🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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.

: 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".

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.

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

:     >: 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.

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.

Through a loophole conservationists DID outbid ranchers on some
State land in Oregon last year, so the state changed the rules.
The leases are no longer open to competitive bid, and the state
simply gave the leases back to the rancherss.

:     >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.

Why, thank you.  I do believe this is the only time I've seen
you make a statement I agree with.

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

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

: Then keep at it.

Read above - can't in Oregon.

:     >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,

Let's see...

1981: USFS $13.2 million
      BLM  $26.5 million

AUMs were a bit over $2 at the time.  They're now down to $1.60-ish.

The fees did not cover the costs of administration.  In 1981, 50 percent
of the revenue went right back into range improvement (i.e., often
Crested Wheatgrass plantings).  37% to the treasury, the rest to
counties to in essence cover lost revenue from property taxes.

So revenue to the treasury was about $12 million or so.  This
isn't net - the money to run BLM and USFS grazing programs are
in the General Budget.

:           AND

:      more expensive meat!

I got into a HUGE row with a fellow conservationist when I was
overheard saying "only 3% of USA beef production comes from grazing
on federal rangeland".  "It's only 2%, Baccus, how dare you
exagerate!".

Even your doctor would like you to decrease your beef consumption
by two-three percent I bet...

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

$12 million or so gross - not net - revenue isn't very impressive.

--

- Don Baccus -