PF Question. Should ranchers . . .

be given free grazing land? Do you suppose the price of beef would go down if they were given free grazing land?

 

The grazing fee on federal land is like $1.35 per animal per month. It isn't like that is a fortune compared to having them on your own property. The system is not about profits, but about controlling who has rights to what lands so we don't have range wars, the land is overgrazed, or the land is destroyed by the livestock. People get like a 10 years lease to a specific plot of land and they basically are renters at the fee rate. I don't think that people should be allowed to not pay their rent and keep a piece of property because they want it which is what the arguments against grazing fees amounts to.

 

the situation in Nevada is rather complex, or it is to ME anyhow

I don't think people should just stop paying, well, grazing fees just because they hate the Federal gov. But on the other hand, i hate the Federal gov myself and think that it is TOTALLY out of control and in need of some seroius and immediate constraint

I think Congress needs to change a lot of things about the fed gov.

But in the meantime, i don't know what the perfect answer is to this situation in NV

one things 4 sure: the best way to complain about grazing fees (and the Fed gov) is to not pay them

so i am rooting for the Bundys @ this point

We are sick of the Fed gov: IRS persecuting us for not believing the right way, lies about what our soldiers suffered, lies about how they were neglected vis a vis security, lies about healthcare, lies about being able to keep our doctors... just LIES LIES LIES

Why should we PAY these SOBs???

---

 

i dont recall Bundy saying he wants the land. He just hates the fed gov... and after Lois Lerner, Benghazi, "If you like your plan, you can..."

well, you get my drift

who doesn't hate these lying tyrants?

 

Ranchers, as a group, are among the most reactionary government-hating people on the planet. At least they are in the northwestern Arizona/southern Nevada area. And they want FREE stuff just like inner-city welfare queens. Imagine that.

 

I think the perfect answer is for ranchers to pay the government. The fees/leases are a super bargain and I believe the ranchers may just be provoking a confrontation. If I don't pay the rent on my office to my private-sector landlord, I'm out on the street. So it's not just the gov that wants its money.

 

If he hates the federal government, he should find another one (maybe Argentina would be a better place to raise a few steers) before he gets himself killed. It's no longer an even fight where the ranchers and government square off with Winchesters.

 

No, and no. The land is the easy part. Maintaining the land and their livestock costs the ranchers the same no matter who owns the land, so it will not affect beef prices. I think livestock owners should be allowed to graze their livestock on federal or state land that would otherwise be unused and unmaintained in exchange for maintaining it. I currently free-lease land that I own in NC to a local horse farmer in exchange for him maintaining my fences and keeping the weeds down. It costs me nothing, but brings us both benefit.

 

Well while $1.35 an acre or whatever might sound dirt cheap, IIRC there is so little grass that cows require something like 10 acres each to sustain themselves on the average so that amounts to $13.50 per head per year. Given that most steers have a sell out of about a dollar a pound then when sold the fee along takes 2.7% of the total sale price.

While the fees are not exorbitant, they do cut into the margins on raising cattle noticeably.

In regards to the crisis at the Bundy ranch it still comes down to the fact they brought out sniper teams in a fee dispute.

 

Only white ranchers.

 

Nope like any business they need to pay for what they use to make a product. Should Hershey get free milk to make candy. Should car manufactors get free stuff to make cars??

 

I think the fee is per animal unit rather than acres and I think the BLM determines how many acres it takes to support one head. I'm just not sure $1.35 is the right rate.

 

Bundy owes 1 million dollars he knew the law he broke it.

 

Perhaps they should live somewhere else that is easier on the cows. I think if the rancher had been a little more rational then BLM might not have reacted as they did.

 

I support grazing fees. In fact, I think they should be raised.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no doubt about that.

 

Oh he owes more than that since 2013 when the ruling came down he is being charged 200 dollars a day (per head of cattle I think) for not removing them.

 

No. And no.

 

Oh yeah, he'd LOVE Argentina

As to the OP. No, the price of beef wouldn't go down one red cent because the ranchers would use all the profits to stop the Government's "Tyrannical" regulations preventing them from selling us tainted meat, and they'd use all those profits to help the Corporations fight the good fight so we'd have no recourse when they sold us unsafe or nonworking products. 'Course they'd buy themselves a Lamborghini or two along the way.

I am sick to death of all these RICH (and anyone who owns over 1000 cattle IS rich, just by assets alone) (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s who get away with all kinds of free handouts while denigrating poor people who actually NEED the money.

 

Good. We have a war on terror to pay for.

 

Yes, if they've been grazing their cattle on the land for 75 years BEFORE the BLM was ever formed in 1946.

 

I think a better question is, when the federal government owns 80% of a state, has it gotten to a point where government owns too much and is hoarding all the land?

 

No on Both counts.

 

Sorry, but this type of pragmatic solution does not further the aims of the Orwellian state. The Orwellian state requires more money to purchase more tools, vehicles, guns, and other devices necessary to quell the human spirit, and keep it contained, and obedient.

 

No and no.