🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3ug28i$h2q@rational.rational.com> donb@rational.com (Don Baccus) writes:
    >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.

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.

Urban folklore.

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).

Since you have a fine track record as a liar, we'll just have to cage
this as another "Don-ism".

    >: 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.

Thaks for helping my point, as some idot claimed that there were other people
willing to pay more.

    >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.

Well then it is a bad law.

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

Then keep at it.

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

Oh no, facts are fine. It's just that you have so few of them Don.

    >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.

Really? Ever consider the costs on meat production? Suppose we end all
use of Federal grazing lands, and we thus get:

     Billions (??) of dollars LESS in the Treasury,

          AND

     more expensive meat!

Wow Don, let's make sure YOU'RE not head of the Treasury, OK?


    >I wonder what the market value of your opinions are?
    >
    >Don't quit your day job. --

Actually quite high.



-- 
"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 ...)