|
| If leased from federal government and you get removed for drought or fire they first try to adapt or adjust head counts or open up say parcels that are held strictly for those occasions. There is a allotment 60 miles from us that is used on a rotational basis if needed for permittees that get removed for fire or drought. At least it was as 35 years ago. I don't know the status of that land today.
If your AUM's are cut, your not charged for the lease. You still hold it but in suspended status. If AUM's are in suspended status you've not lost them, but the right to run on them at that time. As well if a extra feed year you can apply for what they call temporary non renewable AUM's. It is a one year season use, has to be applied for every year. Only given if managers think there is ample feed. We ran into a deal where BLM didn't want to do the NEPA work to renew our permit for 25 years. They just kept pushing it aside.
It was a case where we increased feed, and never reached a stocking density, we had been doing TNR's (temporary renewable AUM'S to try and find stocking density slowly). However it was easier for them to do that than permitting it and going under the look of environmental groups. Well someone in BLM told environmental group, threatened lawsuit. We had to fight, finally got them to do study and permit them. We had been in limbo for 25 years.
We try to keep enough hay on hand to feed through a bad stretch say a year. Also have private pastures, but have had to truck long distance to rent pasture or hay feilds to feed in winter months to keep cow base. We have also de-stocked cows to survive.
The price of leases to purchase are top dollar, yet you own nothing but paper. Can lose them to any number of variables like fire, drought, government takings. Environmental pressure to remove grazing. Bank will loan money on them, but you put up hard collateral to purchase paper. If their was land to purchase trust me we would buy instead of federal leases. But government owns 60% of land in this area. Then big percentage is held in CRP, that paycheck to land owners has been going on for 40 + plus years. Why would you sell paid for land that returns a soild government payment for doing nothing. Government paid to put them back in grass. Which is good, but land could go back into production in grazing. But why when they don't even have to fence it or maintain it, just get check.
Maybe there would be a place for young start ups to get grass. Government's paid for it. Put water on it and let young people start up a operation. Landowner still gets payment, hunting rights to sell. Start-ups would get grass, but would have to be managed. It would be better for grass and wildlife. | |
|
Sorry Doug61, answers to a earlier thread
