anybody have a grazing permit?

[jodywy]

When U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale ruled in favor of two eco-extremist group's attempts to gain private information regarding federal grazing permits, she put at great risk the rural backbone of the West and the families that hold it together, says the Idaho Cattle Association (ICA).

On Sept. 13, Western Watersheds Project (WWP) and WildEarth Guardians gained the judge's approval in their effort to obtain personal info, including names, addresses, phone numbers, and financial data of individuals who hold permits to graze livestock on federal lands.

"Not only should this cause great alarm for all ranchers and individuals who conduct business with the federal government, but also for all citizens. When a court of law determines that an individual's private demographic and financial information is outweighed by the public's interest, alarm bells should ring for all who hold dear the values of American freedom. This ruling follows a current, disturbing political trend within the federal government in degrading individual liberties in the name of the public good," ICA says in a release.

ICA says it assumes the activists want the personal information in order to more easily pursue their agenda of harassment against ranching families.

"The groups who brought this litigation have a long and proven record of pursuing a path of intimidation and threats against those who do not share their beliefs. Over the last 15+ years, WWP has made it their sole mission to rid the public lands of livestock and the ranchers who own them, thus, seriously undercutting the multiple use concepts on which the public lands are based and ignoring sound rangeland management principles. They do this by pursuing their 'ambitious litigation strategy' while achieving no real on the ground conservation," ICA says in a release.
-- ICA release

 

[jeff in ca]

Alot of the old ranches around here have left the public lands in favor of private leases. I think this is a travesty. A whole bunch of good stewards of the land, have bailed and a renewable resource is usually going up in smoke, instead of being utilized. The Forest Service and BLM should be ashamed of how they have turned good country into bad. In the name of the environmental movement. I am sure the original mission of the Forest Service and BLM has long been forgotten. I will get off my soapbox now :x

 

[Denny]

No such thing here.

 

[Shortgrass]

No such thing here.

It sure affects more of us than meet the eye. We may not have forest or BLM permits near us, but the mountain ranchers are sure competing for our private leases and land. The beutiful open spaces that the uninformed are trying to protect are being burnt up in forest fires because of too much forage or the private meadows are being sold and developed because they have lost their permits, and the mountain ranchers are moving east. Many are going to the Nebraska sandhill country, and buying it. We all need to support the Taylor Grazing Act. This judge is wrong, wrong, wrong. Needs overturned....... CCA supports the ICA!

I'll turn the soapbox over to the next guy.

 

[redrobin]

If you want to control the use of land, you need to own it. If you want the federal grazing land back in private hands, lobby the govt. to sell the land. They are broke and should have to liquidate some of their assets.

 

[jodywy]

If you want to control the use of land, you need to own it. If you want the federal grazing land back in private hands, lobby the govt. to sell the land. They are broke and should have to liquidate some of their assets.

in your dreams, they won't sell land locked 40s even...

 

[balestabber]

i think Redrobin,might be on to something.i have alot of respect for those in Ar-kansas.
with the economy--there has been some Mark Twain National Forest
sold in southern mo.altho most of it Sub-divisions and communities the point still needs pondering.
alot of forest in southern mo and arkansas to be improved.

 

[Shortgrass]

If you want to control the use of land, you need to own it. If you want the federal grazing land back in private hands, lobby the govt. to sell the land. They are broke and should have to liquidate some of their assets.

Do you have any idea of the vastness of the National Forests and BLM lands in the west? Besides, all we want are grazing rights, not control of the land. The public uses these land for recreation, ie: camping, hunting fishing, hiking. We do need those lands for the public to enjoy, but the proper grazing of those land is beneficial, which fact some of these groups do not understand. There needs to be grazing leases on these lands. An example is a permit is advertised in the paper for 130 head permit over 137,000 acres.

 

[High Plains]

Shortgrass, I agree that there does need to be grazing on the Forest and BLM land. With our government's attitude toward logging and fire management something has got to be in place to remove some of the growth. I know cows don't eat trees (which are a huge problem with enromous amounts of dead lodgepole pines in the west from bark-beatles), but at least the grasses can be kept grazed to a healthy level. The amount of old, dead trees and other dead forage growth that is left unchecked seems out of whack to me. If mankind is going to "play God" with nature, then we had better balance the situation with both protection and prudent use. Conservation doesn't mean "left untouched", in my opinion. Just one commoner's ideas on it.

HP

 

[redrobin]

If you want to control the use of land, you need to own it. If you want the federal grazing land back in private hands, lobby the govt. to sell the land. They are broke and should have to liquidate some of their assets.

Do you have any idea of the vastness of the National Forests and BLM lands in the west? Besides, all we want are grazing rights, not control of the land. The public uses these land for recreation, ie: camping, hunting fishing, hiking. We do need those lands for the public to enjoy, but the proper grazing of those land is beneficial, which fact some of these groups do not understand. There needs to be grazing leases on these lands. An example is a permit is advertised in the paper for 130 head permit over 137,000 acres.

I realize the size of the west. I also realize the size of the east Shortgrass and it's mostly private owned. What gives our government the right to own land and hold it for ever? I understand if there isn't a buyer for the land as it was in times past that the government needs to allow grazing allotments on land that no one owns but most land can be and should be sold.

 

[Anonymous]

If you want to control the use of land, you need to own it. If you want the federal grazing land back in private hands, lobby the govt. to sell the land. They are broke and should have to liquidate some of their assets.

Do you have any idea of the vastness of the National Forests and BLM lands in the west? Besides, all we want are grazing rights, not control of the land. The public uses these land for recreation, ie: camping, hunting fishing, hiking. We do need those lands for the public to enjoy, but the proper grazing of those land is beneficial, which fact some of these groups do not understand. There needs to be grazing leases on these lands. An example is a permit is advertised in the paper for 130 head permit over 137,000 acres.

I realize the size of the west. I also realize the size of the east Shortgrass and it's mostly private owned. What gives our government the right to own land and hold it for ever? I understand if there isn't a buyer for the land as it was in times past that the government needs to allow grazing allotments on land that no one owns but most land can be and should be sold.

And the folks with the most money to buy it up are the Greeny Weenies--- which have been aided by the supposed cattlemens groups like NCBA's crawling in bed with the Nature Conservancy to get ranchers paid off with a bigtime onetime shot of greeny money for the deeded land bordering/controlling the leases and in doing so are making ALL that land "cheaper" for the Greenies to buy (and get control of the public land that goes with it).....
While they pay out big bucks today and get conservation tax breaks to the landowner- they devalue the future value of the land- because most folks buying that land do not want to pay big dollars for land with restrictions (controlled by greeny groups) on how they use their land when they buy it...

These inperpetuity things- saying it is for the family to own the ranch forever sound great- :roll: until deaths- and divorces- and kids that want nothing to do with the ranch come along....

And guess who will end up owning it then :???: :wink:

No wonder these folks are so sure they will eventually end up with a Buffalo Commons stretching from Canada to Texas....

 

[jodywy]

a conservation easement is just a tool in the box if estate taxes change next year allot of ranches can't afford 55% on everything over 1 or 2 million dollars. It is just one tool not for everybody but it works for some, don't take that away.
Yes a conservation easement is forever but so are the subdivision and horse ghettos.

 

[Cedarcreek]

Jon Marvel's Western Watersheds Projects ultimate goal is to end public AND private land ranching in the 11 western states. Those of us that run livestock on BLM and Forest Service land are a little easier target but if they can get us gone then the ranchers that run on private land are next. His group was initially called the Idaho Watersheds Project but as they got more funding from members and tax dollars through the Equal Access to Justice Act they expanded their target area.

 

[Anonymous]

a conservation easement is just a tool in the box if estate taxes change next year allot of ranches can't afford 55% on everything over 1 or 2 million dollars. It is just one tool not for everybody but it works for some, don't take that away.
Yes a conservation easement is forever but so are the subdivision and horse ghettos.

jody-- lots of ways around estate taxes-- and while it may be keeping land in some areas out of subdivisions--when folks that are sticking land that is in counties 200 miles from any populated area that are bigger than the state of Delaware with populations of under 10,000 people living in the whole county - and houses 10-15 miles apart- it makes you wonder... :???: Especially when the greenies/back east money are the ones coming in buying up all the land around it that comes up for sale....

I can't blame the ranchers- a fast big buck is a fast buck- especially if that is what keeps their head above water-- but its too bad that production prices are not high enough that they can't profit from that rather than go the government/conservation groups (greenies) money to make a go of it....

 

[jodywy]

Not all concervation holders are green groups, Wyoming , Colorado Stockgrowers.
http://www.maintaintherange.com/
Seen some purchased easment help young families buy out the nieghbors then they were able to spit the ranch into 2 speratate working units... its a just a tool, might not be the right tool for every one...but it has worked for some]

 

[Soapweed]

a conservation easement is just a tool in the box if estate taxes change next year allot of ranches can't afford 55% on everything over 1 or 2 million dollars. It is just one tool not for everybody but it works for some, don't take that away.
Yes a conservation easement is forever but so are the subdivision and horse ghettos.

jody-- lots of ways around estate taxes-- and while it may be keeping land in some areas out of subdivisions--when folks that are sticking land that is in counties 200 miles from any populated area that are bigger than the state of Delaware with populations of under 10,000 people living in the whole county - and houses 10-15 miles apart- it makes you wonder... :???: Especially when the greenies/back east money are the ones coming in buying up all the land around it that comes up for sale....

I can't blame the ranchers- a fast big buck is a fast buck- especially if that is what keeps their head above water-- but its too bad that production prices are not high enough that they can't profit from that rather than go the government/conservation groups (greenies) money to make a go of it....

The estate tax that will go into effect after January 1, 2011, will make many current ranches have to sell to pay Uncle Sam. You, Oldtimer, are one who thinks these new high taxes are great and wonderful. You don't like the greenie-weenies buying up all the ranch land that comes up for sale, but this will happen more often than ever when the new and improved "change for the sake of change" taxes take effect.

 

[Anonymous]

a conservation easement is just a tool in the box if estate taxes change next year allot of ranches can't afford 55% on everything over 1 or 2 million dollars. It is just one tool not for everybody but it works for some, don't take that away.
Yes a conservation easement is forever but so are the subdivision and horse ghettos.

jody-- lots of ways around estate taxes-- and while it may be keeping land in some areas out of subdivisions--when folks that are sticking land that is in counties 200 miles from any populated area that are bigger than the state of Delaware with populations of under 10,000 people living in the whole county - and houses 10-15 miles apart- it makes you wonder... :???: Especially when the greenies/back east money are the ones coming in buying up all the land around it that comes up for sale....

I can't blame the ranchers- a fast big buck is a fast buck- especially if that is what keeps their head above water-- but its too bad that production prices are not high enough that they can't profit from that rather than go the government/conservation groups (greenies) money to make a go of it....

The estate tax that will go into effect after January 1, 2011, will make many current ranches have to sell to pay Uncle Sam. You, Oldtimer, are one who thinks these new high taxes are great and wonderful. You don't like the greenie-weenies buying up all the ranch land that comes up for sale, but this will happen more often than ever when the new and improved "change for the sake of change" taxes take effect.

Soap--it isn't Jan 1 yet-- and we know not what the tax will be- altho I believe it will be permanently removed for most family sized ranchs... On hold now for electioneering month- then maybe some of the partisan yipping and yapping will die down so they can do something....

In all the years I was involved with foreclosures and bankruptcy seizures I've saw very few farms/ranchs lost to inheritance tax (in fact can't remember any) -as most ranchers with any business sense have it worked out ahead of time- where I've saw many lost to DIVORCE or RODEO...

As far as I know- a conservation easement does not alleve you of any estate taxes-- but the restrictions tied to the land does lower the value of the property to anyone else except for the enviromentalists... No wonder they were jumping for joy at seeing the states and feds going along with funding them..

 

[Boots]

As a owner of two federal grazing permits for over 25 years, I can tell you that I honestly believe that public land grazing is on its way out. It is one thing after another. They are making it so hard on ranchers to run cattle on national forests its hard to make a living. Permits are becoming worthless, you buy one and who knows how long you will have it or how bad your numbers will be cut. With all of the NEPA and Environmental Impact Studies going on you never know where you are. There are alot of Environmentalists working for the Forest Service, making range decisions, and you cannot fight them. The recreationists, the hunters, and the greenies are ruining the forests, and I can tell you one thing that they have in common, and that is they don't want cattle on public lands. Outside of other ranchers not alot of support out here.

 

[Shortgrass]

As a owner of two federal grazing permits for over 25 years, I can tell you that I honestly believe that public land grazing is on its way out. It is one thing after another. They are making it so hard on ranchers to run cattle on national forests its hard to make a living. Permits are becoming worthless, you buy one and who knows how long you will have it or how bad your numbers will be cut. With all of the NEPA and Environmental Impact Studies going on you never know where you are. There are alot of Environmentalists working for the Forest Service, making range decisions, and you cannot fight them. The recreationists, the hunters, and the greenies are ruining the forests, and I can tell you one thing that they have in common, and that is they don't want cattle on public lands. Outside of other ranchers not alot of support out here.

I do not have any permits. Many friends, and family members do. I would say "We ain't dead yet!" The "greenies", who I feel are well intentioned but poorley educated, are discovering that we die hard too. Without our Cattlemen's Associations, I think federal permits would be long gone. We are right, and right makes might. I'm not ready to throw in the towel.

 

[jodywy]

easy numbers for OT,
just a will, ranch value(improvments, equiment ,investments) $11,450,000

Tax (2011current rates) $5,747,500
Tax (Dem. Proposal) $3,577,500
Tax (Rep. Proposal) $2,257,500
will skip the by pass trust
here a conservation easment with no estate plan
Conservation easment contribution reduced value by 60%
estate value now $5,450,00

Tax (2011current rates) $2,447,500
Tax (Dem. Proposal) $877,500
Tax(Rep.proposal) $157,500
Tax (Rep. Proposal)


http://www.conservationtaxguide.org/

And I have seen farms and ranches sold or developed(to settle the estate) most think it was to settle thing between the hiers but when you ask them more often then not it was to pay the taxes.