🚀 go-pugleaf

Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:

: So let me get this straight -- the farmer PAYS the Federal Government to
: use the land, and THAT's welfare?

Ah, Phil, you're such a sweetie pie.

They pay far less in grazing fees than are spent by the agencies
managing those lands.  Monies spent on these lands include projects
to replace native plants of the sage-steppe with crested wheatgrass.

The last such planting I studied (the numbers are available for those who
seek them) cost the taxpayer roughly $250,000.  This was to benefit
a single rancher who runs about 3,000 head, paying about $16,000
a year in grazing fees.  This doesn't even cover the cost of funds.

Of course, these plantings aren't self-sustaining and need to be
repeated at intervals if productivity (for cattle) is to be
maintained.

If you enjoy spending your tax dollars in this fashion, fine.

But don't bury your head in the sand and claim that grazing
programs don't cost the taxpayers money.

: 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.

Conservationists have made it clear that they're willing to lease
some of the more sensitive federal grazing lands, if the law were
changed.  Some states do lease lands to the highest bidder.  In
Oregon, the rules were recently changed to prevent that.  This was
after the very first winning bid on an allotment was submitted
by a conservationists.  The ranchers were furious, and got the
rules changed so we can no longer submit bids.

So, in short, yes, we're willing to pay as much, or even a bit
more, than cattlemen.

Even worse was a bill that came within a cat's whisker of
becoming law in Oregon the last session.  Conservationists had
teamed with a rancher on a sensitive salmon-bearing river.  He
agreed to not take water from the stream to irrigate his hay,
and conservationists bought him the equivalent amount of hay
for his cattle.  The proposed law, which nearly passed, would
make such arrangement illegal, even though there is absolutely
no coercion, diminishment of public revenue, diminishment of
cattle produced, etc in such an arrangement.

I realize you find facts confusing, Phil, but perhaps other
readers of these posts will find them useful.

: Hmmmmm?

: If not, you use of "welfare" is moronic ....

It's slang.  It is, technically, a subsidy, not direct support,
but the result is the same: you and I pay, and the rancher receives.

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

Yep, this is where Phil gets his facts!

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

I wonder what the market value of your opinions are?

Don't quit your day job.
--

- Don Baccus -