KRP,
OK, use your math, then.
The data I've seen is formerly 600 cows for 600,000 acres, reduced to 150 cows for 150,000 acres in 1993.
Feel free to compare Boquillas with Bunkerville, after factoring relative elevation, annual precipitation, vegetation type, and carrying capacity.
I don't know how much of the "$1 million" is for grazing fees and how much is fines and interest.
How much do you estimate Bundy is putting back into the land each year?
If you believe "He's already putting that much [He owes over 1 million in grazing fees.] back into the land every couple years.", how much do you believe he is putting back into the land each year?
Also, do you have any estimates of how much the BLM or the NRCS put into the land over the years?
Sycamore
Again you are changing my context...
I'm discussing the 600,000 acres BLM themselves claim is in contention. I understand the Bunkerville allotment is 158,000, but the temporary closure map and BLM in their own words are referring to the 600,000.
From one of the linked sources...
According to the notice, the public will be kept out of pockets of land within the described closure area during the impound operation, but the remainder of the 578,724 acres will remain open.
So I will compare it to the Boquillas, but in the context I already established here multiple times. Water, fences, roads(access), improvements.
From the Boquillas site...
http://huntbigboranch.com/ 400 miles of pipeline, 110 steel storage tanks, 150 water troughs and 130 dirt stock tanks. Big Bo maintains hundreds of miles of roads, a thousand miles of fencing, plus corrals and holding pastures.
and from AZ g&f...
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/documents/...CommitteeMeetingMinutesFeb92013FINAL.pdf Maintenance costs run about $500K annually, for water developments, pipelines, earthen tanks, fences and 350 miles of roads. There are 393 miles of pipeline, 110 steel water storages, 150 steel troughs and 130 huge earthen stock tanks, as well as several hundred miles of fence with 42 access points. The Department owns and maintains 5 waters on ranch.
from my previously linked... The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976...
Such rehabilitation, protection,
and improvements shall include all forms of range
land betterment including, but not limited to, seed�
ing and reseeding, fence construction, weed con�
trol, water development, and fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement as the respective Secretary
may direct after consultation with user representa�
tives.
The annual distribution and use of range bet�
terment funds authorized by this paragraph shall
not be considered a major Federal action requiring
a detailed statement pursuant to section 4332(c) of
title 42 of the United States Code.
Each agency and even law recognizes this maintenance as habitat, wildlife, recreational enhancement.
When I worked summers in High school, early 70s, on my cousin's ranch that had 23,000 acres of lease. Most of my time was spent on water maintenance, along with a couple of real hands. Just cleaning silt from remote dirt tanks involved driving a Cat many miles before and after the actual work. Fuel, equipment maintenance and labor add up quick. Old pipe was always leaking, we fixed it on the cheap, strips of old innertube wrapped and baling wired on each end, didn't last more than a couple years in the sun... but it was cheap, beside the walking miles of line in some nasty country.
Here's some dynamics...
100+ years of rancher built improvements/access that also benefits/expands wildlife/recreationist/hunter opportunities.
These improvements have value as recognized in the FLPMA act.
Bundy owns that value.
If the land was raw today and BLM was to lease it at a reasonable allotment for the size for 10 years. The lessee would not invest the millions it'd take to recreate what is there now.
If the BLM reduces the allotment to a number too small to maintain, then the rancher will be forced to abandon infrastructure (investment) while reducing land use. That abandonment will deteriorate those improvements/access to uselessness for both wildlife and recreationists. We lose our main partner in public land management.
If BLM forces the rancher off, under law the taxpayer is supposed to foot the bill for reimbursement of improvements... I'd like to see what Bundy was offered... and then have the eventual deterioration of water sources/access, effectively removing wildlife and recreation interests in the area.
This is just another tool to remove the public from public land... remove the logging industry and allow land to return to nature, create conditions for the monster fires we have in the west now, which allow preemptive closures like we are experiencing in Az now. I can't even go shoot in the NF 5 miles from my house as I write.
Closure/abandonment of roads to create de facto wilderness ares, allowing land to return to nature.
Add wolves as predators to remove wildlife and public recreation interest... allowing land to return to nature.
Reduce or remove ranching industry to allow land return to 'nature'.
If you think water sources on BLM are easy or cheap to maintain by state agencies or the public you're mistaken... the catchment projects I've worked on that Az g&f build or maintain, consists of years of paperwork/environmental studies, and 10s of thousands per project paid through the HPC... even with a volunteer work force. A ranch of 600,000 acres would have 100+ water sources.
If Bundy would have abandoned that property 20 years ago it would be a wasteland now... and if he ever is forced off it will be in the future... right now it's still viable because of his stubbornness.
Anyway...
This isn't about the 16.20 per head annually for 150 cows(2340.00 a year), or even the 200.00 per day fine per cow... which I guess gets it over a million.
It's about the future of our public land and who's on the side of the best management of that land.
Bundy's daughter said in an interview that the money coming from the feds stopped before Bundy quit paying his 1.35 and was another issue of contention at the time... who knows, it's a news report...
My math is... it takes a chit load of personal work and money to maintain 600,000 acres, and it takes producing a product and profit to afford the improvements staying a benefit to all users.
Class over.
Kent
