JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Hermannr
The leases are very vaulable because they are being paid for by taxpayers. James Ruby

Mr. Ruby, you are so wrong. It is very obvious you have never had to pay $$$$$ for grazing your cows. I will illustrate:

In the state of WA two sections out of every township are "school sections" revenue from this land is to be used to support public education.

You do not have to pay to recreate or hunt on this land, so how is the school going to benefit (assuming it is not timberland, or it is not to be cut as timber at the present time) Oh my, the ranchers lease (make payments to the government) based on the number of cow/calf pairs are on it, every month they are on it. Works exactly the same way for FS and BLM land. We PAY big time to run our cattle on government land.

OK, lets say that one of the proposals to reduce the public debt is innitiated, that is give the Federal FS land back to the states (like back east) and the state auctions it off. Guess what, property taxes are less than what lease payments are, and the land would be better managed. You think the ranchers can just run their cattle on government land for free??? think again big boy
 
And BTW, JGR, wherever it is that you live, the Native Americans were there first, but your ancestors killed them off or drove them away. What if I advocate that we re-introduce the Native Americans to wherever it is that you live. They'll have diplomatic immunity, as representatives of another nation. They'll be allowed to do whatever they want to, like camping on your property, appropriating anything of yours they take a liking to, killing your pets and children, and burning down your house. I'll sit here on the internet waiting for you to complain so that I can rub it in and tell you how wrong you are, how you picked the wrong place to live, and how it's all your own fault.

My wife is a Native American tribal member. Where does JG Ruby live? We can go pitch a Tee Pee in his yard and make ourselves at home. After all, If it's good for the wolves, it's good for the Native Americans. HAHAHA
 
So lets look at the real cost of grazing on federal and state peroperty:

<broken link removed>

The Federal grazing fee, which applies to Federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, is adjusted annually and is calculated by using a formula originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Under this formula, as modified and extended by a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM); also, any fee increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous year's level. (An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.) The grazing fee for 2011 is $1.35 per AUM, the same level as it was in 2010.

The Federal grazing fee is computed by using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM for livestock grazing on public lands in Western states. The figure is then adjusted each year according to three factors &#8211; current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. In effect, the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market conditions, with livestock operators paying more when conditions are better and less when conditions have declined.

So what does it cost the taxpayers:
Obama Admin Denies Petition to Raise Grazing Fees on Public Lands - NYTimes.com

"Subsidizing the livestock industry at the cost of species, ecosystems and taxpayers is plainly bad public-lands policy," said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director for CBD. "Today's choice to continue that policy is both a disappointment and a blight on the Obama administration's environmental record."

The GAO report found that if the purpose of the grazing fee were to recover expenditures, BLM and the Forest Service would have to charge $7.64 and $12.26 per "animal unit month," several times higher than the current $1.35.
federal agencies' grazing fees generated about $21 million in fiscal year 2004--less than one-sixth of the expenditures to manage grazing...

Livestock Grazing at Taxpayers' Expense? - Planet Green
BLM's and the Forest Service's grazing receipts fell short of their expenditures on grazing in fiscal year 2004 by almost $115 million. The BLM and Forest Service fee also decreased by 40 percent from 1980 to 2004, while grazing fees charged by private ranchers increased by 78 percent for the same period.

The current grazing fee does not recover even the administrative costs of operating the program, leaving U.S. taxpayers to pay the difference. The fee also falls short of paying for the environmental problems this land use causes, and instead enables high levels of livestock grazing that harm ecosystems, degrade watersheds, and cause species decline. In 2010, the government charges just $1.35 per month to graze one cow and calf on public lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management... To recover expenditures, the Bureau and Forest Service would have had to charge $7.64 and $12.26 per animal unit month, respectively.


Dont tell me how the families that lease open range arent getting away with a taxpayer hand out.
So how much would it cost to feed them hay? Or own that peroperty yoursellf like ZigzagZekes family does.

James Ruby
 
I certainly don't agree with your views. That's ok. But, just as you don't want to have your freedom of speech infringed, be assured that every time you spout your crap against free ranging ranchers and that the wolf we have is the one that belongs here I will give you grief. That's the way the world turns.

Too bad there isn't a "pissing match" simile!:s0114:

At least this time you use eradicate instead of extinct.[/QUOTE]



From my perspective Orygun that is your problem - I will continue to post and write what I want - I am asking for neither your approval or agreement. Its your choice to read it or not.

James Ruby
 
There is also a benefit to grazing public lands, and that is to reduce fire danger later in the year, from unrestrained grasses drying out and providing ideal tinder. Grazing keeps those grasses down and reduces understory fire hazard.

Now if one wants to pay for BLM/USFS employees to run a brush hog/lawnmower over them I suppose we could do that!
Public land grazing is not the one-way benefit most envirodotorgs would have you believe JG.
 
I pay to hunt public land with my yearly hunting fees - and my camping fees - I support the local economy by dumping several thousand dollars into remote rural towns so that businesses can exist out there. The only thing I leave in the woods are my foot prints and maybe a little toilet paper to put it nicely. I hunt timber company property and federal land. I am even willing to pay more to do so. When we pull camp there is no sign that we were there except maybe tire tracks. I do not shoot anything but the game animal I am hunting at that time. No gut shooting of wolves, coyotes, cougars or spotted owls.

Now as far as property tax - why would it need to be less than the cost of what the government charges -- here in Portland we have very high property taxes - we could do that out there as well plus it would be the solution to the wolf population so I support it being sold to private individuals. If the state needs more money you raise the property taxes to what they should be instead of a fraction of what they should be.

I posted another post on the cost of what it costs to graze an cow - the cost of grazing a cow in 2010 per month was 1.35$ on BLM land where the real cost is somewhere between 7-12$ per month - pleae dont tell me how much it costs - please show me that I am wrong.

James Ruby
 
There is also a benefit to grazing public lands, and that is to reduce fire danger later in the year, from unrestrained grasses drying out and providing ideal tinder. Grazing keeps those grasses down and reduces understory fire hazard.

Now if one wants to pay for BLM/USFS employees to run a brush hog/lawnmower over them I suppose we could do that!
Public land grazing is not the one-way benefit most envirodotorgs would have you believe JG.

Let it burn naturally like they do in the wilderness areas - there is no reason that land must be mowed down. Maybe people will learn that if you live in a wilderness area that you need to keep the brush away from your structures. This is like the logic - lets build right next to the Missippi river. .

James Ruby
 
What they "should be?"
Property taxes are paid to the county and/or city, depending on whether the city levies a tax, not the state.

So you are advocating raising taxes on EFU, forest and rural residential properties to the equivalent of Oregon's largest city? Considering the market value of properties and improvements, that is patently ridiculous.
Are you for real JG?
Do you have ANY idea what that would do to the agricultural businesses and food prices in this state? In the U.S? (considering Oregon supplies a significant amount of what to the country/world)
 
Are you for real JG?
Do you have ANY idea what that would do to the agricultural businesses and food prices in this state? In the U.S? (considering Oregon supplies a significant amount of what to the country/world)

I'd have to say No to all of these questions!
 
From my perspective Orygun that is your problem - I will continue to post and write what I want - I am asking for neither your approval or agreement. Its your choice to read it or not.

James Ruby

It's not my problem. Just rest assured that as long as you continue to post things I don't agree with, I will be commenting on your version of the "truth".
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top