Omaha Steaks CEO warns American families will soon face '$10-a-pound reality' for beef

[BobfromWB]

... They are wasting the GOP majority by doing nothing.

That's the historic GOP model. Do nothing when in power, whine about it when they re not.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Why enable GOP Congressmen to be lazy cowards?

Why is the GOP Majority afraid of writing legislation to help the American people?

Why do cowardly, castrated, soft-handed, impotemt GOP Congressmen want Trump to do all the work and take all the risk?

Do GOP Congressmen sleep in beds with urine guards, in case they pee themselves while sleeping?  Do they sleep with a night-light on, suck their thumbs, andn sit in a high chair to drink their baw-baw's?

[roamer_1]

Congress needs to pass a LAW to open more Federal lands for cattle grazing - BLM lands, National Parks, National Forests, National Historic Sites, unused Federal properties, etc.

Under Obama and Biden, US Bureau of Land Management closed many lands to cattle grazing because of various enviro-whacko Nonsense.

Allowing cattle to graze would reduce the cost of feed and water inputs for cultivating beef.

That's true - But only true with some permanence. The see-saw effect, back and forth between administrations... here today, gone tomorrow... That does not represent the kind of commitment that it takes for a rancher to move onto and care for that land. A good range is the work of a lifetime.

[DefiantMassRINO]

That's why it needs to be a LAW.

[Bigun]

That's why it needs to be a LAW.

That's why much of those lands need to be sold. NO ONE is a better steward than the man who owns it.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Again, by Act of Congress.

GOP Congressmen need to show up and do their jobs instead of running away from their own shadows.

[Wingnut]

Farmers and ranchers can figure it out if Government would just stop trying to "Help" them.   

[roamer_1]

That's why much of those lands need to be sold. NO ONE is a better steward than the man who owns it.

I don't actually like that idea... Y'all come from a country of big ranches that have been big all along. North of y'all it gets dicey. And in fact if those big ranches of yours weren't already big, they probably could not be built in this day.

I don't want all that open range cut up into 20/40 acre parcels.
It ain't uncommon for a ranch around here to be sitting on less than 120 acres, but since it backs up to miles and miles of open range, large herds can be managed, and everybody's herds run together. Sure, it turns out that folks tend to push em apart, and natural features like waterways help with that... But there's always some cutting to be done, and pushing cows to your neighbors at roundup...

I guess I am saying it ain't so easy to bust up that system. 

[roamer_1]

I think those federal lands should be turned back to their respective states and let the states figure out how best to keep them.

[Bigun]

I think those federal lands should be turned back to their respective states and let the states figure out how best to keep them.

Works for me!

[Smokin Joe]

Yeah ideally it would passed as law, sure. But in lieu of that, why not just issue another EO?

It takes longer to gestate a cow than it takes to gestate a human. If there is an EO that gets overturned by the next Dem president, the grazing for those new cattle goes away. Two year old cattle suddenly have no feed, which is what led us into the current price crunch on beef (lack of grazing due to dry weather, leading to trimming herds because they could not be fed).

Why would ranchers put out the expense and effort to grow herds only to have the rug pulled out from under them by a Democrat and have to sell off cattle at fire sale prices (likely at a loss)?

That's a bad long term business model.

[Smokin Joe]

I think those federal lands should be turned back to their respective states and let the states figure out how best to keep them.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't actually like that idea... Y'all come from a country of big ranches that have been big all along. North of y'all it gets dicey. And in fact if those big ranches of yours weren't already big, they probably could not be built in this day.

I don't want all that open range cut up into 20/40 acre parcels.
It ain't uncommon for a ranch around here to be sitting on less than 120 acres, but since it backs up to miles and miles of open range, large herds can be managed, and everybody's herds run together. Sure, it turns out that folks tend to push em apart, and natural features like waterways help with that... But there's always some cutting to be done, and pushing cows to your neighbors at roundup...

I guess I am saying it ain't so easy to bust up that system. 

The limiting factor is often water, and it practically takes Divine intervention to be able to improve that access.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I've been talking to some of the beef guys I have stayed in touch with since retirement, and they all agree that we're not anywhere near lower prices.

We are in the midst of a 75 year low in herd size in the US, and they don't see the market begin to soften until late 2027, early 2028.

It takes time for cows to grow.

Why are we here?

That's a whole different story.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I think those federal lands should be turned back to their respective states and let the states figure out how best to keep them.

That will actually make beef prices rise since smaller herds and ranchers have to pay higher prices at damned near every point, from birth to harvest and beyond (transportation), making them charge higher prices to consumers.

[roamer_1]

That will actually make beef prices rise since smaller herds and ranchers have to pay higher prices at damned near every point, from birth to harvest and beyond (transportation), making them charge higher prices to consumers.

I don't think so, at least here in the west. I think Montana knows the value of open range. So does Wyoming and Idaho... I think the state here would be more forthcoming, not less. Same for forested land and logging btw. State lands are more likely to offer timber sales than federal lands.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I think those federal lands should be turned back to their respective states and let the states figure out how best to keep them.

Right, still better than the status quo.

[BobfromWB]

I think those federal lands should be turned back to their respective states and let the states figure out how best to keep them.

States would look to the highest possible tax value, and sell the land to the sector that would produce for it the most tax revenue. It would not go to ranchers. Much or it would be bought up by billionaires as multi-thousand acre estates with private hunting/fishing preserves. It would not go to ranchers.

[mountaineer]

Much or it would be bought up by billionaires as multi-thousand acre estates with private hunting/fishing preserves.

Or the Chinese, perhaps.

[catfish1957]

At least here in Texas, if you don't mind following ads, and sacrificing Freezer space, you can find some (cough cough) decent prices.

I saw that in our HEB ad this week, they had Shoulder Roast for $4.99/lb.  Pricey?  Yep, but not a bank buster

[LMAO]

Hmm

Might be another great year to take the old 3030 out for a walk in the woods this season

[roamer_1]

States would look to the highest possible tax value, and sell the land to the sector that would produce for it the most tax revenue. It would not go to ranchers. Much or it would be bought up by billionaires as multi-thousand acre estates with private hunting/fishing preserves. It would not go to ranchers.

That's how it's going now. So what's the difference?
And I don't think the state is as likely to do that. Sure they see the economic thing. They are way more likely to allow mining or timber sales. I think that makes em more likely to open range lands than the feds...

See, the difference is being able to drive down to Helena and poke them fellers right in the chest. And I have done that a time or two. If they get too far sideways, we all know where they live.

Not so much with feds, 3000 miles away.

For that, I'll take the state, every time.