Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?

[Dalko43]

Listen, I’m all for wilderness. Real, proper, wild and wooly....wilderness.

But what many people don’t realize is that the concept of wilderness - a roadless, structureless and wild place- has been hijacked and bastardized to fit other people’s agenda.

There are wilderness areas that still allow cattle grazing. Complete with a rancher who is free to ride all over the “wilderness” in his atv chasing cows.

Let’s be clear, true wilderness and domestic livestock are incompatible.

If we are going to have wilderness, let’s have it. Where only a person on his/her two feet can travel and the critters are left to compete naturally -complete with predators.

So I guess in summary- if mt bikers are preventing more areas from being designated wilderness, then I’m an overnight fan of mt bikers.

How much big W wilderness is truly open to livestock grazing? I'm genuinely curious. I had always thought that the majority of grazing rights took place on federal or state land that had a lesser designation (National Forests, BLM, ect.).

As for letting animal compete naturally....for better or for worse, we as a society are well beyond the point where we can simply let nature take its course. Management is needed, whether it be for getting rid of a harmful invasive species, propping up a fragile/vulnerable species or managing a population that is growing too fast and adversely affect other populations.

I like wilderness. But I'm also realistic about the fact that our modern society needs raw resources to survive (food, minerals, wood, fuel). Every time I hear someone champion a cause about shutting down this or that resource extraction or livestock industry, I understand that to be a euphemism for 'let's outsource our resource extraction to some other country who's environment we don't care about.'

 

[waveslider]

How much big W wilderness is truly open to livestock grazing? I'm genuinely curious. I had always thought that the majority of grazing rights took place on federal or state land that had a lesser designation (National Forests, BLM, ect.).

The wilderness act has an exemption in it that allows grazing on ALL wilderness lands - assuming there was grazing occurring at the time of passage. Which pretty much means everywhere grazing is even remotely feasible - because there were cows grazing anywhere they could be supported. So, to answer your question, all Big W wilderness is open to grazing.

As for letting animal compete naturally....for better or for worse, we as a society are well beyond the point where we can simply let nature take its course.

This was in regards to competing naturally for their food - as opposed to competing with livestock. And I consider man to be one of the aforementioned predators.

Every time I hear someone champion a cause about shutting down this or that resource extraction or livestock industry, I understand that to be a euphemism for 'let's outsource our resource extraction to some other country who's environment we don't care about.'

That's funny, because every time I hear someone champion a cause about extraction or the livestock industry, I understand it to be a euphemism for 'let me rape this land for pennies on the dollar as a reward for donating to your political campaign'. Our public lands are worth more than our government is willing to admit. Any time you think I'm wrong just look at the grazing fees across most of the west. A dollar and change per aum? That doesn't even cover the cost of the program to keep track of it. Its more government boondoggle. If cattlemen and extraction industries truly had to compete with other users for the market value of our public lands on a level playing field, we would be able to make logical decisions - not political ones. I live next to the largest cattle feedlot in the WORLD and still much of the alfalfa grown here is exported to China. Tell me again why we should be willing to rent our public land to cattlemen for a pittance? Don't kid yourself, the extraction company gets the same handout - assuming the appropriate donation is made of course.

 

[DaveInDenver]

The BLM grazing fee in 2018 was $1.41 per AUM. That's just slightly lower than the lowest Colorado State Univ. found for a private lease was in my state, which I think about $2 (it was on average much higher, about $15 as I recall). Some private leases were $30 and higher. So it is probably too low. However have to factor in that grazing on BLM lands comes with no benefits, the rancher has to deal with water, fencing and access himself. The BLM doesn't have to pay property tax, ditch fees or irrigation, so it's unlikely a landowner could approach that financially.

Not to mention that range land isn't anything like the same as an irrigated alfalfa pasture, so someone leasing at $20+ is selling a much different product than the BLM, the comparative yield on public land is generally poor. Last I read about 8 million of approximately 12 million AUMs potentially available were actually used, so the fee is low because even at that price the BLM can't lease them all. The problem I think is there's just one fee nationally rather than having local market prices. You see decent herds in some places because it's viable and those should be sold at higher than the set fee.

 

[waveslider]

Good info Dave. But at the heart of the matter is the fact that cattlemen haven't had to compete with other users groups for the leasing of that land. Notice I said COMPETE. Clearly, there are plenty of instances of cattlemen losing their lease because of some tree-hugging enterprise. That's not competition per se, that's pure politics.

Wouldn't it be an interesting exercise to take just about any public pasture land in your state or mine and say: "OK these 100,000 acres generate $X dollars in grazing fees. Is there any other user group (hunters, fishermen, mountain bikers, etc) that would want to pay that?"

How would that go in your state? Think there might be some takers in key deer/elk habitat? I know exactly how it would go in many areas of Idaho.

How would it change if the US worked out a trade deal to allow the importation of Argentine beef?

At the end of the day, no one can say with a straight face that our public lands are being managed in keeping with their value. They have solidified as another political chip where end users are at the bottom of the totem pole - and are fighting each other for that spot even.

 

[DaveInDenver]

It's interesting you mention that because that is why I looked into in the first place (I'm not in agriculture).

We're starting to thaw out here and it's becoming mud season. Ice is turning to bentonite goo most days and cattle of course don't realize that walking down a muddy trail leaves a crater for weeks until feet and tires re-level everything. It's a pattern repeated every spring for 30 years I've been riding mountain bikes.

Someone on a local cycling page asked that very question. Couldn't we just pay the BLM the equivalent?

I don't know the answer but I suspect the BLM doesn't care who is paying a fee as long as one is paid. The issue might only be that we cyclists are historically whiny flakes and our fundamental dirtbag nature would mean any plan to kick into the kitty to pay a few hundred dollars each month to the BLM would fall apart in a season. I assume the BLM is probably going to take a lot of convincing to not lease to a rancher who has probably been reliable for years. They aren't after all like the NPS with their entry gates and layers of management for recreation, so they'd expect someone to be responsible for it all.

And that's the point were I got radio silence. The people most loudly complaining about sharing the trails with cattlemen weren't willing to do the work necessary to lease the land.

 

[Dalko43]

The wilderness act has an exemption in it that allows grazing on ALL wilderness lands - assuming there was grazing occurring at the time of passage. Which pretty much means everywhere grazing is even remotely feasible - because there were cows grazing anywhere they could be supported. So, to answer your question, all Big W wilderness is open to grazing.

I don't think that's how it works. Ranchers can't get permission to go into and graze any piece of wilderness that they choose. I'm aware of the historical allotments, but how common are they on wilderness as opposed to National Forests and other designated lands?

That's funny, because every time I hear someone champion a cause about extraction or the livestock industry, I understand it to be a euphemism for 'let me rape this land for pennies on the dollar as a reward for donating to your political campaign'. Our public lands are worth more than our government is willing to admit. Any time you think I'm wrong just look at the grazing fees across most of the west. A dollar and change per aum? That doesn't even cover the cost of the program to keep track of it. Its more government boondoggle. If cattlemen and extraction industries truly had to compete with other users for the market value of our public lands on a level playing field, we would be able to make logical decisions - not political ones. I live next to the largest cattle feedlot in the WORLD and still much of the alfalfa grown here is exported to China. Tell me again why we should be willing to rent our public land to cattlemen for a pittance? Don't kid yourself, the extraction company gets the same handout - assuming the appropriate donation is made of course.

As was already pointed out, the "pittance rent" that cattlemen pay to ranch on public lands isn't too out of whack when you put it into perspective. The public grazing allotments aren't always as fertile as managed private lands, so it doesn't necessarily make sense that ranchers should pay the same usage rates. Ranchers often have lots of other costs to make the public-land grazing work (transport, herders, logistics). You act like its en easy dollar these ranchers are making by doing the work that they do...its not. A lot of them are barely getting by.

And as I said earlier, I like that we have untouched wilderness to explore. But I also know that they we have to have some land set aside for extracting resources (whether it be fuels or raising cattle). There has to be a balance. If we continue to go down this road of 'closing off all public lands to industry':
a) we're screwing ourselves because we become more dependent on other countries for crucial materials. In case you didn't know, we're already heavily reliant on China for many of the critical materials that go into our iphones, electronics and vehicles.
and
b) we're not really saving any land from "rape." Rather we're outsourcing the exploitation to other lands, often in political climates that have much less sympathy for long term environmental health.

 

[waveslider]

As was already pointed out, the "pittance rent" that cattlemen pay to ranch on public lands isn't too out of whack when you put it into perspective.

As I've said. That depends on the perspective.......and what you are comparing it to. But if you are trying to sell me that these public land ranchers are - as a group - some downtrodden, put-upon, blue collar land stewards.....you best just keep walking cuz I'm not buying.

The people most loudly complaining about sharing the trails with cattlemen weren't willing to do the work necessary to lease the land.

I think that is changing. Especially in the context of wildlife management: i.e. the competition of wildlife on our public lands with domestic livestock. When an owner (often a corporation) can sell a Bull Elk landowner tag for the enough money to cover their AUMs for the next three years......when do they stop being ranchers and start being outfitters?

Maybe MT Bikers aren't plugged into that dynamic, but its real and its coming (in some places its already arrived)

 

[waveslider]

Going to start a different thread on this so as not to hijack the Mountain Biking slant of this - but it's encouraging nonetheless. Couple MT Bikers in the crowd here as well.....

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article226169600.html

 

[kmacafee]

Everthing that is white, male and rich is under attack by the progressives. They can't even clean up their own cities. Look at Detroit or the hepatitis outbreaks in California form pooping on the sidewalk.

 

[Dalko43]

As I've said. That depends on the perspective.......and what you are comparing it to. But if you are trying to sell me that these public land ranchers are - as a group - some downtrodden, put-upon, blue collar land stewards.....you best just keep walking cuz I'm not buying.

I really don't give a crap what you're buying...I'm pointing out that you're criticizing a group as whole even though you seem to have no understanding of this issue from their perspective.

Some land, somewhere needs to be set aside for cultivating food...at a certain subconscious level we all acknowledge, as we're ingesting this stuff on a daily basis.

There shouldn't be some quest to eliminate ranching on all public lands. Rather we've got to look at ways to manage and or mitigate the impact and allow for native species and other land uses to coexist. And quite honestly, for all the whining that people emit, on all sides, the state and federal agencies are doing a half-decent job of managing those competing interests/goals.

 

[waveslider]

Haha. Struck a nerve I see. Yeah, I have no idea of the issue from “their” perspective. Lol.

No one is advocating for eliminating ranching on public lands. Only pointing out that the concept of wilderness is in direct conflict with livestock.

And that our public lands shouldn’t have their value pegged to the fees paid by one user group -without offering those same lands at the same price to other users. If ranchers had to pay a true market price, then our lands wouldn’t get raped for pennies on the dollar- unless that was what they were actually worth.

 

[Wallygator]

I mountain bike and the only thing that irritates me is when people ride after a lot rain. This does a lot of damage to the trails. But it's a trail or trails, two to three feet wide, in the middle of hundreds of square miles of forest. Virtually equivalent to a very well used game trail.

 

[waveslider]

Honestly Wally, I would argue mt bike trails are usually in better shape than some tracked up elk trails I’ve been on.

The reality is that anyone who would argue that a bike shouldn’t go and a horse should on the basis of trail degradation clearly isn’t qualified to make such claims.

But like most arguments, it’s not based on reality but rather propoganda.

 

[Dalko43]

Haha. Struck a nerve I see. Yeah, I have no idea of the issue from “their” perspective. Lol.

No one is advocating for eliminating ranching on public lands. Only pointing out that the concept of wilderness is in direct conflict with livestock.

And that our public lands shouldn’t have their value pegged to the fees paid by one user group -without offering those same lands at the same price to other users. If ranchers had to pay a true market price, then our lands wouldn’t get raped for pennies on the dollar- unless that was what they were actually worth.

I just find it interesting that you're so willing to condemn and broadstroke one group of public land users (ranchers) but then vigorously defend another group (mountain bikers).

By your own admission, you have no idea what ranchers have to go through in order to stay financially viable in their line of work, so I'm not sure how you're qualified to comment on their land usage fees and "fair" market prices.

And as for "rape" of the land (a term that you throw around far too casually), I promise you that the purchase of your mobile phone or vehicle did far more to damage to the landscape (albeit on another continent) than did some public land grazing operation on this continent. People need to gain a little bit of perspective before they decide to get self-righteous.

 

[waveslider]

I just find it interesting that you're so willing to condemn and broadstroke one group of public land users (ranchers) but then vigorously defend another group (mountain bikers).

Our definitions of what constitutes condemnation and defense are clearly quite different.

By your own admission, you have no idea what ranchers have to go through in order to stay financially viable in their line of work, so I'm not sure how you're qualified to comment on their land usage fees and "fair" market prices.

Your sarcasm font perception is equally lacking.

And as for "rape" of the land (a term that you throw around far too casually), I promise you that the purchase of your mobile phone or vehicle did far more to damage to the landscape (albeit on another continent) than did some public land grazing operation on this continent. People need to gain a little bit of perspective before they decide to get self-righteous.

Think Globally, Act Locally. I am in public land grazing virtually every day - and by "in", I mean walking it, looking at it, driving through it, hunting in it, fishing in it, glassing it, looking at the comparison between public and private land, building habitat in it, looking at it on google earth, aaaaannnnd checking cattle in it. Exactly how much more perspective do I need to comment?