🚀 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?

Yes.  When the rancher (not farmer) pays less than it costs to pay for 
administration of the land leasing program, the damage to the resource 
that results from the grazing, and the lost or diminished opportunities 
(such as recreational and scenic values) that result, the party that owns 
and leases out the land is effectively giving away valuable assets to the 
lessee--regardless of whether the land is privately or publicly owned.

: Pray tell, are there people that want to use this same land and that are
: willing to pay more?

Many of the people who want to use the land (1) already own it, (2) 
do not wish to alter it significantly by using it, and (3) are quite 
willing to share the land with people using it in other ways that also 
have a minimal impact on the land itself.  It would make sense to charge 
these people the cost of administering and maintaining the land for their 
uses just as it would make sense to do the same when timber, mining, and 
grazing activities are considered.  But the low-impact users (hikers, for 
example) should not be required to pay more to use the land in its 
pre-grazing condition than the ranchers who want to run cattle on the 
land because the cost of administering and maintaining the land for 
hiking is much lower.  (For example, the USFS has requested $26 million 
to cover trail building and maintenance nationwide this year, although 
the young Turks in Congress are pushing a bill to slash that funding to 
$5 million while simultaneously lowering the grazing fee to less than 
half of what it was ten years ago.)

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

And what would you say of people who already own the land collectively 
feeling that they must buy it all over again in order to use it?  I think 
the point is that one should cover the marginal costs to the other owners 
for using it as one pleases.  I can't for the life of me understand why 
one should need to pay more for a low-impact use of commonly owned 
property than a fellow owner must pay for a high impact use, however.

Todd Ourston