• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Grazing public land

Help Support Ranchers.net:

F

farmguy

Active member
Joined
Mar 10, 2012
Messages
35
Reaction score
2
Location
Nothern USA
I have a real problem with the grazing fees on public land. I have been doing some reading and they have not gone up in a half century. These are not put up for bids, just grandfathered in as I understand. I also read that it costs 6 times as much to administer the system as is returned in fees. With the looming federal deficet and the cattle prices today I have a problem here. I own and rent land. The grazing land I rent is privately owned and I too must maintain and build fence. I also must take care of water needs if natural sources are not available. I realize that the fees are based on AUM. I find it irritating to know that I must compete with other cattle raisers so highly subsidized. I also realize that this may be a drop in the deficit budget bucket but enough drops will fill the bucket. Farmguy
 
Did you know you have to pay deeded land price for a permit?

(pretty scarey with todays political climate- Iwould not buy a ranch with a permit till we get rid of the statists in our country.

Did you know when you die if you leave that permit to your kids they must pay inheritence tax just as if it was deeded land?

Did you pencil that in? :shock:

As far as costing 6 times as much as revenue generated- this has just been in the last 30-40 years when the radical enviromentalists and the socialist/communists have taken over the system. :shock:

You have the same opportunity, go buy a ranch with a permit!
 
instead of calling it subsidized ranching call it what it really is "restricted ranching"

and No I do not have a permit! :shock:
 
Remember farmguy, what the government gives, it can also take away.
The ranchers with forest service allotments haven't always slept good at
night. Remember "Cattle free in '93"?

We have relatives that graze forest service land and they have been cut
back, WAYYY back on the days they can graze. Regardless of the cost,
it's not a good deal...or at least it is a deal with problems. Our neighbor
in SW Montana was scared of the people in charge...they had more than
once come and got him off his tractor while haying to GO MOVE HIS
COWS...NOW!!

I guess the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence.

We had an opportunity to buy a place with forest service allotment and
we didn't....because we didn't want them telling us how to run our cows.
 
Trying to understand here. A permit is the right to lease. So If I have one that gives me the right to so many AUMs. Therefore only people with a pemit can graze public land. This permit is so lucrative that it has value and I can sell it or if I can leave it to my children. The estate tax is for people who have millions in assets. So this piece of paper is worth how much? I would assume that the value of a permit depends on the AUMs. Therefore if this permit has value then the grazing rights must be a pretty good deal. So whenever the govt issued these permits they gave away a pretty sweet deal. What happens if the AUMs are decreased or land use changes or if the land is sold to a private party. What happens to the permit and it's value. If the AUM price was increased to reflect the true cost to the taxpayer then the value of a permit would decrease, is that correct? Also what does the socialists and envirmentalists have to do with the price of an AUM staying low or the cost increasing?
 
I sold the last permit on the family ranch, it was right out the gate. We had to repair lay down fences and other inprovement we didn't own. Etra saddle time moving cows because some one left open gates or cut fences. Hauled out water tanks with a tractor to weld the bullet holes. Taken air tanks up to blow out spring lines. Sat in meeting with Forest Service when we should be home calving , or haying. Bow season a big hit cows calves with arrows and then other shot during other times of the year.Predation is alot higher because of the large , rough , steep area that alot of permit country is, black bears, grizzly bears , mt. Lions coyotes wolves all take larger numbers on permit land then Private Oh your AUM might be 16 acres (about what our figured for ) to area in the high desert of over 100acres per cow/calf /month. So you got alot of saddle time, after round up in the fall we usually have some airplane expence too looking for cows. Alot of permits cost more per AUM in other cost (riders, predator control,fencing)then to run on private property, But when you live in an area where the Government owns 50% to 80% it kind of hard to run numbers just on your own land.
 
I think the public grazing is like everyone says, greener on the other side of the fence. I looked at it one time and I came away think that it was expensive grazing at best.
Maybe the goverment shouldn't own all this land, but they do so everyone deals with it. All the repurcusions of selling it and proceeding are treacherous.
This is just an issue that once again divides the American people and drives a wedge. Not to mention tp the wedge it drives into the ag sector, as this post proves.
 
farmguy said:
Trying to understand here. A permit is the right to lease. So If I have one that gives me the right to so many AUMs. Therefore only people with a pemit can graze public land. This permit is so lucrative that it has value and I can sell it or if I can leave it to my children. The estate tax is for people who have millions in assets. So this piece of paper is worth how much?
CLOSE TO THE PRICE OF DEEDED LAND
I would assume that the value of a permit depends on the AUMs. Therefore if this permit has value then the grazing rights must be a pretty good deal. So whenever the govt issued these permits they gave away a pretty sweet deal. What happens if the AUMs are decreased or land use changes or if the land is sold to a private party.
YOUR SCREWED, THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT SO SCARY IN THIS POLITICAL CLIMATE.


What happens to the permit and it's value. If the AUM price was increased to reflect the true cost to the taxpayer then the value of a permit would decrease, is that correct?
YES BECAUSE NOY MANY WOULD WANT THEM

Also what does the socialists and envirmentalists have to do with the price of an AUM staying low or the cost increasing?
Click to expand...

THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AUM COST STAYING "LOW" BUT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE BLM/FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATION COSTS BEING SO HIGH. AN OFFICE THAT 30-40 YEARS AGO HAD 3-4 EMPLOYEES NOW HAVE 300-400 EMPLOYEES FOR THE SAME NUMBER OF ACRES. :shock:
 
Too dark to check heifers yet so I have a minute. What a mess this seems. People are selling the right to use land they do not own. From what I gathered a couple generations ago some families got a very good deal, the right to use Federal land for grazing at what may have not been at that time such a low amount. Now these AUM prices are ridiculous but not if you add the cost of purchasing a pemit. Those leases have been going on and on. In light of the Federal debt and fairness it would seem to me this cannot go on.
Where I live we have no federal land but we do courtesy of the envireomental movement have lots of wolves. This is farm country but wolves are a real factor. But I guess as an outsider, but an American, to me the only solution is to disguard the old system. Calculate the total cost of an AUM. Then offer say a 10 year lease based on these costs. Present lease holders would be given preference and the lease renewal based on maintaining the facilities/fences and water. At a later after a transition period date the leases could be put out to bids with a minimum based on the costs involved. This is a common practice with rented landed. The alternative is to me is to continue the old system which is a cost to the American public and which benefits a choosen few and locks out others. On a side note I would guess in light of the current cattle prices the value of such a permit if not the selling price has risen. Farmguy
 
Farmguy- you are mixing allot of apples in with he oranges.

the cowman is costing you virtually nothing to run on blm/foresst service.

but you keep wanting to adding in the billion$$$$$ spent on EIS's, ESA,mustangs, etc. etc. etc. that has nothing to do with the cowman.

The cowman actually saves you a bunch on money- most of this is desert, dry , nasty places, that is why it wasn't homesteaded and now deeded.
who do you think provides water for, mustangs/wildlife while providing water for their cattle?

the inefficiency of government is the only thing that can lose money on a deal like this.

By the way- if you want to go back and renig on these permits how long till you want to go back and renig on the homestead act and take back that "public land" too? :???: Hey wasn't manhatten once "public land" too?
 
You need a base property to have a permit, in order to sell the permit you must sell the livestock on that permit or base property that at leat has a corral big enough to handle the livestock aand must also have water. Oh BLM permits are renewed every ten years but they are tied to the base property. Pluse like Forest Services They go thru NEPA, and an allotment managment plan that has public comment, usually green groups sending thousands of cards saying the plan should be no grazing. Then you have big places that have shaly ridge tops that are 40 acres or 120 acres of BLM in a 1000 acre pasture.How to you lease these to some one else with out acess , water or fencing ? Then along the rail road you have checker board, every other section is BLM unless it has water on it then it was probally homesteaded. Pasture here are thousads of acres.... and most all the water is on private property, kind of hard to lease the BLM to somebody that can't get water.
My problem is DCP and other FSA programs are much more of a give away then any grazing permit
 
We are in a different country but similar situation. We lease most of our ranch 33 years at a time. The long term is good for the land as the rancher knows he is here the next year so in most cases looks after it as his own. We pay in year lease more then what alot of the ranch could have been bought for back in the late 40's and 50's. The government didn't want to sell and now it has a Wildlife Habitat Protection act covering it. It doesn't really affect ranching but is also not available for sale even though this gov is trying to sell some lease land.
 
farmguy said:
People are selling the right to use land they do not own.
From what I gathered a couple generations ago some families got a very good deal, the right to use Federal land for grazing at what may have not been at that time such a low amount. Farmguy
Click to expand...


I am confused by this statement. As Jody pointed out, when the base property tied to the Federal grazing unit is sold the option to gain the allotment can be part of the package. The buyer has to go through an application process to have the permit transeferred to him, but could very well be refused by the agency (BLM or FS) Sellers are not selling the right, it is a benefit that is reflected in the selling price of the deeded acres. The buyer can choose to transfer or not or the BLM or FS can refuse the transfer as well.

I understand what you are saying. But, you are forgetting one thing: the federal land, for the time being anyway, is MULTIPLE USE for all the United States. Do not think for one minute that the campgrounds, hunting, timber, mining and wilderness areas make one red cent either. ALL USES cost way more than they bring in to the agencies. If the cost to users has to go up to market value, than it has to be applied to ALL the uses, not just one use.


 
Farmguy my suggestion is go look up Range Magazine on the net and read all the old articles concerning this issue.
Go read Hagge vs. USA. read what the feds did to this family.

You talk about a sweet deal. What is sweet about it?
Pay taxes on everything. the fencing supplies, the feds don't pay for the supplies. They don't do anything except sit on their azz's with their hands out.
read about how the feds keep cutting the AUM trying to force guys out because the enviro hippies keep suing them saying the ranchers are not taking care of the land.

It is a divide and conqure deal.
Get those who know nothing about an issue to go after those who have the permits and know what is going on there.
 
Then offer say a 10 year lease based on these costs. Present lease holders would be given preference and the lease renewal based on maintaining the facilities/fences and water. At a later after a transition period date the leases could be put out to bids with a minimum based on the costs involved.
Click to expand...

I wasn't going to step in... but we have the system you propose to farmland preserved county and state land out here...

I gave it a shot quite a few years back..

basically the land gets played out and is left to weeds an brush,, and then some government employed liberal with no clue about farming pays developed price or buys the development rights and the county is left trying to maintain or lease the property out,..

initially there were no bids on the pieces I bid on.. I penciled out a ten year plan.. inputs costs were high for the first three years but after that I figured a fair return..

clearing the weeds was difficult due to adjacent land that were overgrown as well,,and limits on herbicides, but by the third year it didn't look to bad, until some other locals felt I was getting to good of a deal... as I was the only bidder it wasn't considered a "fair" deal..

They sued the county and the judge felt redoing the bid would be of no harm...

I lost most of it to higher bidders,. and decided not to bid on the remainder.. the three "farmers" who won the bids didn't even make it through the three year term, before they were wanting better lower bids and a longer lease term, like I originally had... (for some reason they couldn't make it)..

now not more then 10 years later the land is back to weeds and brush.. and not making a dime in revenue..

it pisses me off every time I drive past it.. knowing the hard work I put into it was pissed away by someone who was jealous..

. I will not ever put that much money and effort into a deal with the government ever again...

if you have government land available to lease do so at your own peril.. cause there is always someone who doesn't see the whole picture ready to whine and complain and screw it up for everyone...

personally I would rather see one rancher make a fair living and caring for the land then see a bunch of bidders fighting over the land and the land losing..

Do you really think a bidder would put any effort into improving the land or facilitates in the back end of the lease?

if you think they will take care of the land in a term lease, I'll post some proof of what it looks like when left to the bidding process, environmentalists, government and weeds..
 
farmguy, I will bet you have never seen BLM land in the west.
Come out, and we'll show you some. That might change your mind.

Yes I have visited many western states. Also I have more than a passing knowledge of the area. Renters paying for improvements is not an unusual concept. Ask virtually anyone who rents private farmland. No I am not an expert and I stated my ideas. If this is such a hard scrabble existence then why is their a market for permits? I have read the Range magazine several times or rather read the articles on their web site. I believe that in this time of the deficit issue every program should be examined. What is the cost, what are the benefits and why do we have this program? Is it's usefulness still warranted. What I gathered from the Range magazine, this forum and some individuals I met is a sense of paranoia about the Federal government. The land is Federally owned or controlled, have it your way. But it belongs to all Americans. I guess some feel a sense of entitlement due to their living in a certain area or having used a piece of ground for a period of time. My wife and I also own some rental property in addition to our farms. Our renters have no entitlement to our property. We are good landlords and as long as they hold up their end of the agreement they are our renters. But the idea of them having the same rent as 50 years ago and selling the right to rent our property seems rather strange. As I have stated before if this arrangement is so lucrative that the permits sell for close to the price of deeded land then we as Americans are being took. I cannot understand the argument that the rancher is helping the rest of society so much that this arrangement is OK . Also that if the lease is so valuble that a renter can sell it for close to deeded land price why is the owner of the land, the American people, not being compensated. This is a forum so I have expressed my opinions. I would appreciate no insults. If you can convince me otherwise that is fine but I have touched a nerve here and would appreciate a mature discussion, thank you Farmguy
 
I had to sell cow with my permit got market price for the cows and another $400 head for the permit way leass then deeded ground here, when one AUM is about 16 acres in the uplands on the forest hee, so they got 4 months /year/cow-calf for $400, that less then 10% /acre of what deed land goes for in this moutain valley.
 

Latest posts

Top