Replies

Take a look at the first slide. Most ranchers already own the state water use rights on these allotments. Most also own structural improvements like fencing. Why is it a subsidy that they are charged a low dollar amount per Animal Unit Month for such miserable forage? Why do envirals always compare the fee with private pasture rentals and call it a subsidy? Private pasture or range is much easier access. There is usually good water and good forage. Fencing/structures and other services are provided?

When the envirals "rent" these allotments, what happens to the local communities that are dependent upon the circulating dollars initiated by agriculture? (Usually circulates from 5-7 times through the community.)

As for the checkerboard issue, in an open range state, people who don't want cattle on their land must fence it off. (The feds. are an exception.) I think what will happen here is that the cattle will continue to graze the land rented by the envirals under open-range. That is unless the envirals wish to fence miles and miles of land.

"When the envirals "rent" these allotments, what happens to the local communities that are dependent upon the circulating dollars initiated by agriculture?"

They'll not necessarily get to rent them. The land is now out to fair, open bid, and the farmers can still get them if they are willing to pay (oh, I tremble at the concept of a farmer paying this...) fair market value.

As far as the towns, we have had ghost towns before. Did the government keep subsidizing mining to protect towns then the metals ran out? What about old steel towns in PA? Why do farmers deserve such special consideration?

However, one safeguard that I think would be apropriate is if they require that all funds to lease land with must originate within the state. This would keep large national coffers from unfairly affecting local actions (kind of like when the Christian Coalition descends upon a local school board election that was amateur and low-budget until then).

Thank you for explaining. Private pasture may be irrigated, aerially seeded, or even planted crops for forage. The terms of federal leases do not permit these improvements. I don't know about your state land rules.

A local rancher (North Dakota)wanted to run a water line on the surface to a water tank 1/4 mile away along an existing fenceline. The BLM wanted him to have Archaeological, botanical, raptor, and other surveys conducted at a cost of over $50,000 to run a water line along the ground.

He told the BLM "I guess everything is going to have to walk a little farther to get a drink.

The BLM ignored the fact that antelope, deer, and other animals benefit as well as the livestock, as well as the fact that existing structures (The fence) had already disturbed things more than laying plastic pipe on the surface would.

If local hunters could lease the land, and sub lease the grazing rights (while retaining the ability to hunt there), maybe this would help solve the problem, after all, the ecowhackos want to eliminate both groups. Could be a mutually beneficial partnership. Most 'grazing' land left to go to pot is pretty lousy after a short period. CRP has shown that to be the case. It provides habitat, but the old growth reduces the food value.