High Sierra Topix

The grazing fee formula is set into law. Over the past several decades neither party has even paid lip service to altering the formula.
Most grazing permit holders are small family ranchers.
You are correct the grazing rights subsidize the operation and would not be economically viable without public land grazing. Already shown in several studies public land grazing helps reduce urban sprawl and keeps open land undeveloped by keeping the private ranch in operation. The worst managed ranch is still better wildlife habitat than the best planned subdivision.

dave54 wrote: Most grazing permit holders are small family ranchers.

Like Cliven Bundy and his family? Who don't even pay their minimal grazing fees?

Might be cheaper to just buy up the small plots of private land and eliminate the grazing, which would help native wildlife.

John

Backpackers should not complain too loudly about government subsidies.

This figure is a few years old, so probably needs updating. Take the total USFS wilderness management budget and divide it by the number of wilderness visitor days. It works out to around $38 per person per day.
How much did you pay for your last wilderness permit?

This is a huge state and there is plenty of room for a few wolves to live in it. If I have to hike through a bunch of cattle to visit a wilderness area I think ranchers can deal with losing a few heads of cattle. Since the rural parts of the state already receive plenty of subsidies in the form of water projects, road infrastructure, below cost-of-recovery lumber sales and food stamps for economically depressed areas why not a payout for the occasional livestock. If a pack camps out on a particular ranch then take measures to "encourage" them to relocate. I get how inflexibility about dealing with statewide mountain lions or exurban deer populations can trigger concerns by ranchers but why does this issue have to be an either/or? The level of polarization of political issues in this country is ridiculous.

One big irony of this issue is that in many areas coyotes are slowly but surely filling the ecological niche left by the lack of wolves.

BillyBobBurro wrote:...
One big irony of this issue is that in many areas coyotes are slowly but surely filling the ecological niche left by the lack of wolves.

Subsidies are ubiquitous throughout the state including urban areas -- schools, highways, water systems, law enforcement, housing, et al. Since urban areas have more population, and subsidies follow populations, LA and SF are far more subsidized than the rural counties. So that argument fails.

Coyotes are hunted too. The Modoc County annual coyote hunt was made illegal by the courts and state Fish and Wildlife. It happened last year anyway. The local Warden arranged his patrol schedule to be at the opposite end of his area when the hunt occurred.

LA and SF are NOT more subsidized that rural counties. First of all, they are disproportionally the source of the taxes that pay those subsidies, with higher wage earners, higher property values, and greater economic activity than the rural areas. Secondly, it is more efficient to provide services in densely populated areas, so the government spending on roads, schools, law enforcement, fire protection, etc., is much greater per capita in low-density rural areas than in dense urban areas.

Nevertheless, there is still the issue of wolves. As an urban dweller, I am happy to have some of my taxes go to compensate ranchers for losses from wolves and to pay for more monitoring by Fish & Wildlife.

-Phil

BillyBobBurro wrote:
...
One big irony of this issue is that in many areas coyotes are slowly but surely filling the ecological niche left by the lack of wolves.

LOL, seems to apply in other disciplines in this state as well.

Wildhiker wrote:
...
so the government spending on roads

I was thinking about this as I was filling up my gas tank this morning. Then I realized I had nothing to complain about because I'm just a freeloader.

First of all, I don't have much background in the history or regulations of open land grazing, so I really don't have a strong opinion on either side of the argument. That said, I found this statement a little amusing.

"Their argument: The law only applies to native species, not visitors from other states."

I'm not a biologist, but I'm pretty sure cattle are not a native species to North America. Bison yes, but cattle no.

If one believes the local bar talk (not sure I do, but admit it could be true) one of the wolves has been dealt with.

That is the big flaw in the 3S method -- the third one is the hardest to keep.