Fox News has a beef...............

[BlueStreak]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/12...vel-since-187/

At the gym this morning I watched FauxNews from the treadmill. The above article is two days old, but still pertinent as I believe it to be tied to recent events in Nevada. The segment I watched as I worked out today seemed to insinuate that the federal government is to blame for this supposed "beef shortage", and sure enough that story was followed by comments about the Bundy case.

I can only wonder how long it will be before we hear certain folks start claiming the Bundy case is an example of Obama trying to choke off the food supply?

Anybody else see a game plan here, or is it just me?

Dave

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/12...vel-since-187/

At the gym this morning I watched FauxNews from the treadmill. The above article is two days old, but still pertinent as I believe it to be tied to recent events in Nevada. The segment I watched as I worked out today seemed to insinuate that the federal government is to blame for this supposed "beef shortage", and sure enough that story was followed by comments about the Bundy case.

I can only wonder how long it will be before we hear certain folks start claiming the Bundy case is an example of Obama trying to choke off the food supply?

Anybody else see a game plan here, or is it just me?

Dave

Just regular Fox stuff which plays to the fox crowd.

[BlueStreak]

Precisely. Yet a variation on a recent theme, I'd say. We recently had an argument over so-called "grazing rights"........

So, now we have climbing beef prices due to a supposed "beef shortage" caused by.....you guessed it......a lack of grazing land. And the insinuation is that the BLM has caused this condition over the years by restricting grazing on federal land, of course.

It's a continuation of the same argument from a different angle.

Dave

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/12...vel-since-187/

At the gym this morning I watched FauxNews from the treadmill. The above article is two days old, but still pertinent as I believe it to be tied to recent events in Nevada. The segment I watched as I worked out today seemed to insinuate that the federal government is to blame for this supposed "beef shortage", and sure enough that story was followed by comments about the Bundy case.

I can only wonder how long it will be before we hear certain folks start claiming the Bundy case is an example of Obama trying to choke off the food supply?

Anybody else see a game plan here, or is it just me?

Dave

The shortage of herds has been known and talked about for several years. There is no game plan. Expect high beef prices until the herds get built up. I've seen similar stories long before the BLM Bundy event.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Precisely. Yet a variation on a recent theme, I'd say. We recently had an argument over so-called "grazing rights"........

So, now we have climbing beef prices due to a supposed "beef shortage" caused by.....you guessed it......a lack of grazing land. And the insinuation is that the BLM has caused this condition over the years by restricting grazing on federal land, of course.

It's a continuation of the same argument from a different angle.

Dave

IIRC, the smaller herd size was caused because ranchers cashed in due to the increased expense of corn that was, in turn, caused by the ethanol fuel market. Also, here's where you really can blame Bush IMO.

[donquixote99]

Anyone know what percentage of beef production is tied to cheap grazing of cows and calves on marginal semi-arid BLM land?

I've got an idea though. Let's sell the land. If it's valuable as grazing land it should fetch a decent price on the market. We'll let those with current grazing privileges have first refusal. If they don't buy, someone else can buy it, and the ranchers can deal with a nice capitalistic private sector landlord. What could be fairer than that?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Anyone know what percentage of beef production is tied to cheap grazing of cows and calves on marginal semi-arid BLM land?

I've got an idea though. Let's sell the land. If it's valuable as grazing land it should fetch a decent price on the market. We'll let those with current grazing privileges have first refusal. If they don't buy, someone else can buy it, and the ranchers can deal with a nice capitalistic private sector landlord. What could be fairer than that?

It does boil down to cash value and profitability not always being good indicators of worth. It is difficult to assign a cash value to preventing the extinction of a species, but when the ranchers see ecological concerns interfering the the profitability of their operations, it's time to call in the posse.

In another take on profitability vs. higher values, there is certainly room for an argument that a national reduction in the consumption of beef would be good for the overall health of the nation. That doesn't mean that we need to restrict the production of beef, but it does call into question whether we should subsidize it.


Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

The shortage of herds has been known and talked about for several years. There is no game plan. Expect high beef prices until the herds get built up. I've seen similar stories long before the BLM Bundy event.

The Bundy issue has been going on for over 20 years. But, it really has little to do with him, the price of beef, his cows or even cattle ranching for that matter.

It's about the federal governments ability to control land usage. And, that argument is much older and much larger than Cliven Bundy.

Think about it.

Dave

[bobabode]

Another overarching factor is that most of the western US is in a severe drought cycle. No rain = no forage.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Anyone know what percentage of beef production is tied to cheap grazing of cows and calves on marginal semi-arid BLM land?

I've got an idea though. Let's sell the land. If it's valuable as grazing land it should fetch a decent price on the market. We'll let those with current grazing privileges have first refusal. If they don't buy, someone else can buy it, and the ranchers can deal with a nice capitalistic private sector landlord. What could be fairer than that?

Can it even be sold? I thought it was supposed to be protected open range land under the management, or lack thereof, of the BLM. We do know that private grazing land is approximately 16 times more expensive, but is supoerior land and offers other amenities.