CAPACITY more.

My opinion, is a lot of the deer herd problems in the WEST came from stacking elk on top of poor range conditions loaded to teh brime with cattle, sheep and deer. The elk breaks the house of cards, and deer are the looser. We should not equate failures on BAD RANGES, projecting them as failures onto good ranges.

When there are MAJOR FIRES, or MAJOR HABITAT projects, there is a lot more feed, and you can have more of both.

And as far as subsidizing the ranchers - that is an old, worthless argument

20 years ago, ranchers wanted to kill all the wildlife, now they make money on the CWMUS, they are in fighting for more wildlife. Simple, if something is an assett, you want more, a liability you want less. Today, there is MORE wildlife and MORE public opportnity, what is teh problem?

If we can add 15,000 more elk, give a small percent of the gain to ranchers, make them feel good about it, help them out, that is more for us.

Not just my opinion, it was a TWO to ONE in favor opinion of the DWR official elk hunter survey.Give the landowers a piece of the pie, grow the elk herds, protect the deer herds.

IN business school, they told us, if you take 100 people, and then say, hey, we are giving out $100,000 in bonuses. $70,000 goes to guy X because of his performance and $30,000 goes to guy Y, the study showed that 30% of the people will SAY, I don't want any bonus - give up $30,000, because of the jealousy of the guy getting $70,000.

I didn't believe the study, i couldn't imagine anyone would be SOOO STUPID. But, now, in life i see it every day.

Lets NOT MOVE forward, because i am jealous someone else might get a little piece of a bigger pie, even if there is MORE PIE for all of us. WRONG

 

[388Net]

I agree with almost everything you said Don. The problem with some of the ranchers is that some of them don't own private ground where they run the cows on BLM or Forest Service. So if they don't own any private they are not getting any of the pie. Not saying they deserve any, but the BLM or Forest Service ground that they run cows in most cases have been passed down from one generation to the next. For some 50 years that I know of the cattle range that we run cows on has not been given 1 single more permit to run any more cattle on. If anything we have had permits taken away. We have seedings on the Southwest desert unit that we cannot put cows on until atleast the 1st of june every year, by the time june comes around the elk have already taken the feed and moved up higher to the next seeding that we were supposed to go on next. We can manage our cows and keep them from over grazing one pasture or another. There is no way we can control the elk from taking the feed. If we want to rest a pasture (seeding) for a year it doesn't get any growth or reseeding because the elk stay on it and eat all the feed. I know that there is no way to control what the elk do, but the cattleman that have run these ranges for decades have seen their ranges decrease in feed year after year. The rancher that runs cattle jointly with me is 83 years old and he remembers that not to long ago there wasn't any elk on his range. In the last 5 years we have had a drought in Utah, we have the right to run 290 cows and my partner has the right to run 290 cows on this range. last year we each ran 80 cows and this year we both can run 50 cows. I know that they are having cow hunts on this unit, but I believe that is just to get the Elk herd back to the numbers that they are supposed to be at. I want elk and cattle to strive together as much as you do, but we need to look at both sides a little more. If my family continues to run fewer and fewer cattle each year we will be broke within a few years. I would love to do range inprovements on some of this land that the BLM manages, we would even put some of are own money into seedings and removing some of the pinyon juniper trees so we could have more feed for both the cattle and the elk. Trying to get the BLM to try and get something like this done takes an act of god. I can't even get permission to extend a water line 1/2 mile to another pasture that the only water that it has in it is from rain water that fills ponds. And as I said before we have been in a drought and these ponds have been empty for years now. I know the SFW and other groups have done tons of projects and I commend them greatly, it seems like it takes a group like this to be able to get something done anymore. I am a member of the SFW and I will be for along time, Thank You for what you have done and for what you will do in the future. Sorry for being so long I just wanted to let you know my thoughts.

 

[2lumpy]

388, that is about a succinct a post as I have ever read. I commend you on your communication skills. My guess is you are an outstanding businessman (cattleman). I can certainly understand your concerns and hope SFW, the BLM and the USFS can work with you so your business can continue to be successful. I am hopeful they can find someway to increase you income as we go forward. That is the challenge and I believe sportsmen are up to if given a chance.

DC

 

[hossblur]

Sorry but I am a little troubled by the pasted down generation to generation argument as well as the I remember when argument. My guess is there were no domestic cattle in Utah at one point and there were elk, so what was arguments are lame. I like you grew up in the west and cows on the range are part of being in the west, but this idea that I have a right to feed public land is what rubs the 99% of people who don't run livestock wrong. You don't have any right, and you pay not nearly what the feed is worth(or a smart buisness man would never do it). Having said that i like seeing the cattle on the mountain so don't take this wrong. Unfortunately Mr. Peay most likely read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" in buisness school and his if some get lots argument reflects that. Again, and the expo proves it, if you auction off 20 extra elk tags on the manti, it damages the manti regardless of whether it helps the pahvant. We cannot continue to sacrifice one for the other and say we gained anything. The easiest way to increase elk while satisfying ranchers losses is trade grazing rights for access and damage. If you don't allow access then go ahead and kill off all the elk on your ground, of course you then don't get permits. If you do allow access(as part of the states access program) we can trade grazing rights on BLM and other state lands. By trading we keep the money from flowing into the Capitol where some is always skimmed off the top and spent places not related to wildlife. The rancher has no out of pocket expense, win win. Also, we can then invite our "environmentalist" friends to the mountain and can borrow the cattle and stampede them!! I believe that back in the day wildlife were a nuisance to livestock raisers and they did everything in their power to eliminate them, but I don't see that in the newer generation of raisers and maybe its time for us to change our perspective as well. My .02

 

[388Net]

Hoss,

I know for a fact that there wasn't any elk on the Southwest Desert Unit until they transplanted them in. I am not sure of the exact date I will find out. There has been cattle on the range for atleast a 100 years,that I no of. If the ranchers killed of all the elk or deer on their private property you would not have any deer or elk to hunt. For example I own a alf alfa field west of the town I live in. In the fall Sept-Dec I have atleast 600 head of deer and around 50 head of elk grazing on it from dusk until dawn. If I were to start killing these animals, which I would never do, but if I did it would sure put a dent in the Numbers. I know of atleast 5 other farmers that have this exact same problem. I believe the permits are going to be selling for a whole lot less than what the crop would be if it wasn't harvested by the wildlife.

 

[hossblur]

I think you missed what I said and then pretty much said it yourself when you said I could shoot them all but never would. Back in the day they would have, your the new generation I am talking about that we should be working with. But, unless you have no mtn permits your complaint about deer in your fields after 4th crop seems pretty lame. Again, I don't care about your permits, in fact when the enviros try to stop it I will be standing next to you in protest, but you can't have it both ways. If you want to feed off the mtn. for very reasonable rates when compared to hay or renting or buying pasture, you can't turn around and demand tags at top rates or complain about wildlife numbers. Without those permits, there is a lot more feed that can support a lot more wildlife. Again, I don't think you should give up your permits, but in exchange we ask the sheep and cattlemens associations to work with the sportsman, because, and its not a threat its just fact, without us you all have no friends and the small number of raisers left stand no chance against the east and west coast limo liberal enviros. "Can't we all just get along?"

 

[388Net]

The deer and Elk take my third crop hay not fourth we don't even get four crops down here. And I will bet that the Cattlemens association and the USDA have a whole lot more say and power then the wildlife people. You also have to understand if you start taking cattle of ranges, you better learn to like chicken because you won't be eating many steaks. I agree lets just get along

 

[theox]

wow! what an interesting read dont know if i even want to stir the pot anymore.this would effect me and my family. as i love hunting and also love helping on the cattle ranch my family operates. which my fam has greatly improved feed and water on the ranch,(which encompasses nearly 100,000 acres and which a little over 10 percent is private) that not only is benefiting the cattle but also elk antelope and deer oh and even the overpopulated bands of mustang. anyway...there are now many more elk and even deer starting to occupy range that has been improved by my family. i havent seen the report of the elk committe vs livestock. so im not sure whether or not they plan on cutting blm permit numbers for ranchers, but if thats the case i think the elk committe is barking up the wrong tree! and i just dont see this happening! however if they plan on improvment for ranges so as to up the amount of total animals per acre i think that is a great idea!one good area too ,and probably the cheapest easiest most effective way to start this is to ALLOW THE WILDFIRES TO BURN!!!! the amount of money otherwise spent suppressing these fires (that have no impact on houses or other important structures)could be converted into money to buy and plant seed on these new burn areas.as every hunter rightly knows burn areas greatly improve feed!by clearing trees such as junipers that are practically a noxious weed and so out of control that feed simply cannot grow in many of the areas that have strong stands of junipers because the sun cannot reach the ground, water is drank by these trees and there for: food for the animals cannot grow! there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of worthless juniper covered areas and also over run sage brush flats and hillsides that are not nescasary. now im not saying eliminate all of this becasue trees and brush provide cover for animals but the amount of it that there is , is worthless ground and is simply more than animals need to survive and hide. there are so many areas that are worthless to ranchers and wildlife like this. that if improved i have no doubt you could up the amount of deer cattle and elk on these ranges. the other factor is improving water in these places. there are alot of areas that if portions of these trees were eliminated it would allow alot more water/springs to be improved as well.well thats my ideas on possible solutions that are simple easy and cost effective.

?It takes a genius to whine appealingly.?
Mr.Whiny

 

[2lumpy]

theox
In many areas here in Utah the agencies have started to allow wildfires to burn, which most agree is a good thing, even necessary, as you've mentioned. Problems always crop up however with any system of management. So often when a wildfire is left to burn, which we want it to do, a change in weather conditions comes along and next thing we know the wrong stuff is burning, like power-lines that serve thousands of homes and businesses, endangering highway traffic and disrupting the trucking industry, and even taking range land that livestock operators don't want burned, or their spike camp cabins go up with the fire.

I've seen it happen numerous times in the last 3 or 4 years, since they started letting things burn. Then the agency gets sued by the landowner for not putting the fire down. Wildfires can be a real tar-baby, we damn'em if they do and damn'em if they don't.

My personal belief however is there is not such thing as a bad wildfire, but I haven't had one burn my cabin yet so I kind of know where some folks are coming from when they want them suppressed. Nothing is ever easy, is it.

DC

 

[theox]

>theox
>In many areas here in Utah
>the agencies have started to
>allow wildfires to burn, which
>most agree is a good
>thing, even necessary, as you've
>mentioned. Problems always crop
>up however with any system
>of management. So often
>when a wildfire is left
>to burn, which we want
>it to do, a change
>in weather conditions comes along
>and next thing we know
>the wrong stuff is burning,
>like power-lines that serve thousands
>of homes and businesses, endangering
>highway traffic and disrupting the
>trucking industry, and even taking
>range land that livestock operators
>don't want burned, or their
>spike camp cabins go up
>with the fire.
>
>I've seen it happen numerous times
>in the last 3 or
>4 years, since they started
>letting things burn. Then
>the agency gets sued by
>the landowner for not putting
>the fire down. Wildfires
>can be a real tar-baby,
>we damn'em if they do
>and damn'em if they don't.
>
>
>My personal belief however is there
>is not such thing as
>a bad wildfire, but I
>haven't had one burn my
>cabin yet so I kind
>of know where some folks
>are coming from when they
>want them suppressed. Nothing
>is ever easy, is it.
>
>
>DC

like i said let em burn when they dont have any building in there path. places i refer to are like sw desert unit no main roads thru to affect trucking, no powerlines in any direction for 30 +miles and very few structures.the thing is they rarely let the fires burn up there! ive witnessed many times them rushing into put a fire out that would not have damaged a thing for 30 miles. i seen a crew of 20 plus firefighters camped out near a lightning strike on a bald rocky knoll that wouldnt have damaged a single thing if even the minor chance it did pick up into a fire.
we just had a 5000 acre burn on our range last summer they actually let it burn for awhile! which was rare, then seeded it quickly after to my amazement. i think these are the things they need to continue doing!and it was also in an area that wont effect us to not have cattle on for the next 3 years, it was useless feedless area over run with junipers. now its gonna do a lot of good!, and allow cattle and wildlife a heck of a lot more feed!
in the long run the wildfires are a great tool. however i understand when an entire community is in danger from a fire and quickly put it out. completly different scenario, but too many times they dont let the fires burn like they should!i know the epa gets on there back about smoke pollution, but really?! once again enviromentalists doing more damage than good. wildfires have burned since the dawn of time and have been unregulated for thousands and thousands of years....anyway this is going in a completly wrong direction so ill stop here

?It takes a genius to whine appealingly.?
Mr.Whiny

 

[piper]

I guess you don't know what downey brome is? commonly known as cheat grass, ever hear of the cheat grass fire cycle? Nevada is estimated to be 2/3rds dominated by this exotic species, poor forage for most wildlife and livestock. Some biologists are saying its a mistake to let fires burn where this grass can takeover. Many fires are beneficial, but not always.

 

[theox]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-10 AT 11:07PM (MST)[p]
would you be refering to many what many around here call june grass/cheat grass?? because ya ive heard of it and cattle sure seem to slurp it up in the spring time and early summer.
and i guarantee its more beneficial than juniper trees! and biologists arent always right, i think even if it is"poor" forage its better than no forage!? not to mention the amount of water that would go to better uses than watering a juniper tree.

?It takes a genius to whine appealingly.?
Mr.Whiny

 

[theox]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-10 AT 11:08PM (MST)[p]o and i beleive cheat grass comes when you dont plant native plant species right(could be wrong)? so seeing how i suggest converting the money not spent on suppressing fires and putting it into seed money i think that would help eliminate the "cheat grass fire cycle "?

?It takes a genius to whine appealingly.?
Mr.Whiny

 

[piper]

In certain areas Cheat dominates native species whereever it gets a foothold, it dries out early and is not very palatable after that, actually planting just native species is not that common after a fire and its very expensive, usually they go with a crested wheat mixture. There has been some good research done in Utah showing that cheat can be eliminated, not easily though.

 

[theox]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-10 AT 11:48PM (MST)[p]>I think you missed what I
>said and then pretty much
>said it yourself when you
>said I could shoot them
>all but never would.
>Back in the day they
>would have, your the new
>generation I am talking about
>that we should be working
>with. But, unless you
>have no mtn permits your
>complaint about deer in your
>fields after 4th crop seems
>pretty lame. Again, I
>don't care about your permits,
>in fact when the enviros
>try to stop it I
>will be standing next to
>you in protest, but you
>can't have it both ways.
> If you want to
>feed off the mtn. for
>very reasonable rates when compared
>to hay or renting or
>buying pasture, you can't turn
>around and demand tags at
>top rates or complain about
>wildlife numbers. Without those
>permits, there is a lot
>more feed that can support
>a lot more wildlife.
>Again, I don't think you
>should give up your permits,
>but in exchange we ask
>the sheep and cattlemens associations
>to work with the sportsman,
>because, and its not a
>threat its just fact, without
>us you all have no
>friends and the small number
>of raisers left stand no
>chance against the east and
>west coast limo liberal enviros.
> "Can't we all just
>get along?"

"you can't turn
>around and demand tags at
>top rates or complain about
>wildlife numbers."



im a bit confused??? because what i understand your saying is people with state and blm grazing permits get landowner hunting tags??? casue if so... your wrong, those tags are for private lands only it does not! include blm and state land grazing lands. and if your saying land owners should mot get cwmus or land owner tags your nuts.
private land owners deserve a way such as cwmus to compensate for too many animals on THERE land put your self in there shoes. we have between 30-50 head of antelope on our hayfield every single day in the summer.you dont think we should get a compensation for feeding wildlife animalsthat we are not allowed to shoot and thin the herd??

also if your complaing about lack of wildlife becasue of ranchers... quit buying beef.without having the access to graze cattle more cost effectively the price of beef would skyrocket!if ranchers have to feed there cattle its in turn gonna cost more money...simply there gonna charge more for beef.

maybe i read your posts wrong but thats what i got.


?It takes a genius to whine appealingly.?
Mr.Whiny

 

[theox]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-10 AT 11:44PM (MST)[p]i agree it isnt a year round feed no doubt! like i said spring and early summer after that its not worth much but junipers have absolutley no feed value and they use a lot more water than cheat grass. often in spring our cattle live off of the cheat grass in some of our pastures. there are definently better feeds but i for one would rather more cheat grass and less pinyons and sage brush,both of which provide less feed than cheat grass. im not saying eliminate all pinyon and sagebrush it has its place but there is more of it than needed
and yes native seeds can be spendy but when you compare it to the amount spent on suppressing fires i dont think it compares



?It takes a genius to whine appealingly.?
Mr.Whiny

 

[388Net]

Usually the only time you get june grass is when there is not enough moisture to bring the other grass in the spring. They also have a inexspensive spray that kills june grass also. The reason why we have so much june grass is because the BLM and Forest service soaks all their money into trying to put the fires out and then they don't have any left when it is out to properly restore the ground properly. Like Ox said june grass is still better feed than juniper. Good posts ox.

 

[hossblur]

Love the eat chicken quote. This is the thing a lot of us hate, give us cheap feed or you won't eat steak. Basically what your saying is our buisness model doesn't work and its your responsibility to fix it. The cattlemen/sheepmen assoc. have to make up there minds, they don't want gov. involvement(me) in price structures, regualtions,etc. but they do want my money, public land, disaster payouts, etc. So basically its let us do what we want and shut up or you don't eat? This is that old attitude that brings such animosity. I personally suppport you all, probably one of the few in here that eats mutton(locally grown). Don't buy any beef not locally raised, etc. However, and lets be serious, beef out of argentina without our tariffs is cheaper. Seafood out of China is imported here way cheaper. Again, you all have my support as well as most of those in here. But if you think that agriculuture in Utah is even close to hunting/fishing/outdoor(public land) tourism in the size and economic impact created your smoking that cheat grass. And you and I both know that the newer generation of "biologists" in the BLM and Forest service are not western mtn. kids, but urban east and west coasters to whom what you all do is from centurys ago. Look at the studies that attack grazing, look at the wilderness lockups, and look at the endagered species acts that lock up public land, think that comes from the hunters? Get real!!! As for those antelope eating third crop, sell trespass permits to guys holding tags, why do you need the state to set up a market for you(CWMU). Again, you hate the governments involvment in your buisness, then you buy into the CWMU system. Your buinesses(cattlemen or hunting) would be better and more profitable without the gov., when you let them in the door you sold your soul to the devil, then your pissed when the devil sticks you with its fork.

 

[bonepiler]

Its interesting that only about 10% of the nation's beef is produced in the intermountain west. I found it interesting that less than 1% of beef is produced in Utah. 0.90%. Thats pretty insignificant in the big picture. If every cow was removed from Utah, I doubt you would see much of a difference in beef prices. The slack could easily be made up in real beef producing states like Texas. Not saying cows should be removed from Utah, but spare me the whole "where does your food come from" talk and "your steaks are going to cost $100". From an economic standpoint, it makes sense to grow cattle where the feed is, and that is the plains and the mid-west. People in the midwest (and other private producers such as myself in Utah that graze private lands) pay closer to $20.00 per AUM and are still profitable. Its hard for me to support giving elk tags to public land grazers that pay less than $2.00 an AUM. I'd hate to see yet more public hunting permits go to special interests. Before that happens, I'd just as soon keep the numbers of elk in the state stable where they are and let the cattlemen keep their cattle numbers the same. But thats just my opinion.

 

[NardDogg]

I heard they want to take 100 elk tags away from the public and give them to Ranchers. I know that the businessman/engineer in Mr. Peay will say that it makes good business sense to give up a little to get even more. But, unfortunately there are these little things like "right" and "wrong" that come into play. If business was solely about making money no matter what you had to do to make it, Ponzi schemes, insider trading, fraud, etc. would be successful business models. In the business world and in the wildlife world there are boundaries, there are limits, there is a right and wrong. Taking more tags from the public to buy off public land ranchers is wrong. I don't want to put anyone out of business, but enough is enough. Buying support with public tags is wrong. Every rancher in the state is going to want a piece of that pie. This is huge mistake, the opening of Pandora's box, and morally and ethically wrong.

The Nard Dogg

 

[2lumpy]

bonepiler
I believe your numbers are very close to being accurate. I have family that paid $33.00 a month for a cow and calf last year when they ran out of pasture and feed.

In fact Utah's share of the total beef industry is very, very small, insignificant actually but I think you may be missing the point this cattle leaser was been trying to make and I believe us hunters need to appreciate. He can't make a living raising cattle if the revenue doesn't work for him, a living he and his family have depended on for many years. If our pressure for elk or deer or whatever isn't in harmony, he's gone. No more multiple use so far as he is concerned. As a hunter I believe multiple use is in our best interest. After all, hunters are just one of many Fed. Land users. The system will work best for all users if we can work in harmony.

Regarding the remark about $100 steaks, it was one of frustration I'm sure. We all use metaphors to try to make our point, sometimes the metaphors aren't always perfect but I got his point and I think that is the most important part of his message. Or so it seems to me.

DC

 

[bonepiler]

I dont believe elk should be increased anywhere in the state unless there has been an increase in forage. I wouldnt want to see anyones operation impacted unless there are extra resources available to sustain the increase. In no way, shape, or form could I support giving up 100 elk tags to support grazing, where the forage is already practically free. Just keep elk numbers the same before ever considering that option. In my opinion, that is one of the worst ideas I have heard in a long long time.