|
The government set up the whole leasing system for BLM and Forest Service lands in the 1800s. People thus developed lifestyles and occupations in accordance with government policy.
"Multiple Use" has since become a mantra in recent decades, adding recreation and wildlife preservation, after over a century of mostly just mining, logging and ranching--and, of course, hunting.
Now there has been change in the policy, but the consequences to the people of the area have not been honestly addressed. People who have acted in good faith are bearing the brunt of the changes, with no recompense for the negative impacts on their lives.
A rancher may have what's believed to be a low-cost per-acre lease, but he has to invest in any pens, water wells and troughs, and fencing. Private-land leases have all those items included. And, in general, public lands don't have the carrying capacity as the private lands of the more eastern and southern states. East of I-35 and south of I-30, it doesn't take but a few acres per cow/calf (animal unit) whereas in much of the federal areas it's 20 to 40 or more acres per animal unit. Some public lands (and private lands in western Texas) can run as many animal units per section as there are inches of annual rainfall--and a section is 640 acres.
Generally, ranching is one of the lowest rates of return on the investment value for any occupation there is. Well, this side of picking up aluminum cans along a highway. Bottomline net/net on a feeder calf is not much over $100, time you amortize the mama cow and figure all the expenses. In modern America, $100K is just a "decent" income, not wealth. So if you're in 30-acre country and wanna make $100K, you're needing how many acres? 30,000? Sounds big, doesn't it?
Which, Dearly Beloved, is why those ranchers who can do so will shift some focus onto high-dollar deer hunts. Much better cash flow for not near as much work.
|