🚀 go-pugleaf

Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
: Really? I suppose that someone may have repeated your lie. But the FACT is
: that there is NO subsidy of Federal grazing lands.

Over the past decade the federal grazing fees have been significantly 
reduced in real terms (adjusted for inflation) and nominal terms.  If 
there is no subsidy, then the value of federal open space has been 
decreasing steadily (not likely given the increasing popularity and sales 
prices of undeveloped land in most parts of the country) or ranchers were 
voluntarily paying more for grazing rights than the grazing rights were 
actually worth, year after year (also unlikely unless those "ranchers," a 
good many of whom are professional corporations, are irrational or quite 
stupid).  A third possibility is that there is an in-kind subsidy being 
delivered to ranchers grazing on federal land, the value of which is 
equal to the difference between what they pay for grazing rights and the 
value of the land if put to other uses plus the value of resource 
destruction and administrative overhead attributable to present grazing 
programs.  To my way of looking at it, the argument for in-kind subsidies 
is the most logical.

:     >: >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!

Huh?  The point is, the grazing program is designed to eliminate 
competitive bidding from those outside the ranching industry.  Reducing 
competition in the marketplace allows ranchers to pay less for grazing 
rights than the market would bear if the land could be leased for other 
purposes, including those that are a priority of environmental groups.  
This in-kind subsidy is delivered to the minority of ranchers who obtain 
federal grazing leases, not to any other group, and certainly not to 
environmental groups who are unhappy with a grazing program that isn't 
even covering the cost of adminstration.

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

First of all, there is no federal property tax.  There is a capital gains 
tax that kicks in when property is sold, but the Republicans are trying 
to eliminate that as quickly as possible.

Second, the public at large would not receive a net benefit from opening 
up Yosemite to real estate development unless the property was sold for 
more than it is worth to the public at large as a National Park.

Third, the net benefit to the public at large, which now owns Yosemite, 
would not be equal to the selling price of the park, it would be the 
difference between the selling price and the value they place on having 
Yosemite available to them as a National Park plus the amount of lost 
business and tax revenues that result from turning Yosemite into another 
California real estate development instead of a world famous tourist 
attraction.

Sum it all up and it is not at all clear that opening up Yosemite to real 
estate developers would result in a net benefit to the public at all.  
Which, I suppose, was the impetus for creating the park in the first 
place.

: 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.

It is only a subsidy if doing so is costing the public more than the 
benefits of restricting development are worth to the public at large.

: 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.

Again, there is no federal property tax to forego.  That doesn't change 
the fact that ranchers are receiving in-kind subsidies at the expense of 
the public at large via the federal grazing leasing program.

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

: Not at all. . . .

ROTFLMAO!

:     >1981: USFS $13.2 million BLM $26.5 million

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

Uh, Phil, that isn't the value of the grazing subsidy, that chump change 
is the pittance that a minority of American ranchers are paying for the 
privilege of grazing their livestock on public land held in trust by the 
U.S. government.  I agree, it much money at all given the administrative 
overhead and the amount of land consumed for private business purposes.

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

Yep, if those ranchers pay much less, we'll be paying them to graze on 
our land.  Ridiculous, isn't it?