BLM leases...how do they work, just courious.

[Amo]

Long story short, Nebraska has a term limited state senator that is running on the republican ticket for US senate. Her husband is a rancher. Their family has leased forrest (I think) land since about 1973 the comercials say. Any how the democrates don't want to loose the seat, but the only person they could get to run with much of a chance to beat the republican is an ex-governer that moved NYC and when he filed to run he didn't even have a Nebraska address.

The democrats only comercial that they have been running so far is saying that her family has recieved $3 million from tax payers because of the BLM leases being less per acre than private ground. I know there are some different things with BLM land. Not real knoweldegable about it though. Any insights?

 

[3waycross]

Long story short, Nebraska has a term limited state senator that is running on the republican ticket for US senate. Her husband is a rancher. Their family has leased forrest (I think) land since about 1973 the comercials say. Any how the democrates don't want to loose the seat, but the only person they could get to run with much of a chance to beat the republican is an ex-governer that moved NYC and when he filed to run he didn't even have a Nebraska address.

The democrats only comercial that they have been running so far is saying that her family has recieved $3 million from tax payers because of the BLM leases being less per acre than private ground. I know there are some different things with BLM land. Not real knoweldegable about it though. Any insights?

A BLM iease is an owned lease. You buy it you can sell it. They aren't being subsidised any more than any other BLM or Forrest service holder in America. And yes they are a dirt cheap way to pasture cattle but try buying one. They are very expensive!
The other thing to consider is that the BLM or Forrest Service tells you when you turn out and when you pull em off. A good friend of mine had to sell off a large piece of his herd this year cuz the BLM told him NO!

 

[user1]

On the surface they look cheap. They aren't. I looked at one one time, but when you weighit out I wouldn't tough it with a twenty foot pole. Let alone a ten foot pole.

The most expensive grazing you can get.

 

[Amo]

User 1 thats what I was thinking about. I know Ive heard conversations over the years about them, such as them telling you stocking rates or that you cant graze that year. Just couldn't remember the piticulars. Just had a non- ag person ask me about them because of the comercials that are being run. I really couldn't tell him much except there are regulations. Basicly it is cheaper for a reason. I know back in the day their were no cross fences, and who knows how many herds, different bulls, health protical was being "shared". I think that has changed.

I know they aren't subsidised. What the comercial is saying is that privately owned land is running for say 50-75% more per acre than the federal ground. Thus this is where they are comming up with the soposed $3 million since 1973.

The republican canadate is running a clean/non-bashing campaign and says she will look into it if elected. She mentioned just selling it out right. Our great "cornhusker kickback" senator Ben Nelson has proposed legislation (to help fuel the fire for our carpet bagger ex-governer) to change this. I think he is also proposing a selling option. Somewhere along the line Ive heard that the gov is going in the hole by $21 million. Kinda makes sence to me I guess.

 

[farmguy]

I don't understand. You are buying the right to rent land from the government from an individual who does not own the land. I believe the current AUM price is $1.66 which means you could essentially run a cow and calf for $20 per year on an annual basis. How can any one not say that is a handout from the government. Yes I know you maintain fences, so do many renters of private land. From my reading the original intent was for the AUM price to rise with the price of land and cattle, what happened?

 

[Kathie in Thorp]

I don't know all their particulars, but sister and bro-in-law have BLM lease in OR. Access to that lease came via the previous owner of the ranch property they purchased. Their BLM lease is on pretty crappy ground (mostly sagebrush); they can only run so many pairs and for only a certain amount of time per year -- I think that lease is something like 60 days per year for the amount of time they can have stock on it -- might be less time than that. Don't know what it costs them.

 

[Dave]

There are a lot of real cost assoceated with BLM leases. First off it isn't exactly the best pasture in the world. Remember this is the land that nobody homesteaded back in the day. There is a reason nobody wanted it when they were giving it away free. You have to maintain the fences. Miles and miles of fences. Water is almost always an issue. The cattle are on big rough country where it is simply impossible to check on them regularly. I worked for one guy who ran 330 cows on 33,000 acres May-Oct. It took several weeks of three of us riding every day to gather them all and get them out of the hills. And every year there would be ones that you never found. They might have been stolen, killed by predators, got sick and died, or simply hid well enough so you didn't find them. Of course the ones that hid real good would winter kill. Poor pasture and big rough ground don't exactly make for high weaning weights that you can get on improved pasture. You get to deal with federal employees who don't know which end of a cow stands up first and they control the how and when you get to graze. Anyone who thinks a BLM lease is a great deal need to go out to that country and seriously look at what it takes to run cattle there.

 

[3waycross]

I don't understand. You are buying the right to rent land from the government from an individual who does not own the land. I believe the current AUM price is $1.66 which means you could essentially run a cow and calf for $20 per year on an annual basis. How can any one not say that is a handout from the government. Yes I know you maintain fences, so do many renters of private land. From my reading the original intent was for the AUM price to rise with the price of land and cattle, what happened?

Read Dave's last post before you pass judgement. He is pretty well informed. If we didn't have grazing leases in the west on Gov land the cattle herd would be cut by a ton overnight, and if it was leased at market price then the Gov would screw it up anyway. Like Dave says a lease will follow a ranch most of the time and they are hard to get. If you think it's such a good deal ask my buddy who did not get to turn out at all or my other friend who is getting about 60 days this year.

It is what it is and you ain't gonna change it!

 

[farmguy]

If it such a bad deal why are leases sold to other individuals?

 

[dun]

If it such a bad deal why are leases sold to other individuals?

They're pretty much a case of "better then nothing". The value (not what you're actually charged varies fomr area to area. Our old lease was good for 1 pair every 300 acres and only for about 60 days a year in a good year. But that was 20 plus years ago.

 

[greybeard]

I don't understand. You are buying the right to rent land from the government from an individual who does not own the land. ?

Several govt non-ag 'lease' programs also work exactly the same way farmguy, and if BLM leases are like the govt land leases I am familiar with, you are bidding against other potential lessees---not just buying outright.
The govt offers offshore and onshore govt land to oil and gas concerns all the time and there is a bidding process, with the winning bidder retaining the right to sell, trade, or otherwise do as they please with those leases. The leaseholder can even sell or trade that lease to a foreign concern--like China or Russia and that has happened on more than one occasion.

 

[Kathie in Thorp]

There are a lot of real cost assoceated with BLM leases. First off it isn't exactly the best pasture in the world. Remember this is the land that nobody homesteaded back in the day. There is a reason nobody wanted it when they were giving it away free. You have to maintain the fences. Miles and miles of fences. Water is almost always an issue. The cattle are on big rough country where it is simply impossible to check on them regularly. I worked for one guy who ran 330 cows on 33,000 acres May-Oct. It took several weeks of three of us riding every day to gather them all and get them out of the hills. And every year there would be ones that you never found. They might have been stolen, killed by predators, got sick and died, or simply hid well enough so you didn't find them. Of course the ones that hid real good would winter kill. Poor pasture and big rough ground don't exactly make for high weaning weights that you can get on improved pasture. You get to deal with federal employees who don't know which end of a cow stands up first and they control the how and when you get to graze. Anyone who thinks a BLM lease is a great deal need to go out to that country and seriously look at what it takes to run cattle there.

BLM leases, out in the West, are usually sagebrush, dry ground. If you have never really been out West (parts of MT, WY, E. Wash., E. Oregon, much of ID, darn near all of Nevada, parts of CA), BLM ground isn't much, as far as being much of "anything." BLM leases are generally long . . . not just a couple years. I think partly because once you're locked in and figure out what a piece of shyt you have, then you have to figure out how to improve it with water access or fencing or whatever. Still, it will carry terms you have to abide by, including how much access your stock has to that ground. There are a gaggle of lawsuits going on out here in the West about BLM leases -- the folks that think BLM land should be dedicated to wild horses (there really are NO truly wild horses out here, although some of the ferrell horses have DNA that goes back a long ways), or for wildlife habitat, or for use of the general public for hunting, camping, hiking. Those suits are by various conservation groups, that don't want to deal with water access or over-grazing, or erosion, or over-population of anything but cattle or sheep -- they want the dirt, not the maintenance. The ranchers with a BLM lease are the ones who worry about/try to improve water access, erosion, good grazing and similar issues. And that's why many of those bids for BLM leases go to ranchers, and not to conservation groups.

 

[dun]

There are a gaggle of lawsuits going on out here in the West about BLM leases -- the folks that think BLM land should be dedicated to wild horses (there really are NO truly wild horses out here, although some of the ferrell horses have DNA that goes back a long ways), or for wildlife habitat, or for use of the general public for hunting, camping, hiking. Those suits are by various conservation groups, that don't want to deal with water access or over-grazing, or erosion, or over-population of anything but cattle or sheep -- they want the dirt, not the maintenance. The ranchers with a BLM lease are the ones who worry about/try to improve water access, erosion, good grazing and similar issues. And that's why many of those bids for BLM leases go to ranchers, and not to conservation groups.

Have you ever seen how distructive of habit and particularly wild burros are? We used to deer hunt in a BLM area that they turned into part of Death Valley. They pulled out all of the improvements to the water sources. Within 3 years there were no longer very many deer, no Bighorn Sheep, very few birds and if you got within what few water spots there were the stink would gag a maggot.

 

[Kathie in Thorp]

There are a gaggle of lawsuits going on out here in the West about BLM leases -- the folks that think BLM land should be dedicated to wild horses (there really are NO truly wild horses out here, although some of the ferrell horses have DNA that goes back a long ways), or for wildlife habitat, or for use of the general public for hunting, camping, hiking. Those suits are by various conservation groups, that don't want to deal with water access or over-grazing, or erosion, or over-population of anything but cattle or sheep -- they want the dirt, not the maintenance. The ranchers with a BLM lease are the ones who worry about/try to improve water access, erosion, good grazing and similar issues. And that's why many of those bids for BLM leases go to ranchers, and not to conservation groups.

Have you ever seen how distructive of habit and particularly wild burros are? We used to deer hunt in a BLM area that they turned into part of Death Valley. They pulled out all of the improvements to the water sources. Within 3 years there were no longer very many deer, no Bighorn Sheep, very few birds and if you got within what few water spots there were the stink would gag a maggot.

Have not seen the burros, particularly, Dun, but some run with the horses, and they are very destructive. The greenie-weenies, the animal lovers who visit the West from afar -- via "save-the-animals" and so-called conservation sites -- have no fr'n clue.

 

[dun]

Have not seen the burros, particularly, Dun, but some run with the horses, and they are very destructive. The greenie-weenies, the animal lovers who visit the West from afar -- via "save-the-animals" and so-called conservation sites -- have no fr'n clue.

The horses are bad enough but the burros are a real curse. And contrary to common belief there are a lot of them.