Reimbursement for livestock killed on Federal and State land?

[Conundrum]

I'm not claiming to know the law or the situation. It does seems odd to me that ranchers can graze livestock on certain pieces of state and fed land. When those animals are killed by predatory animals such as wolves, beers, and mountain lions, the rancher can submit a claim and be reimbursed by the gov which is ultimately taxpayer money.

Do the ranchers pay to graze these animals? Seems lame to me that if they don't, free "rent" and food for their herds plus insurance that the rancher won't lose animals or that a gov agency will relocate or kill a wild animal if affects the livestock in some cases is lame. I would like free rent for my business and insurance that the gov will help me if things go bad.

I grew up around cattle and ranching. My grandparents have done very well hauling livestock for ranchers and the ranching industry in general. I don't have a problem with ranchers but if they are not paying for land or food to raise their herd, it seems like a risk they should be willing to take.


http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=5003

Text:

Wildlife managers say a grizzly bear killed 13 sheep last month on a grazing allotment in Caribou-Targhee National Forest.

Mark Bruscino, bear management program supervisor for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, said the bear killed eight ewes and five lambs Aug. 15. Bruscino estimates grizzlies have killed 35 cattle and 45 sheep statewide so far this year.

“[Livestock losses] are not unusual where grizzly bears and domestic sheep overlap,” Bruscino said. “That applies to some degree with black bears.”

Wildlife Services, a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, responded to the scene and said the sheep were killed by a grizzly bear based on the tracks, Bruscino said.

Officials have not attempted to relocate or kill the grizzly, in part because of the remote location where the incident occurred. The livestock producer has not reported any more depredations since Aug. 15.

“We’re monitoring it at this time,” Bruscino said. “[The incident] occurred in a backcountry setting. There’s no access except horses where these losses occurred.”

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department will reimburse the sheep producer for the losses if he or she submits a claim, Bruscino said.

[Ccard257]

I don't know the laws or really anything pertinent for that matter but I wonder if it has anything to do with the federal government protecting the predators. If it were private land would the rancher have more options for controling the predators than he does on federal land? If so, maybe that is the reason for the reimbursment.

[Ccard257]

and it looks like the do pay a fee (at least on BLM land).

(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 2009 is $1.35 per AUM, the same level as it was in 2008.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

[Conundrum]

Guess that makes sense then.

[Tippster]

Mmmmmmmmm.... predatory beers.....

[Tye 1on]

Guess that makes sense then.

Kinda, but it sounds like they are different pockets. BLM gets paid, state game and fish pays out...

[Lone Star]

they pay a "fee" on forest as well. welfare ranchers are looking for a risk free investment, and the cost of doing business (ie depradation) is paid by the taxpayers. it's kinda Obama-esque if you think about it, but to ranchers, it's only a socialist welfare program if the recipients are brown, smelly, or speak a foreign language.

[Woodsy]

they pay a "fee" on forest as well. welfare ranchers are looking for a risk free investment, and the cost of doing business (ie depradation) is paid by the taxpayers. it's kinda Obama-esque if you think about it, but to ranchers, it's only a socialist welfare program if the recipients are brown, smelly, or speak a foreign language.

word
Welfare ranching
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm

its crap and tears tyhe hell out of some beautiful areas.

[LittleYellowFriend]

I hate having food to eat.

[Woodsy]

a) you dont need meat
b) if you do choose to eat beef and lamb, you can get it from cattle and sheep raised on private property.

[Lawless]

Yeah, it's all about protecting the predators. If there was no reimbursement, I guarantee you there would be a lot less wolves/bears/other predators than there are today. A lot less of the 3 S's (shoot, shovel, shut up) going on now. I guarantee ranchers would still rather shoot, but this at least takes the monetary argument out of the equation.

[Sir Jongalot]

they pay a "fee" on forest as well. welfare ranchers are looking for a risk free investment, and the cost of doing business (ie depradation) is paid by the taxpayers. it's kinda Obama-esque if you think about it, but to ranchers, it's only a socialist welfare program if the recipients are brown, smelly, or speak a foreign language.

Subsidized is the word conservatives would prefer to socialism.

I hate having food to eat.

You're right, because without subsidized ranching we'd all starve to death. Either that or pay a little higher prices for the beef that's clogging up all of our arteries.

[Tippster]

MMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... beef-clogged arteries.....

[Dexter Rutecki]

I hate having food to eat.

Oh, right. If it provides health care or education to kids it's evil socialism, but if it helps red state ranchers then it's good. Idiotic.

[farmguy]

In quite a few of those areas, the ranchers have had grazing permits for generations and recently they (BLM-FS-FWL) have started to reintroduce predators, bears, wolves etc etc inside or very close to grazing lands and guess what happens?


WHERES THE BEEF ?

Why chase a fast deer when a nice fat cow is right there?

[Conundrum]

In quite a few of those areas, the ranchers have had grazing permits for generations and recently they (BLM-FS-FWL) have started to reintroduce predators, bears, wolves etc etc inside or very close to grazing lands and guess what happens?

Reintroduce is the key word. I don't think any predators are being introduced into an area that had never had the wildlife in the first place. The predators were there at one point, so it shouldn't be too hard to fathom that they could be there again.

I guess my only complaint is if they want to make the rules, they should be on their own land. If they want to graze for free or cheap, they get what they get. I do see how the gov isn't trying to limit the SSS factor with money.

No matter how you slice it, subsidation isn't free market capitalism. Seems that some of the red ranch states are a little hypocrytical.

[hutash]

The best part about socialized grazing(which is exactly what it is), is the rates the fed charges for grazing in very small compared to what ranchers charge on the open market. That way they get to feel the benefits of capitalism, at the same time they are sucking the government's socialized tit. It is not unheard of for ranches with large fed grazing permits to graze their parasites on government land, while leasing their own land to someone who does not have any fed permits (at a much higher price, of course.)

...and for all the bleeding hearts who think western ranching is "so" important to the worlds food supply....it's not. I don't recall the exact numbers, but it takes roughly 130 acres per beef unit in the west, compared to one acre in the south. In other words it takes 130 times more land to raise cattle in the west, and without socialized ranching, it would not exist. Which is another reason ranches bitch about predators...their business model is so marginal that a small loss has a big effect on the bottom line.

[Dantheman]

Seems that some of the red ranch states are a little hypocrytical.

You have no idea. The entire history of the west is basically a parade of government hating, rugged-individualist types sucking at the federal teet, cognitive dissonance be damned. It's like the saying about college undergrads and their parents--Don't call, just send money.

If you are really interested, read Cadillac Desert.

[Woodsy]

ding ding ding.
Dan wins again

[Conundrum]

I've heard that book is awesome...off to the library.

[farmguy]

Wildlife and predators used to inhabit the area but were "thinned" by livestock owners with permission from the feds, the reintroduction of predators has been against the livestock owners wish's as they knew the results. Whether or not they (livestock) get a cheap deal, they also take better care of the ground than any Fed/State agency could ever do. Weed control is just one example.

[Cruzer]

Not all states pay ranchers for predator loss of livestock...I know California does not.

[leroy jenkins]

they pay a "fee" on forest as well. welfare ranchers are looking for a risk free investment, and the cost of doing business (ie depradation) is paid by the taxpayers. it's kinda Obama-esque if you think about it, but to ranchers, it's only a socialist welfare program if the recipients are brown, smelly, or speak a foreign language.

Yep, I hate those fuckers. There was a thread about this not too long ago, and I'll say basically what I said then.

They get grazing rights on public land for ridiculously cheap, lots of that land is high altitude or otherwise fragile, most (all) of these ranchers are already VERY wealthy, but they get a helping hand from the government just so they can play cowboy and have fun because they think they have some sort of right to it because they're grandaddy was a cattle rancher too. Then they whine and complain to the government that there are wolves and coyotes that live where they're trying to graze their animals on public land, and can't we please exterminate any other living thing they can't manage to make money off of.

These ranchers all pride themselves on being so tough and self reliant and everything, but when it comes down to it, they're mostly just whiny little bitches.


The livestock does not always stay where its supposed to, I've seen a wetland ten miles into a wilderness area at 11k ft get trampled and turned to a mud bog by a bunch of fucking cows. As far as I can tell, there weren't even any people in the entire valley looking after the cows. If I'd had a sidearm at the time, I'd have destroyed some of the rancher's precious property.



Still though, there is more to it than that. Free range livestock, while being more harmful to the local ecosystem, makes healthier meat, and is actually less harmful to the environment as a whole, compared to the third world cattle farmers that deforest large amounts of rain forest by overgrazing.

Wildlife and predators used to inhabit the area but were "thinned" by livestock owners with permission from the feds, the reintroduction of predators has been against the livestock owners wish's as they knew the results. Whether or not they (livestock) get a cheap deal, they also take better care of the ground than any Fed/State agency could ever do. Weed control is just one example.

Weed control, you're joking right? You ever seen an area thats been overgrazed? Cattle will turn grassland into desert faster than anything else. It was a huge problem in the SW around the turn of the last century, thankfully we've realized that things need to be regulated better than that, and things have improved in the last century.

There are plenty of places in the world where the ecosystem has been just about permanently destroyed by cattle overgrazing. Google haiti's deserts, for one.

Cattle will even destroy mature trees, by eating the bark off them, if you cut the bark off a tree all the way around it, even if its only a 1" wide strip, it will kill the tree.

[rideit]

WiWhether or not they (livestock) get a cheap deal, they also take better care of the ground than any Fed/State agency could ever do. .

Holy steaming pile of BULLSHIT.
The 'ranchers' DESTROY public lands, riparian areas, wildlife habitat, natural growth, E-coli, giardia and bacterial contamination, let's not even get started on the trails.

[mrw]

Does this cover cattle mutilations done by aliens?