MT Land Board Votes to Double Grazing Fees

[Lonecowboy]

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM-- so here I guess I'm mistaken again... Here I thought it was the job of the State Land Board to get the citizens of the State the best return they could on the land they own ... But you seem to be condemning the Gov- and the State Land Board for trying to do that job..

nope wrong again OT- I'm condeming you for your hypocrisy.
you were the one saying they were "filling their pockets" and making decisions under the "influence" that was not I that said that. nice try at changing the subject though.

and then you bring in the Koch Bros. into your twisted world for some reason-oh yes to make conversation!
I was just pointing out to you how your hate was clouding your judgement and your argument is all twisted and how your argument has your chosen cult leaders "filling their pockets" by your own words.
it was you OT that proclaimed some type of impropriety by those on the land board, not I. so quit trying to twist that around!
I don't think you had a clue as to who was on the land board when you made those statements did you?

 

[Anonymous]

Lonecoboy- I think you read way more into my comments than what I said....And I never said the Land Board filled their pockets--but did question whether they would have the backbone to stand up to their decision-- and not be influenced by that big money....That question is still to be answered in the months to come...

And I did know who was on the land board..

Montana Land Board
The board consists of Montana's five top elected officials: Governor,
Attorney General, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Auditor, and
Secretary of State

Members of the Land Board are elected by all Montanans and make important decisions about how state lands are used.

It just so happens the top 5 elected officials in MT are Democrats...


--------------

mrj

The leases may seem low to those leasing private lands, as we have done for years, however, when figuring in additional costs as well as the very real possibility of having all your improvements taken away and given to others, the costs are far too high!

There were quite a few folks cussing MT Stockgrowers last weekend when I contacted several leaseholder neighbors/friends to make them aware of the Monday morning meeting...Seems MT Stockgrowers hadn't let any I talked to know the issue was even on the table... Except even Northern Ag Network (where the original post came from) seemed surprised about it...

So Maxine- why do bordering leases--either owned privately or by other government/tribal entities with the exact same requirements (including as much or more real possibility of having all your improvements taken away and given to others) go for 5- 6 times the amount?

Doesn't that sound like all Montana citizens are not getting their moneys worth (true value) out of the land they own?

 

[Anonymous]

IMO, there is far too much government owned land, especially in the western states. Certainly in these hard times, government should be offering much of that good ranch/farm land for sale to those families who have leased that land AND spent THEIR OWN MONEY to improve water and fences on those lands.



mrj

I know the idea of selling all govt land is becoming a popular idea- especially with folks back east in areas with little or no public land....


But Maxine- do you think in these hard times you mentioned--when loan money is tough to get- and some folks utilyzing government land have little or no deeded land for collateral that they will be able to outbid the corporate entities, Ted Turners, private hunting entrepreneurs, and/or moreover the Greeny Weeny groups like the International World Wildlife Fund- some that have huge stockpiles of money- and would just drool at the chance to buy up large chunks of now public land and get it deeded over to them so they can run their buffalo and prairie dogs.... :???:

Because that is the only way the govt would be able to sell it- open to the highest bidder....No special treatment for anyone....

This is one area where ranchers have backing from hunters, sportsmen, outdoor recreationists, birdwatchers, etc., and even some greeny folks...They want the land to remain "public" so it can be used by all...Some don't want ranchers- but they are against taking the land out of public access...And if ranchers are given special treatment to take land out of public use- you would have all these folks uprising against it...

 

[Steve]

especially with folks back east in areas with little or no public land....

sometimes when a person has never been back east they make assumptions... while New Jersey is by far one of the most developed states.,.. they still have alot of open ground... and public land...

well over 50% of the state is in the "public's" hands..

Even in the densely populated east, both New York and Pennsylvania are only 10 percent developed. New Jersey, the most developed state, has only 30 percent of its land developed. To top it all off, less than one-quarter of the loss in farmland since 1945 is due to urbanization, and the rate of loss has been dropping since the 1960s. 1

New Jersey has more than 750,000 acres of public land (state, federal, county and municipal) Generally, only areas with 100 acres or more of upland habitat are listed.

Productive farmland covers nearly one million acres, about 20% of New Jersey's land area.

Wetlands cover nearly 1 million acres of New Jersey (about 20% of its territory).

The Pine Barrens is part of 1.1 million acres of the Pinelands National Reserve,

lets see...15% public access land, 20% farmland, 20% wetlands, and 20% pine-lands, . 55% open (public land, 20% farmland and the rest developed..

I wouldn't say that is mostly.. or "little or no",..

I find it amazing that city folks are so clueless about the west.. but then I am equally surprised by how few know how rural most areas of New York and New Jersey is..



sure there are a few larger towns in New York that skew the results, but outside the cities such as Syracuse, Albany Rochester, Buffalo, upstate New York is about as sparse, and rural as say eastern South Dakota, or Minnesota,

and as far as selling public land being popular out here.. you couldn't be more wrong on that issue..

 

[Anonymous]

Steve-- how is that land leased out? Cash leases or AUM's or what? Or is it unused and just park land? I imagine some is timber land....Who administers it for the government- BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife?

And you are right- when I traveled around upstate NY, NH, VT and other states in that area I was surprised by how much land there was with trees on them...To a prairie boy I'd Never seen so many trees...

But if you go to most the Ag websites- the farmer/ranchers east of the Missisippi are some of the loudest screaming about the western ranchers "government subsidized" grazing (Just was a thread about it on Advantage Cattle site)- and proposing the idea to sell it all.....

40-50 years ago I think it may have been able to be sold, maybe even with special treatment to long lease holders -- but now I think the hunter, sportsmen, outdoor recreationist, enviromentalists are too strong a group to ever allow it to happen.....

 

[Lonecowboy]

Just to stir conversation- here is one take on the land boards actions...Kind of goes along with a lot of Tex's comments about the wealthy wanting government programs/subsidies- as long as its sticking more dollars in their pockets...

I wonder if the Kochs/Stockgrowers Assn will have enough pull- and stuff enough politicians pockets- to get the DNRC to reverse their recommendation before the final order :???: ...

Nope OT I never read anything into your post that you didn't say.
spin it twist it warp it however you want, you can't truthfully deny what you said! You were clearly slandering the members of the land board and either accusing them of taking bribes or misusing campaign contributions.
Now you still could repent and take back your previous statements and apologise and state that you were just talking out your orfice again.
I wont hold my breath waiting for you to do that!

 

[hypocritexposer]

Just wondering , but what was the spending on such things in 2006/7?

There are many people claiming that they would be "missing out", if spending was cut, but they were not "missing out" in 2006 when deficits were 1/3 of what they are now?


This new plan by the "6" will reduce the deficit by $4 Trillion over 10 years, which will still be double the deficits during the Bush years.

 

[TSR]

Steve-- how is that land leased out? Cash leases or AUM's or what? Or is it unused and just park land? I imagine some is timber land....Who administers it for the government- BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife?

And you are right- when I traveled around upstate NY, NH, VT and other states in that area I was surprised by how much land there was with trees on them...To a prairie boy I'd Never seen so many trees...

But if you go to most the Ag websites- the farmer/ranchers east of the Missisippi are some of the loudest screaming about the western ranchers "government subsidized" grazing (Just was a thread about it on Advantage Cattle site)- and proposing the idea to sell it all.....

40-50 years ago I think it may have been able to be sold, maybe even with special treatment to long lease holders -- but now I think the hunter, sportsmen, outdoor recreationist, enviromentalists are too strong a group to ever allow it to happen.....

Those ranchers east of the MS are probably screaming just to make sure they get to keep their own subsidies. Personally I don't think the public would be too keen on any public owned land being sold. Kinda like changing the constitution, once you start where do you stop.

 

[hopalong]

Steve-- how is that land leased out? Cash leases or AUM's or what? Or is it unused and just park land? I imagine some is timber land....Who administers it for the government- BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife?

And you are right- when I traveled around upstate NY, NH, VT and other states in that area I was surprised by how much land there was with trees on them...To a prairie boy I'd Never seen so many trees...

But if you go to most the Ag websites- the farmer/ranchers east of the Missisippi are some of the loudest screaming about the western ranchers "government subsidized" grazing (Just was a thread about it on Advantage Cattle site)- and proposing the idea to sell it all.....

40-50 years ago I think it may have been able to be sold, maybe even with special treatment to long lease holders -- but now I think the hunter, sportsmen, outdoor recreationist, enviromentalists are too strong a group to ever allow it to happen.....

Those ranchers east of the MS are probably screaming just to make sure they get to keep their own subsidies. Personally I don't think the public would be too keen on any public owned land being sold. Kinda like changing the constitution, once you start where do you stop.

HUMMMMM didn't All land once belong to the Government???? What about the Land rush in the 1880's who owned the land that they gave the people in the land rush in 1889???? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: Seems to me that been happening all along :wink: [/u][/b]


Probably not a very good comparison selling land to changing the Constitution :!:

 

[Mike]

You wanted to start a conversation about this OT, should we look it up?
or do you want to just backtrack right now? Your choice!

You've got your boot on his neck. He can't comment until you let him up. :lol:

 

[hopalong]

You wanted to start a conversation about this OT, should we look it up?
or do you want to just backtrack right now? Your choice!

You've got your boot on his neck. He can't comment until you let him up. :lol:

Then he has to sober up before he can make any kind of an intelligent response,

 

[Anonymous]

You wanted to start a conversation about this OT, should we look it up?
or do you want to just backtrack right now? Your choice!

You've got your boot on his neck. He can't comment until you let him up. :lol:

You can look up whatever you want--but apparently those members of the Land Board have the backing of the majority of ALL the people of the state since they were ALL the winners in their last election....

But like I said- it may be interesting to see who all the Koch Bros./Stockgrowers/etal can get to oppose the proposal- and which politicians jump into their boat....

 

[Steve]

Steve-- how is that land leased out? Cash leases or AUM's or what? Or is it unused and just park land? I imagine some is timber land....Who administers it for the government- BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife?

And you are right- when I traveled around upstate NY, NH, VT and other states in that area I was surprised by how much land there was with trees on them...To a prairie boy I'd Never seen so many trees...

But if you go to most the Ag websites- the farmer/ranchers east of the Missisippi are some of the loudest screaming about the western ranchers "government subsidized" grazing (Just was a thread about it on Advantage Cattle site)- and proposing the idea to sell it all.....

40-50 years ago I think it may have been able to be sold, maybe even with special treatment to long lease holders -- but now I think the hunter, sportsmen, outdoor recreationist, enviromentalists are too strong a group to ever allow it to happen.....

locally the county leases the state/county acreage it has on a per acre/season, usually for three to five years, and it is cheap, but the ground often isn't in the best condition, on some of it they were actually paying farmers to farm it, but that plan was short lived,

in the leases I had the lease was far cheaper then the property taxes would have been had I owned it, I let mine expire as there were a few wannabe grape growers driving up the prices and making promises, and now most of that land is weeds.. and the tangled mess of their vines and fences.

as for selling off grazing land.. I am against it for the very reason you state, one of the largest lease parcels in the county was owned by the city of Wildwood water utility, it was farmed under leases for generations.. when it went up for sale some trust bought it, and then resold it to the fed now it is a so called wildlife preserve..

in reality it is just a nasty weed patch.

you can easily spot anything the fish and wildlife controls ... as it is covered in weeds... bunch of worthless college educated government slugs with little to no intelligence or common sense..

I am not sure how many millions of farm acres in the north east is sitting idle, but the true amount would be staggering..