More good news for big ranches

FLDXT

huntmstr wrote: »

We are not running out of land. Florida is still 60% +/- undeveloped from what it was when the first settlers landed. Nationally speaking, if we put the entire population of the US into the density of a city like Houston, we would only take up a little less than the state of Texas to house every person in the US.

What we are running out of is common sense. What we have no lack of are excuses.

To every causation there is an effect and visa versa. Many of the ranchers and farmers or their heirs have put the rest of the ranchers and farmers in the predicament they are in now by selling land to development when the patriarch dies or when the market is right for the selling. Here in my own back yard I have witnessed both scenarios. And although it saddens me to see so much land get developed, it is the right of the land owner to do so without reprisal from the public or the government. That's the burden and right that property ownership brings.

In terms of food and providing livestock for meat or produce for consumption, farm bill subsidy, as well as conservation easements and other government programs designed to pay farmers and ranchers for not producing, for losses or for other hazards, has added as much to the problem insomuch as they have created the dangerous affect of instances where loss is more lucrative than production.

The panther predation suggestion is no different in that sense.

And while I firmly believe in and appreciate the struggles of ranchers in today's ever increasing climate of urban encroachment, it is to a good degree a problem of their own making. No one forces them to sell their land. No one forces them to stay in the business. As far as what foods we produce and how much we need... suffice to say we are still the top producer of most of the world's beef, chicken, pork and grain. Only some of the produce we purchase is imported from South America and that is usually seasonal. The majority of the foods we consume are domestic and there is plenty left over for export.

I agree with David on this issue and the way he has voiced his opinion. Clearly there is a median level of predation to be expected and clearly most of the larger ranching operation are well diversified in their business model. Anyone ranching on a large scale that is not diversified and invested in other resource based business is either stupid, hard headed or both. I refuse to accept them crying poor-mouth when the economics are clearly in their favor and the consumer and tax payer is the one left to foot the bill.

I think this is accurate in some areas of the country not so much in Florida. And the fact of the matter is ranchers are being forced to sell their land, check on the inheritance tax. It's either sell a smaller piece to a developer at an elevated price and keep the other 60% of their land, or sell 80% of their land for "ag" land and keep the other 20%, just to pay taxes when somebody dies?
I think you need to do some fact checking on where your food comes from also, or more importantly who owns the companies where your food comes from. It's kinda scary reading some of the stuff people think they know.

huntmstr

I have checked my facts. Perhaps you should get a better grasp of the law. Inheritance tax is not as punitive as you think. If there is a living spouse, there is no inheritance tax if the land is held in both their names. The tax itself is only on assets over the first $5 million to heirs of the estate. If you're worth more than that, there are creative ways of accounting and estate planning to prevent heavy taxes and penalties. If a large land owner or rancher dies and his family is saddled with a large tax burden, then there is no one to blame but themselves for poor financial planning. Anyone worth that kind of money doesn't keep it long without sound financial advise.

The numbers I quotes in land development are accurate for Florida. 60% of the state is still either undeveloped or in agriculture and ranch land.

As for the companies owning our food sources... the fact is that it's a global economy. And regardless of which flag is flown at corporate HQ, if it's grown here on US soil, it's a domestic product providing domestic jobs and revenues towards GDP.

binellishtr

Might be a dumb question, but who owns the deer on State owned,and or Fed owned lands? Do our deer not have any value to the people who own them?

Will we start compensating ranchers who lease state owned lands next?

Are their not insurance policies for this type of calf loss? I've bought hypothermia ins on a ranch,i'll need to check but i thought i'd ask.

FLDXT

huntmstr wrote: »

I have checked my facts. Perhaps you should get a better grasp of the law. Inheritance tax is not as punitive as you think. If there is a living spouse, there is no inheritance tax if the land is held in both their names. The tax itself is only on assets over the first $5 million to heirs of the estate. If you're worth more than that, there are creative ways of accounting and estate planning to prevent heavy taxes and penalties. If a large land owner or rancher dies and his family is saddled with a large tax burden, then there is no one to blame but themselves for poor financial planning. Anyone worth that kind of money doesn't keep it long without sound financial advise.

The numbers I quotes in land development are accurate for Florida. 60% of the state is still either undeveloped or in agriculture and ranch land.

As for the companies owning our food sources... the fact is that it's a global economy. And regardless of which flag is flown at corporate HQ, if it's grown here on US soil, it's a domestic product providing domestic jobs and revenues towards GDP.

And of course you have had to deal with this? Sounds real easy on interwebs huh? Let me know who owns Smithfield.

So landowners DON'T own the deer on their land, do own the hogs, DON'T own the predetors being reintroduced but are supposed to suffer the consequences of these predators? Pick and choose, taxpayer just wants to pay for what they want I reckon.

binellishtr

If I owned a big ranch,and thought these predators were jeopardizing my business,i'd shoot every one that I could. Just like the rest of AMERICA does.

Skunk Ape

This will eventually go the way of the wolves that were introduced into Yellowstone. Some treehuggers will get ****, but the cats will eventually get shot out. You cannot put a price tag on something that somebody else owns.

binellishtr

our FWC wants to convince the public in FLorida through the new edjumacation program to accept these "Arnold Schwarzenegger" flugars,support the Save a flugar license plate, they even get $$$$ to run that campaign.

Now,THEY are in a PR nightmare ,with their backs against the wall as the truth of the matter is finally being exposed.Now all the sudden, let's send a smoke signal and compensate for our own stupidity.Send out a feel good message to the rest of the public.

But yet, THEY are not fighting tooth and nail to save the glades.
But yet, THEY are not fighting tooth and nail to restore the deer populations in the areas so heavily effected by the cats.

And now this, the resulting food chain loss,resulting in cats preying off livestock.

It's funny how $$$ is never available when we need it for something, yet THEY can find a budget for livestock compensation right? Yet who is held with the bag...WE are.

We loose more land, more access,and now less opportunity to harvest in our woods,but the big rancher is now the priority!

BOHICA,more to come

binellishtr

The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge is part of the United States National Wildlife Refuge System, located in southwestern Florida, twenty miles east of Naples, in the upper segment of the Fakahatchee Strand of the Big Cypress Swamp. It is north of I-75 and west of SR 29.

The 26,400-acre (107 km) refuge was established in 1989 under the Endangered Species Act by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, to protect the endangered Florida Panther, as well as other threatened plant and animal species. The Florida panther is the only cougar species found east of the Mississippi River. The Refuge is part of a network of private land and government protected areas. Some of the public sections of the system are the Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve and Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. In all, less than 100 panthers use the area, with fewer than a dozen passing through the refuge each month.

To protect the panther and other endangered inhabitants, general public use is only available at the southeast corner of the refuge, on designated hiking trails. All other areas are can only be seen by way of limited tours.

huntsflorida

FLDXT wrote: »

And of course you have had to deal with this? Sounds real easy on interwebs huh? Let me know who owns Smithfield.

So landowners DON'T own the deer on their land, do own the hogs, DON'T own the predetors being reintroduced but are supposed to suffer the consequences of these predators? Pick and choose, taxpayer just wants to pay for what they want I reckon.

AMEN!

morrow

binellishtr wrote: »

If I owned a big ranch,and thought these predators were jeopardizing my business,i'd shoot every one that I could. Just like the rest of AMERICA does.

Ranching as well as farming on a scale and magnitude that participate in these programs are well managed. Both as ecological stewards as well as a business enterprises . Long gone are the days of Bonanza and Little Joe hunting mountain lions. These operations are about business and margins, profit and loss statements. This is how they survive, just as any business .

redneck_billcollector

If it wasn't for the ranchers in many areas of south FLA it would be coast to coast retirement homes......then there would be no animals to hunt except on over croweded public lands.

binellishtr

hate to tell you, but in one particular county in N Wi, the people took control after the idiots didn't listen....used to be able to see a wolf on several occasions throughout the summers...haven't seen one all summer long this yr. SSS is the motto here.The people got tired of the deer being either pushed out,or consumed by a federally re introduced predator with 100% protection.

Bonanza still reigns here, and the herd approves. The area once not too long ago sported a "too many deer population"

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2010/oct/24/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-dnr-has-mismanaged-states-deer-h/

FloridaOD

I have sat in on meetings were Florida hunt interest suggested that the appearance of Cat would result in No Cat.

No the sharpest hunt rep!

binellishtr

if the end result would reflect our current situation down south, then I am in in all agreeance with them

N. Cook

It is a definite problem that has to be discussed. The fact is.... having a major predator present on a ranch killing even a small number of livestock...and reducing the deer herd that attracts high dollar hunting leases... has a lot of landowner (and leasing) opposition. A lot of it "quiet" as the SSS principle is not a joke. How to compensate for those income losses has to be worked out or there will not be an expansion of the panther. Some reasonable level of panther population probably can be obtained. Unfortunately, the over population that now exists south of the Caloosahatchee and the resulting devastation of the furred animals of all sorts, including almost total elimination of deer, plus the livestock loss does not set a good example when the ranchers to the north consider their options.

The panther needs to be "present and rare". The natural home ranges of a normal population would insure that status. Beyond that level of population they are a nuisance and a threat and should be "controlled" by whatever means is feasible. One species management is not a natural, nor positive, way for true conservation and preservation of our natural lands. We are suffering the consequences of "one species management" of panthers in the south....That overpopulation needs to be addressed and not allowed to be duplicated in other regions.

Cyclist

huntmstr wrote: »

I have checked my facts. Perhaps you should get a better grasp of the law. Inheritance tax is not as punitive as you think. If there is a living spouse, there is no inheritance tax if the land is held in both their names. The tax itself is only on assets over the first $5 million to heirs of the estate. If you're worth more than that, there are creative ways of accounting and estate planning to prevent heavy taxes and penalties. If a large land owner or rancher dies and his family is saddled with a large tax burden, then there is no one to blame but themselves for poor financial planning. Anyone worth that kind of money doesn't keep it long without sound financial advise.

The numbers I quotes in land development are accurate for Florida. 60% of the state is still either undeveloped or in agriculture and ranch land.

As for the companies owning our food sources... the fact is that it's a global economy. And regardless of which flag is flown at corporate HQ, if it's grown here on US soil, it's a domestic product providing domestic jobs and revenues towards GDP.

You can't compare semi-improved pasture to intense ag like cane, citrus, etc. The biodiversity of the ranches is much greater and much more valuable for wildlife and as a corridor for wildlife movement.

Most of the "undeveloped" land in Florida has been DRASTICALLY changed from its natural state and much is a biodiversity desert.

The ranches are VERY important to the future of sustainable ecosystems in Florida.

binellishtr

Natural predation is and has been going on since the beginning of time.The death of a species is and has been going on since the beginning of time.


When THEY do any introduction of a new "arnold swarchenegger" be it a wolf or flugar, the end result has never been a good result.

SSS

Cyclist

I understand the argument about not paying for ranchers predation. It is a risk of that business.

You invest in the stock market, the risk is to lose money. No bailouts there.
You invest in property and the zoning laws change and prohibit development, that is called risk. Should not bailout this folks either.

Skunk Ape

Cyclist wrote: »

I understand the argument about not paying for ranchers predation. It is a risk of that business.

You invest in the stock market, the risk is to lose money. No bailouts there.
You invest in property and the zoning laws change and prohibit development, that is called risk. Should not bailout this folks either.

How is it a bail out when they introduced the cougars to their ranches? Sounds more like back peddling to me.

Cyclist

Skunk Ape wrote: »

How is it a bail out when they introduced the cougars to their ranches? Sounds more like back peddling to me.

Sounded like they would be getting reimbursed for ALL predation, be it panther or????

morrow

Cyclist wrote: »

I understand the argument about not paying for ranchers predation. It is a risk of that business.

You invest in the stock market, the risk is to lose money. No bailouts there.
You invest in property and the zoning laws change and prohibit development, that is called risk. Should not bailout this folks either.

In my opinion this is not as much about finical risk for the land owners as it is a essential part of a species management plan. The traditional range of the cats were not limited to South of the Caloosahatchee River. The genetic pool must extend far from the current range to ever be considered a success.
This program must come together with the other parts of the species survival plan.The cats hopefully will migrate North using the ridge corridor. As the cats migrate this will have adverse effects on large mammal populations, without question. The program will then be extend North. The time is now for the sportsmen to use the legislative system to gain support for large mammal management plans to mitigate the impact. The cats are here to stay they are going away, time is now to mitigate prior to the coming impact.

Cyclist

morrow wrote: »

In my opinion this is not as much about finical risk for the land owners as it is a essential part of a species management plan. The traditional range of the cats were not limited to South of the Caloosahatchee River. The genetic pool must extend far from the current range to ever be considered a success.
This program must come together with the other parts of the species survival plan.The cats hopefully will migrate North using the ridge corridor. As the cats migrate this have adverse effects on large mammal populations, without question. The program will then be extend North. The time is now for the sportsmen to use the legislative system to gain support for large mammal management plans to mitigate the impact. The cats are here to stay they are going away, time is now to mitigate prior to the coming impact.

Makes sense. Someone earlier used the wolf as a case study.

duckmanJR

Captjohn5150 wrote: »

I hate to say it but we are running out of land...

Nonsense... There is PLENTY of land....the middle of the state with the exception of mouse town is nearly empty.

What we will " run out of " is clean fresh water....

binellishtr

Down S were gonna loose more hunting, more access,and more rules and regs because of this plan....should the headwaters go thru others will share the same experiences.

BOHICA

abacofever

A lot of **** got into this one. Unless new cats are periodically introduced to help diversify the Gene Pool then they will start to fail as a species...just like before. The entire plan is seriously flawed. The Cat populations are not going to interbreed as needed. It is pie in the sky feel good, tree huggin, job Saving horse crap. The cats do not know they are not supposed to hang out and eat your pets or your Cattle or stay east and west of the coast. Travel only ranch to ranch. The cats are going to camp out where life is good until pushed into another area by...other cats, loss of range, human interaction. Thinking that Florida is going to establish 3 self sustaining interbreeding populations of Cats is completely moronic.
I am not against helping save lands from development or helping to increase wild areas for Cats, Deer or any other critters.
In typical human fashion. We have allowed ourselves to go to far in the other direction. Some humans have found a way to use it against the rest of us and to their benefit in the form of environmentalism. You are my enemy.
Topic at hand... Public funds being used to repay ranchers for losses....? In general I say NO. However I understand a Rancher saying he is being unfairly burdened by being forced to accept the Over population of cats brought on by the poor management of others.
The reality is there is no good answer. A rancher that already receives money from a Conservation Easement is already somewhat compensated..?
The Cat issue will take of itself in time. They loose. No way the Cats can survive the long haul. Manage it for what it is, within its constraints and keep the population in check based on available range.

David B

I've got problems here too. My neighbor doesn't believe in spay/neuter and his cat colony just keeps growing. There are not leash laws, containment laws for cats in this county. So his cats are free to roam and kill at will. The birds and squirrels in our yard bring us great enjoyment, as do any Anoles and the occasional snake. From this we place a Aesthetic value on all of these creatures. Should I be able to receive compensation each time that I see a cat with a Cardinal or Wren leaving my yard? Let me say that he is broke, has no money other than his monthly check from the Guberment. Who will pay these monies to us?

flydown

David B wrote: »

I've got problems here too. My neighbor doesn't believe in spay/neuter and his cat colony just keeps growing. There are not leash laws, containment laws for cats in this county. So his cats are free to roam and kill at will. The birds and squirrels in our yard bring us great enjoyment, as do any Anoles and the occasional snake. From this we place a Aesthetic value on all of these creatures. Should I be able to receive compensation each time that I see a cat with a Cardinal or Wren leaving my yard? Let me say that he is broke, has no money other than his monthly check from the Guberment. Who will pay these monies to us?

Allow me a moment to be flippant. Sounds like you need to do a little live target bow practice! I kid, I kid!!!

gladesman

The State and Feds decided to impose the risk through implementing the ESA protections. It's amazing that nobody has given thought to paying urban residents near land that State and Fed sponsored dangerous animals roam when those State and Fed sponsored carnivores use their property without permission thus causing them to harden the property to defend themselves against a State and Fed imposed danger to their safety. It isn't really any different of a situation excepting the amount of land contributing environmental services to the State and Fed sponsored species de jour is smaller.

A fairer way to proceed would to either pay everyone adversely impacted by the animal or pay nobody.

As we are constantly reminded - many Floridians/Americans want these dangerous carnivores so they should be eager to pay the rent for them - yeah I know "fat chance". Should they the Fla/US taxpayers be forced to pay the entire bill attitudes might change as elected face complaints of rising taxes from voters.

Just food for thought.

FloridaOD

Cat takes land ethic,reserve lands from development efforts and other conserve/enviro Chapter Headings because no other example,human connection has been championed.

gladesman

I think I get it FloridaOD but it wasn't easy.

I guess my belief is that the outdoors sportsmen's community such as here should promote a human connection (public safety, paying ranchers and others for Enviro Services provided) to be addressed by the State and Feds if for no other reason than to be perceived as having concerns for all their fellow citizens (making themselves look like the good guys) while taking any other position they choose regarding being pro or con regarding panthers in general.

To me it is a no brainer.