“I am not anti-rancher or anti-cattlemen. But a person who can’t run their operation profitably without using public lands, well, they had better change what they’re doing.”
Give me a minute to clean up the beer on my keyboard.
You, sir, are a cretin. Most of those ranchers have been
ranching there for a hundred years and during those years, have been practicing conservation principles before the world “environmentalist” was even coined. Doesn’t it seem strange, that all of a sudden, after decades of taking care of their range, that someone stands up and starts screaming about the fish? Did the fish just suddenly decline after
100 years of ranching?
Get a good NF or BLM map and look at the government owned
land vs the privately held land up in the Blue Mountains.
The privately held land is scattered into small islands,
totally surrounded by fed and state land that has been
leased to these ranchers for decades. A lot of these ranches were operating before statehood, and yet, over the
years, the feds have been slowly squeezing the ranchers
with arbitrary and capricious rulings that are the result
of political pressure from city and urban dudes that wouldn’t know what a cow unit was in the field.
Top of my list is the BLM and F&G, with their heavy handed
ruling, based on who knows what, about what the ranchers can or cannot do.
You seem like a good case for SSS.
Just picturing that makes me laugh
FYI: SSS stands for Sears Service Sucks.
Great post, you said it better than I ever could. In high desert areas there’ll be a section, or half section that’s private surrounded bu BLM, same in USFS areas and it’s that way for miles in every direction.
“I am not anti-rancher or anti-cattlemen. But a person who can’t run their operation profitably without using public lands, well, they had better change what they’re doing.”
___________
I also doin’t understand why any enterprise counts on public handouts, including use of public lands. I know in the southeast it is common for the feds (largely Forest Service) to do land swaps and sales so private owners can connect fragmented parcels.
Well said.
Let me tell you a story.
There is a farm near where I live (southwest Washington State). This farm, about 20 miles west of Toledo, grows high quality alfalfa hay on 389 acres, all highly prized by dairyman. This hay is sold before it is even baled. This farm sold (not to developers - it is zoned agricultural only) this past week for one and half million dollars.
The owner of the 900 acre ranch in the article owns 450 head of cattle. An individual bovine usually requires 7 acres grazing to survive and this rancher has only two acres for each animal. In addition, he is growing hay and must graze his cattle somewhere else so he can make money, and relies on the Federal Government for grazing land.
Anyone could tell this is a business plan in trouble.
I don’t know what the quality of the hay he bales and sells is, but if he improved the quality he could make more money using less acreage. As for his cattle, selling much of his stock and only keeping what he can support on his land will not make him a potful of money, but independent of the Feds.
Things are tight for everyone right now. This rancher must, if he wants to survive, adjust to the times.
And don’t call me names. It can get you thrown off of Free Republic.
Would I be correct in saying that the Fed. land adjacent to the privately owned land is not for sale?
Or is it more cost effective for the owner to lease the land rather than purchase it then have to pay taxes on it too?