Ranchers Cave in to Huggers!

[CHD]

Buyout plan to retire grazing permits targets ranchers

01/24/2005

 

 

 

MONTICELLO, N.M. (AP) -- Rancher Darryl Sullivan works several jobs to makes ends meet. He sells horse trailers and livestock equipment in Las Cruces, makes custom hats, levels fields and puts in cement irrigation ditches.

 

His two grown sons aren't interested in taking over the 44-Bar Ranch, south of Socorro, that has been in the family for five generations.

 

"A guy just needs to make a living for his family," he said. "A rancher and a farmer just doesn't make any money."

 

That's why Sullivan is eyeing a proposal backed by Santa Fe-based Forest Guardians and other environmental groups to use taxpayer money to buy out and retire federal land grazing leases.

 

"You can survive the drought and everything else, but you cannot survive the economy," Sullivan said. "Next year, it'll be worse."

 

The grazing permit buyout proposal has slowly been gaining momentum in Congress and among a growing number of ranchers. Proponents say as many as 50 ranchers in New Mexico, 250 in Arizona and others around the West are coming out to support it.

 

This month, groups backing the proposal sent a letter to 22,000 grazing permitees, urging them to support it.

 

But federal land managers and the livestock industry oppose the grazing buyout proposal.

 

The plan would give ranchers a one-time payment based on the number of livestock on their federal grazing permits, which they otherwise could sell or will to heirs. The land then would be permanently retired from livestock grazing.

 

The proposal offers ranchers $175 for each cow or cow-calf pair per month compared with a market value in the West of $35 to $75, according to the campaign.

So a rancher with a permit to graze 100 cows for nine months of the year on a Forest Service allotment would get $157,500 from the buyout.

 

Such grazing permit buyout programs were proposed in 2003 in national and Arizona-specific legislation and are expected to be reintroduced this year. Buyout provisions were also included last year in an Idaho wilderness bill introduced and are expected to be part of an Oregon national monument bill.

 

Members of New Mexico's delegation have either not taken a position or oppose a buyout in part because of potential negative effects on rural communities. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., says he has concerns, citing that ranchers already have the ability to sell out their businesses and valid grazing permits.

 

But John Horning of the Forest Guardians argues the timing is right for a New Mexico bill, perhaps targeting the Gila country or the southwestern part of the state.

 

He said ranchers are struggling under drought, tougher environmental requirements for endangered species, foreign competition, encroaching development and increased pressure from recreationists.

 

"We simply need a few more ranchers in New Mexico to step out of the woodwork and realize the time is now," Horning said.

 

Horning and fellow environmentalists also argue that ending grazing on some allotments would be good for the land, native wildlife and watersheds -- although ranchers disagree with that contention.

 

Livestock industry groups have their own fears about the proposal.

 

"We don't see this to be voluntary," said Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, which passed a resolution against the idea.

 

Cowan said government regulations that restrict ranchers can force them to do things like take a buyout.

 

The Forest Service also has concerns. Janette Kaiser, the agency's national director of rangeland management, said the Forest Service has generally been worried about loss of open space and a need to keep ranchers on the land.

 

Buying out all federal grazing permits in the country would cost $3.1 billion. Grazing fees generate about $6.9 million a year.

[bowsniper]

So why is this a bad thing? At least it will free up some hunting tags from the land owner tags. If this happened in AZ we wouldn't have to worry about this "Ranching for wildlife" crap.

 

Bowsniper

[Benbrown]

This is a bad thing for two reasons:

 

First, once the grazing permits are retired and the ranches are no longer viable economic units, the private land that anchors those public land leases will inevitably be sold--either as whole parcels or they will be subdivided into smaller parcels and sold by the current owner. Because of the patterns of settlement and homesteading, most of the private land that is embedded in the larger public ownership in western states is where most of the the water and fertile soils are. These are key elements in the habitat needed by all wildlife, especially wide-ranging species like deer and elk. There are several studies documenting the detrimental effects of dispersed rural subdivision on wildlife, and especially on habitat for elk, deer and pronghorns.

 

Second, the private lands that aren't sold for subdivision will be most attractive to wealthy folks looking for a rural retreat. Much of the ranchland in the west is changing hands these days and the buyers are generally attracted to the opportunities for hunting and other outdoor recreation. These folks are not interested in permitting you to trespass to obtain access to the public lands behind their deeded land. They will sell trespass opportunities, and will support the idea of landowner permits for deer and elk because they can offset the cost of ownership by selling the permits that they don't or can't use. It's not you and me that they will sell to, but rather to the Taulmans of the world, or out-of-state hunters who are willing to pay for the opportunity to hunt in the west.

 

The best way to keep our landscapes and wildlife habitat intact is through responsible stewardship of both public and private land by folks who can make a living by adapting to natural systems and using them responsibly. Good ranchers do this and they should be encouraged. The reality of modern America is that population pressures will put more and more pressure on wildlife habitat and hunting opportunities. We will never be able to revert to the days when you could hunt almost anywhere in the west by asking politely. We need to concentrate on keeping the wildlife habitat and wildlife populations that we have intact and healthy.

 

That's my sermon for today.

[bowsniper]

That's complete hogwash. The typical private land in-holding is only 2 or 3% of the entire public land grazing permit. Even if it were sold off and developed, which may or may not happen, the 2 or 3% loss of land would be far offset by the drastic improvement of the range quality by removing the cattle. All wildlife would benefit by removing the cattle, especially the elk, which directly compete for forage with cattle. If there is one thing that ranchers really hate, it is having to share their grazing lease with elk. They even try to claim financial reparations when the elk eat public land forage on "their" allotment.

 

One thing that the original post neglected to mention was the cost of the BLM and Forest Service to administer the public land grazing allotments. The G.A.O. (Government Accounting Office) put the cost of administration at over $10 per AUM (animal unit month). Compare that to the ranchers that are only charged $1.30 per AUM. That means that while the grazing fees generate about $6.9 million a year as stated in the original post, the government spends $53 million a year to run the program. That's a welfare program for ranchers with our tax dollars. Buying out these public land parasites would not only benefit wildlife habitat, but would also save money in the long run.

 

Bowsniper

[257stw]

I don't pretend to know the details of this debate, but I can guaruntee that anything that involves the Forest Guardians cannot be good. These people are active anti's and I am sure that anti hunting would be in their plans for how to use this land after it is taken over from the ranchers.

[newbee]

I am just curious-where are we going to get our food from ? dont get me wrong there is food at the store right now-wright? what about 5 -10 -15 yrs where is going to come from??? no offence Bow sniper but the parasites you mention break thier back feeding us (you included assumeing you eat beef )I know you filled your tag w/ a beautiful buck and it was a well diserved reward for the hard work you put in.

but you cant honestly mean the whole welfare thing-If i could choose where my tax dollars went one box id check is rural AMERICAN farmers and ranchers.They are up at the butt crack of dawn and work till sun down-by the sweat of thier brow and thier broken backs to feed AMERICA.We need our farming communities, theyre one of the last real things left here that isnt a franchise or deep fried.I rather see cattle grasing than another dang cookie cutter stucco house on a postage stamp-

Now what about forieghn owned corperate farms that open up shop here in the US and get paid for NOT growing food-now aint that a bitch. there are starving poeple every where -American family owned farms strugling and your tax dollars are going to pay a forieghn company NOT TO GROW FOOD OR raise cattle etc.

I agree that the same Gronnolas will most likely push to ban hunting there as well -

or some out of state firm is going to sue AZ to give them those tags at a discount for thier high paying customers-My bottom line is support your local commerce , buy American made products and enjoy what little time we have left on this planet cause as the saying goes "the only two things that are for sure is death and taxes"

my .02 worth

[bowsniper]

Don't worry, the beef supply is secure without public lands ranching. Less than 2% of our beef comes from cattle grazed on public lands. The other 98% comes from feed lots and private grazing lands.

 

The farming issue is another animal. This thread and my gripe was about cattle grazing on public lands, that degrades wildlife habitat, costs a lot of taxpayer money, and benefits no one, except the public lands rancher who gets to graze his cattle for $1.30 a month, while the free market value is over $9.00 a month.

 

Bowsniper

[Tonto]

Bowsniper,

 

I am going to call hogwash on your last two posts. You had to see it coming! Where do you think them cows in the feedlots come from. Public land raised beef go to feed lots the same as private land raised beef. You statistics are misleading.

 

The $1.30/AU on public lands can not be compared to what an AU is worth on private land. Sure ranchers pay alot more to graze a private lease than a public lands lease, but with a private lease, the operation is almost a hands off deal for the leassee. Not so on public land leases. The government may spend that millions of dollars on their range and forest lands grazing programs, but I'll bet most of it is in the dang court room fighting frivilous law suits defending their management decisions. Ask a honest federal resource manager what they spend most of their time doing and where at.

 

Drastic improvement for the range if you remove cattle. That's a real good one. It has been proven time and again that if there is any improvemnt at all, that it is short lived and then drastic decline takes over. You think cattle degrade wildlife habitat, I'll agree but only when they are improperly managed. If elk are so dang great, why do tax payer monies go to projects like elk exclosures around aspen thickets and riparian areas.

 

A large percent of the time, an elk will graze or browse a plant that had been previously grazed or browsed by another herbivore rather than hitting a plant that hasn't been grazed or browsed in years. They go after the new growth, not the wolfy big tall grasses.

 

Public lands are mandated by Federal Law to be managed for multiple use. One of those uses is the removal of a renewable natural resource (forage).

 

I'm not saying that you have to like cows, but you should recognize them as an economical and effective tool for managing our public lands. Tonto

[bowsniper]

Drastic improvement for the range if you remove cattle.  That's a real good one.  It has been proven time and again that if there is any improvemnt at all, that it is short lived and then drastic decline takes over.

 

Tonto, if that's true, how did the range ever evolve and survive before cows?

 

Bowsniper

[CHD]

Dang boys, do ya feel deeply about this topic? Holy cow.

 

Let me begin by saying that the rancher in the article (Mr. Hardworking Busts-his-butt-all-day Sullivan) is my second cousin, and he ain't worked a day in his life...............but his wife certainly has (are ya listening Newbee?). Everything he has was given to him by family business going back to before he was born. But he likes to whine, evidently. Same as many (but not all) in the ranching community. I'm tired of the whiners.

 

When business get's tuff, the rural ranching and farming folks piss and moan instead of moving into town and working for a living.........like the rest of America has to do in order to have a few things. I and many other working Americans have been laid off (several times), had to pack up and move, had to save $$$ to be able to afford the layoff and move, had to do without, had to live in a town.........and had no government to whine to or Huggers to sell out to.

 

Read the article closely..........the Huggers wanna use taxpayer money to bail out ranchers and retire grazing leases on public land. What a bunch of sheet! I'm tired of paying taxes for this crap!!!

 

The ranching community has had the same battles, lawsuits, and criminal charges against the enviro-wackos that the lumbermen, hunters, energy developers, miners, land developers have had over the last few decades. But the ranchers wanna wuss-out and sell-out so that they don't hafta work for a living??? Bullsheet. Don't ever give up. Move into town and get a job. Those grazing leases will never be utilized again after they are sold. IMO, this is the same as selling off the public hunting rights to that land.

 

To sell out to the enemy is an incredible cop-out.........or a cry for taxpayer aid. I vote for the latter, given my experiences with the ranching community. Spoiled people are ruined forever. They know where the aid is, every time they need it. Plus the cattlemen's associations are usually powerful enough to get it.

 

I still like a thick, juicy ribeye with a baked potato and a whiskey-on-ice, tho. Maybe those Huggers will let me raise a grain-fed steer in my subdivision backyard???

[Tonto]

Bowsniper,

 

Way back when, there was fire and no white man. Add white man and take away fire, you'll get to where we are today. Now we have it so messed up, you can't just add fire and get the same results. Too many roads, structures, huge accumulations of fuels. Long story short, I think it was the natural fire regime that was most important in keeping most of the plant communities in check, along with migratory (short duration, intense) grazing. Removing public lands grazing is not the answer. Tonto

[jlhcoues]

It sounds to me like a few of you do not realize what this. country was built around, farming and ranching! I know first hand what farming and ranching require, which is alot of long hours and back breaking work, I happened to be a farmer. I do not expect any hand outs from anyone, as far as ranchers being parasites, that is way out of line I cant believe any one who hunts made that statement. I hope you dont think that you will get any access on their land with that attitude. The ranchers contribute alot to our land, think about the drinkers that we put our stands up on or the water holes that we set, some so called parasite put them there. By the way chd come by and Ill give you a real job, I really doubt if you could hang...jlhcoues

[bowsniper]

My use of adjectives may have been a little harsh, but I stand by what I have posted. Public lands ranching is a government welfare program that costs much, dergrades wildlife habitat, only benefits a few with our hard earned tax dollars, and contributes almost nothing to the T-bone supply at Safeway. As far as the range needing cattle because there aren't any range fires anymore, that's crazy. Don't take my word for it, spend some time in some non-cattle grazed range and decide for yourself. Or, have a look at the pitures below. Take a look at the "drastic decline".

 

Anyway, I think that most of us managed to agree that cattle grazing does impact wildlife habitat, and that's our common interest as hunters. Now, with this "Ranching for wildlife" B.S. being rammed down our throats by the ranchers, maybe we should take a new look at how ranching and ranchers effect us as hunters.

 

Bowsniper

 

These pictures are from Pinto Creek, on the Tonto National Forest, just upstream of the steel bridge on FR287. The one on the left was taken in 1992, and the one on the right was taken in 2000, after the cattle had been removed.

[rimhunter]

In the areas i hunt the only water for the cattle and deer ,pigs and all the animals come from water holes the ranchers have built otherwise there would be no water .If ranching ends the up keep will end and the animals will leave . ranching has helped hunting out by providing this services poviding water and acess to our hunting grounds . with out ranching there would be no hunting

 

Bruce

[hunterdude]

? You say that ranchers don't contribute to wildlife? You need to take a drive to the 96 ranch southeast of Florence. Very little deer and less water now that the ranchers have sold that land to a private owner (not ranchers). then tell me they don't contribute!!!!