Utah Land use

[monkey44]

Interesting read on federal land use -- camping and rec vs grazing and harvesting resources.

http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/01/welfare-recreation-the-truth-about-subsidized-public-lands-use-in-southeastern-utah/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

[dave54]

The grazing fee is set according to a formula written into law. The current rate of $1.87 per AUM is the floor price. It cannot go lower. Neither political party has shown any interest in amending the formula. Outside of a small number of griping malcontents it is a non-issue in DC. The two major federal land agencies -- Forest Service and BLM -- also have legally mandated missions to promote rural economic development. Maintaining family ranches is part of that mandate. Without the public land grazing most family ranches would fail economically, with a ripple effect through the entire region. Most likely the failed ranch would be sold to developers, especially if near large cities. So in a way the grazing fee system is helping keep open land undeveloped and slowing urban sprawl. The worst managed ranch is still better wildlife habitat than the best planned subdivision.

According to the USFS figures the cost of backpacking in a Wilderness is a bit over $37 per person per day (that figure is a couple years old, probably higher now). This is obtained from dividing the total FS Wilderness management budget by the number of wilderness visitor days. I am not aware of any national forest in the country that charges $37 per person per day for wilderness permits. Most have no charge.

A study conducted by Utah State University about 20 years ago showed that while public land recreation in total was a net economic gain for rural communities, the profit was from developed and motorized recreation. Non motorized wilderness recreation was a net loss. RVers are subsidizing backpackers.

[BarryG20]

While I have no issue with ranchers leasing land from the government and I know several that do, they are not making it better for the government or by extension "we the people". They are making it better for them or more specifically for their stock whether it is improvements that are mandated by the government or their stock. Ranchers are not going to spend one more dime than they have to to produce livestock period, just like any other business. If you are doing cow and calf operations the lease rate is $1.87 per UAM(1 cow and her calf, 1 horse, 5 sheep or 5 goats for one month) The government has rules on when, where and carrying capacity. Not many places on the planet that you can feed an animal or animals as the case may be for 1.87 a month. I would call that one heck of subsidy. Now certainly depending on the location they are not out there all year but even for a few months that is extremely cheap by anyone's standards. It allows joe rancher the ability to feed his stock for cheap for at least part of the year without really paying for the land use. And the ones I know who do lease complain about the rules and how jacked up they are and how it hurts their profitability etc they should just leave it up to them do what is best. Well buy another 100, 1000, 10000 acres and see how much that costs and you will still have to do more or less the same type of management if you want the range to last. They pretty much feel the land is theirs as they have been leasing it for decades if not generations. Not to mention that is really only helping a few people in reality as far as jobs go in an area. Might mean a couple "cowboys" in addition to the rancher. They routinely do as much of the work themselves as possible to keep the margins that they need to survive.

On the recreation side the recreators (not all but many) use the land at their own discretion doing whatever they want with it and certainly by no means do they care for it. They use it and leave, along with their trash, new ohv trails they cut by going off the existing trails creating drainage issues, not following leave no trace principles in general etc but they also leave their money. It does however provide a lot more jobs and taxes for the locals. 50 years ago Moab was hole with a few visitors to Arches (1965 144k 2016 1.6m). Now there are hordes of people. The UMTRA project which was left by mineral processors/extractors (uranaium to be specific) is now costing over a billon dollars to remove the tailings from the banks of the Colorado River that "we the people" are getting to pay for now. That also created jobs though many of them are not for locals they are for government oversight folks and contractors from out of the area however, regardless it is "our" money that is paying for the vast majority of those new jobs and taxes paid.(just a side note as that has nothing to do with the recreate side just land use like the ranchers) Also on the recreate side is if an area gets very busy they tack on use fees like mentioned in the article. You can feed animal/s for a month for 1.87 or I can pay $5 to $7 to visit the land for a day.

While I dont really like it I don't have an issue with pay to play as long as that money is spent on that specific area which it is supposed to benefit but ....

There are two sides to every story as the article points out whether good or bad does depends on your point of view. Again I have no issue with ranchers leasing land just seems pretty cheap especially since it is to ultimately enrich themselves. Whereas the recreate side generates significantly more money and mess (cow **** notwithstanding) but at least it enriches more people - locals with more jobs and tax money and the non money side of non locals personal enrichment of seeing and experiencing some of those areas. I just wish so many of them didn't want that personal enrichment as it makes it hard for those of us who do care for and use the land to appreciate it. Hmmm, that last sentence sounds very familiar (just in case you didn't make the connection - "I know whats best for the land").

[Camreal]

Interesting read for sure. My brotherinlaw is a rancher in that area and I have personally been there many times and helped him with his cattle. He leases about 25,000 acres from the BLM and owns the ranch of another 20000 acres. The BLM land has no water and he hauls 7000 gallons of water 25 miles out for the 300 head of cows every other day. His family has been there ranching since the 1950s. He has often had campers and hunters on the land with no problems. The BLM land is open to the public.

[zigzagrv]

Excellent read and perspective. Thanks

[gbopp]

Clicky