🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3uukpm$jcj@rational.rational.com> donb@keystone (Don Baccus) writes:
    >Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
    >>Don, I believe you are a liar. While it is entirely possible
    >>that some Federal idiot shelled out money to plant expensive
    >>grasses for other cattle to eat, it is, IF TRUE, likely a
    >>rare experience.
    >>
    >Come visit. I'll show you as much as you want.
    >
    >I'm not lying. Unlike you, I actually live and work in Great
    >Basin grazing country, some years as much as 3-4 months per
    >annum.
    >
    >Crested Wheatgrass plantings are COMMON in SE Oregon, and are
    >financed by partially by the TAXPAYER (along with a portion
    >of grazing fees).
    >
    >: Urban folklore.

Well, I *know* that various local, State, and Federal entities plant grass.
I see them alongside the freeway all the time.

What I *WANT* is some proof that this grass is planted, at taxpayers
expense, on land leased for grazing.

I noticed you were awfully silent on this, the *main* question.

    >No, rural reality. The urban folklore comes from the urbanite
    >who seems (in your case) to have absolutely NO IDEA what is
    >actually happening "on the ground", as we like to say.

Eh? Really? I grew up on a farm.

    >: Because after all, if it was generally true, we'd hear
    >great gobs of : these facts all the time. It'd be a great
    >thing to clobber the producing : people with (from the
    >non-producing Luddites).
    >
    >Crested Wheatgrass plantings are common knowledge and have
    >been fought by conservationists in Oregon for a long, long
    >time.
    >
    >The fact that you're unware of it, doesn't mean it's not
    >true.
    >
    >: Since you have a fine track record as a liar, we'll just
    >have to cage : this as another "Don-ism".

Well, you have issued many incorrect statements (Don-ism's) over the years.

    >What lies? A rancher-boy told you my statements regarding
    >subsidies was correct (thank you), even though he hinted that
    >he thinks it's OK (and I have no problem with someone who
    >holds that belief, for it is honestly held and they are by no
    >means the only subsidized agricultural folks in the USA).
    >He's an honorable person, who has the confidence and
    >integrity to hold his beliefs without resorting to lies.

Really? I suppose that someone may have repeated your lie. But the FACT is
that there is NO subsidy of Federal grazing lands.

    >Crested Wheatgrass plantings are one form of subsidizing the
    >cattle industry in sage country.

Again -- pray tell us the evidence that this is done on leased cattle grazing
lands.

    >: >: Pray tell, are there people that want to use this same
    >land : >and that are : willing to pay more?
    >
    >: >Apparently you're unaware that, by law, grazing allotments
    >: >must be used for grazing, and can't be leased by others.
    >Even : >if conservationists were to masquerade as cattlemen,
    >upon : >discovery that they were not actually grazing cattle
    >they'd : >lose the allotment, which would be re-leased to a
    >legitimate : >cattle rancher.

Bingo. Now I've got you. In that case, we, the taxpayers, subsidize the
eco-facsists to the tune of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!

Do you how much Yosemite would be worth to real estate developers? Not
to mention the HUGE property tax base that it would yield?

But by LAW, it can not be used for such purposes.

More often of course are the inane development laws that reduce development
by orders of magnitude -- that too, is, by your logic, a subsidy to outfits
like the NRDC and Sierra Club.

    >: Thaks for helping my point, as some idot claimed that there
    >were other people : willing to pay more.
    >
    >You didn't read closely - conservationists ARE willing to
    >outbid ranchers but can't, on Federal (and State, in Oregon)
    >lands. It's forbidden by law.

The law should be changed. But unless you concede that Yosemite is subsidized
by hundred of millions of dollars a year (foregone property taxes), DON'T
use the word subsidy.

    >Perhaps the light is begining to glow dimly within Phil,
    >after all.

Not at all. Any such "subsidy" for cattle grazing PALES compared to park
"subsidies" for Sierra Club & NRDC et al goals ...

    >1981: USFS $13.2 million BLM $26.5 million

Wow -- chump change compared to JUST the Yosemite "subsidy".

And totally insignifacant compared to all the reduced real estate development
caused by Sierra Club & NRDC goals ...

-- 
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)