Posts: 429
Threads: 259
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
167
So who is in the right here?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realesta...li=BBnb7Kz
I am torn on this one, on one hand I know many instances of our govt overstepping their bounds in their dealings with private land owners, especially in the western parts of the US. However, these land owners get some sweet heart deals on this federal ground adjacent to their properties in terms of grazing leases and without these deals their ranches would never likely support enough livestock to make a living so really they are being little bitches here.
IMO, they need to honor these century old public access points or work with the forestry service to create alternate access on their properties. If they are unwilling to create a working access then IMO they are not eligible for grazing leases and if they are not willing to allow access to the federal ground then in times of wildfire their properties will not be given any special attention. If the govt is not allowed across their lands in the good times... dont call them when the shit hits the fan. our countries foresty mis-management plans are a major reason that we have had the horrendous wild fires we have seen in the last 5 years or so, limiting access to those lands only further elevates the chance for future disaster level fires.
I don't know how you include "sweetheart deals" into the debate. The grazing rights are something the ranchers pay for, have to follow grazing plans, work with ever changing govt bureaucracy. It isn't simply get cheap grazing. I grew up in this world, the amount of work the grazing associations do to balance both sides is amazing. And most of the improvements to the land are done by the ranchers. The water is used by wildlife, not just cattle. Many locations would be unused and unmanaged for the worse if not for the ranchers.
Yes, without the grazing leases, they wouldn't run as many cattle. But they aren't just free to run as many as they want. It is dictated to them by the forest service/BLM.
As to the trails, it is tough. I like public access to trails, but respect land owners. So many people just don't respect the land, public or private. Trash, litter, destruction of property, fire safety are all huge issues. If a fire burns private property, what recompense do they get? If cattle are harassed, hurt or suffer injury from trash left there, what recompense do they have.
Look at it this way. I have no problem with people walking through my property in the city as they usually stay on the sidewalk. But ask a corner lot owner about cut across users that ruin their lawn. Or about the people that don't pick up their dog crap. People are increasingly lazy and unaware of their surroundings.
Quote: @"greediron" said:
I don't know how you include "sweetheart deals" into the debate. The grazing rights are something the ranchers pay for, have to follow grazing plans, work with ever changing govt bureaucracy. It isn't simply get cheap grazing. I grew up in this world, the amount of work the grazing associations do to balance both sides is amazing. And most of the improvements to the land are done by the ranchers. The water is used by wildlife, not just cattle. Many locations would be unused and unmanaged for the worse if not for the ranchers.
Yes, without the grazing leases, they wouldn't run as many cattle. But they aren't just free to run as many as they want. It is dictated to them by the forest service/BLM.
As to the trails, it is tough. I like public access to trails, but respect land owners. So many people just don't respect the land, public or private. Trash, litter, destruction of property, fire safety are all huge issues. If a fire burns private property, what recompense do they get? If cattle are harassed, hurt or suffer injury from trash left there, what recompense do they have.
Look at it this way. I have no problem with people walking through my property in the city as they usually stay on the sidewalk. But ask a corner lot owner about cut across users that ruin their lawn. Or about the people that don't pick up their dog crap. People are increasingly lazy and unaware of their surroundings.
most of those grazing leases are well below private market value as they are usually only open to a few neighboring land owners as nobody else can access the land effectively. I know there are restrictions, but so is there with private land and from what I've read the leases on the govt land are often well below what it would cost them to lease similar acres from a private party.
If the issue is with how people are treating their land while on it... then that is a different discussion all together, but they arent just closing their land to dick heads, they are closing to federal officials and land management crews as well.
IMO there needs to be better policing of the federal lands and adjacent access points, but the land owners are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Like I said, they need to be willing to work with the Feds, but the Feds need to get their shit together as well.
the previous policies on how these lands were managed has created a shit storm out there and its time to fix these issues. I am all for increasing penalties on the boorish that cant respect nature.... public or private.
I dont want a pay to play scenario where they are only open to the wealthy, but federal land use permit could be required to be on the federal lands. make it affordable for the outdoorsmen and use the proceeds to fund awareness programs and other things to try and curb the offenses.
or we can just do nothing and see where that leads... ( hint- more armed standoffs and more dead Americans)
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
most of those grazing leases are well below private market value as they are usually only open to a few neighboring land owners as nobody else can access the land effectively. I know there are restrictions, but so is there with private land and from what I've read the leases on the govt land are often well below what it would cost them to lease similar acres from a private party.
If the issue is with how people are treating their land while on it... then that is a different discussion all together, but they arent just closing their land to dick heads, they are closing to federal officials and land management crews as well.
IMO there needs to be better policing of the federal lands and adjacent access points, but the land owners are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Like I said, they need to be willing to work with the Feds, but the Feds need to get their shit together as well.
the previous policies on how these lands were managed has created a shit storm out there and its time to fix these issues. I am all for increasing penalties on the boorish that cant respect nature.... public or private.
I dont want a pay to play scenario where they are only open to the wealthy, but federal land use permit could be required to be on the federal lands. make it affordable for the outdoorsmen and use the proceeds to fund awareness programs and other things to try and curb the offenses.
or we can just do nothing and see where that leads... ( hint- more armed standoffs and more dead Americans)
I have often heard the below market value argument but don't put much stock in it (puns always intended). Much of the land is relatively low value. I grew up in the badlands. Some of the land was practically worthless from a grazing standpoint, but it was all included in the lease. As the land values rise, the valuation may seem more off as well, but we should consider these leases were tied to the private land long before others saw value in these public lands. The ranch, its value and much of what you can do, is tied to the lease. So this isn't always about "market value".
It is like a private ranch with access to water. If that water goes away, the ranch loses its value. The water is "public" but the rights are something that go with the ranch. Same with these leases. They have been there for a long time, the land owners work hard to protect those rights, to maintain a relationship with an uncaring bureaucracy that changes people and leadership every few years.
There are no restrictions on private ranches like those ranches tied to federal leases. In the dry years, the BLM sez you have to reduce the number of cattle X amount. So you have to sell cows and suffer lower earning potential. The grazing plans dictate when and where you graze. You can't just change for production or convenience reasons.
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
If the issue is with how people are treating their land while on it... then that is a different discussion all together, but they arent just closing their land to dick heads, they are closing to federal officials and land management crews as well.
IMO there needs to be better policing of the federal lands and adjacent access points, but the land owners are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Like I said, they need to be willing to work with the Feds, but the Feds need to get their shit together as well.
the previous policies on how these lands were managed has created a shit storm out there and its time to fix these issues. I am all for increasing penalties on the boorish that cant respect nature.... public or private.
I dont want a pay to play scenario where they are only open to the wealthy, but federal land use permit could be required to be on the federal lands. make it affordable for the outdoorsmen and use the proceeds to fund awareness programs and other things to try and curb the offenses.
or we can just do nothing and see where that leads... ( hint- more armed standoffs and more dead Americans)
I agree that being dicks about it is not the right approach. Like hunting permissions. My dad posts his land, but allows people to hunt if they ask permission. He doesn't get paid, no kickbacks, but for safety reasons and simply wanting to know who is on the land. That way he can set some ground rules, close the gates, cattle are in certain area, already people hunting it.
Simply saying no leads to anger and more problems.
But to the point of working with feds, it is an issue. People are moved in and out of the area quite often. Many come from urban areas with no idea how ranching or land ownership works. So the people living there have to "educate" or help the newbie understand. And once a relationship is formed, usually the process works better. But then within a few years, they move that person out and the process starts over. So much time is wasted dealing with the bureaucracy. So I understand the frustration.
And the public needs to learn how to behave if they want access. The general notion of public land is I can do anything and someone else can clean up after me. Most outdoors type respect the land. Fishermen want to see fish there for generations. Hunters want to be able to hunt longterm. But many of the new type of recreationalists don't care or understand what impact they have on the land.
Quote: @"greediron" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
most of those grazing leases are well below private market value as they are usually only open to a few neighboring land owners as nobody else can access the land effectively. I know there are restrictions, but so is there with private land and from what I've read the leases on the govt land are often well below what it would cost them to lease similar acres from a private party.
If the issue is with how people are treating their land while on it... then that is a different discussion all together, but they arent just closing their land to dick heads, they are closing to federal officials and land management crews as well.
IMO there needs to be better policing of the federal lands and adjacent access points, but the land owners are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Like I said, they need to be willing to work with the Feds, but the Feds need to get their shit together as well.
the previous policies on how these lands were managed has created a shit storm out there and its time to fix these issues. I am all for increasing penalties on the boorish that cant respect nature.... public or private.
I dont want a pay to play scenario where they are only open to the wealthy, but federal land use permit could be required to be on the federal lands. make it affordable for the outdoorsmen and use the proceeds to fund awareness programs and other things to try and curb the offenses.
or we can just do nothing and see where that leads... ( hint- more armed standoffs and more dead Americans)
I have often heard the below market value argument but don't put much stock in it (puns always intended). Much of the land is relatively low value. I grew up in the badlands. Some of the land was practically worthless from a grazing standpoint, but it was all included in the lease. As the land values rise, the valuation may seem more off as well, but we should consider these leases were tied to the private land long before others saw value in these public lands. The ranch, its value and much of what you can do, is tied to the lease. So this isn't always about "market value".
It is like a private ranch with access to water. If that water goes away, the ranch loses its value. The water is "public" but the rights are something that go with the ranch. Same with these leases. They have been there for a long time, the land owners work hard to protect those rights, to maintain a relationship with an uncaring bureaucracy that changes people and leadership every few years.
There are no restrictions on private ranches like those ranches tied to federal leases. In the dry years, the BLM sez you have to reduce the number of cattle X amount. So you have to sell cows and suffer lower earning potential. The grazing plans dictate when and where you graze. You can't just change for production or convenience reasons.
Quote:
I think you have been away from the ranch a while, there most certainly are restrictions on grazing private lands. Land management is becoming a bigger and bigger thing as private rent has gone up with pasture acres getting turned to crop ground every where. pasture prices have doubled in some places the last 10 years and are nearing that of poor crop ground, also date in/date out days are getting more restrictive, the number of head per acre is fluctuating much more based on pasture health, and we are seeing a lot of the larger pastures getting cross fenced with the land owner dictating when the animals are moved into and out of the smaller areas. its not likely on as big of a scale out there, but I am sure it is happening there as well. I know I sell a lot of water line to ranchers and water systems for piping water to pastures that have been cross fenced and cut off from the main water supply.
I personally though think we need to see a major overhaul in land use in this country. residential units in areas that should be left alone (mudslides and wild fires) farming in areas that require regular irrigation to make a crop (depleting fresh water aquifers) urban areas in a desert that is never intended to support more than very miniamal life. people are worrying about global warming and greenhouse gases, IMO the much larger concern should be how we are raping mother earth on the surface.
Quote: @"greediron" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
If the issue is with how people are treating their land while on it... then that is a different discussion all together, but they arent just closing their land to dick heads, they are closing to federal officials and land management crews as well.
IMO there needs to be better policing of the federal lands and adjacent access points, but the land owners are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Like I said, they need to be willing to work with the Feds, but the Feds need to get their shit together as well.
the previous policies on how these lands were managed has created a shit storm out there and its time to fix these issues. I am all for increasing penalties on the boorish that cant respect nature.... public or private.
I dont want a pay to play scenario where they are only open to the wealthy, but federal land use permit could be required to be on the federal lands. make it affordable for the outdoorsmen and use the proceeds to fund awareness programs and other things to try and curb the offenses.
or we can just do nothing and see where that leads... ( hint- more armed standoffs and more dead Americans)
I agree that being dicks about it is not the right approach. Like hunting permissions. My dad posts his land, but allows people to hunt if they ask permission. He doesn't get paid, no kickbacks, but for safety reasons and simply wanting to know who is on the land. That way he can set some ground rules, close the gates, cattle are in certain area, already people hunting it.
Simply saying no leads to anger and more problems.
But to the point of working with feds, it is an issue. People are moved in and out of the area quite often. Many come from urban areas with no idea how ranching or land ownership works. So the people living there have to "educate" or help the newbie understand. And once a relationship is formed, usually the process works better. But then within a few years, they move that person out and the process starts over. So much time is wasted dealing with the bureaucracy. So I understand the frustration.
And the public needs to learn how to behave if they want access. The general notion of public land is I can do anything and someone else can clean up after me. Most outdoors type respect the land. Fishermen want to see fish there for generations. Hunters want to be able to hunt longterm. But many of the new type of recreationalists don't care or understand what impact they have on the land.
I am all for extremely limiting motorized vehicles on federal ground. this notion that they can go where ever they want really pisses me off. motorsports enthusiasts are some of the most disrespectful people I encounter in the outdoors. I dont mind the couple that takes their snowmobiles up a trail to enjoy the scenery, but the obnoxiously loud exhausts, the break neck riding, and the complete lack of respect for fence lines irritates the shit out of me. in this day and age of electronics there is no reason that a small area cant be adhered to by these groups and leave the rest for what it was intended.. nature and those that enjoy it.
by the way... any turkeys on your family land out there? I just took up turkey hunting last spring and am kinda hooked.
I know the land prices have gone way up, the ND oil boom really affected that as well. But much of the BLM lease land isn't exactly prime grazing.
Seems what you are talking about for restrictions is simply what the actual owner is dictating. Nothing wrong with that IMO. As the owner, he has the right to dictate the terms. I was talking more about privately owned ranches, they don't have the restriction on numbers, but good owners understand there are limits on what it can sustain.
And to the private leased land, the owner has a right to think long term as well. But often greed gets in the way of that.
And to your last point about how we treat the land. Most often the ones that take the best care of it are the ones that own it. Public land gets treated like a public bathroom. And in the case of leased public land, the one left to clean up is the only one paying for using it.
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
by the way... any turkeys on your family land out there? I just took up turkey hunting last spring and am kinda hooked.
Not sure about this year, but typically it is pretty good turkey hunting. Funny, the turkeys moved in when I was 11 or 12, never had a single one before, but now they have been there since and do pretty well. They seem to like the edge of the badlands, some grain fields on the one side, protection and habitat on the other.
|
