Another reason to avoid welfare beef!

[Ten Bears]

35 years of making his fortune in the extraction industry, and now he wants to close'm down. IT got his though.

IT, you haven't spouted anything but biased dribble for a long time.

 

[FEW]

Danr are you not the one always talking about what BS statistics are, and how easily they are manipulated. Can you back up your claim that 30% of AZ wildlife owe their life to welfare ranchers? How many other factors may influence your claim that 30% of AZ wildlife owe their asses to welfare ranchers? Did you take into consideration that cases where the stock tanks benefit wildlife should be weighed against the instances where the welfare ranchers damage or destroy wildlife habitat? Another consideration would be the fact that welfare ranchers often ruin a natural water source to make a mud pond for their cows causing a decrease in wildlife populations in that area. When they are pulling water for their cattle off natural seeps and springs it dries up in other areas. Just north of my house there WAS a year round spring. Some fat ass rancher got a lease on the land and built a huge concrete tub and pulls the water out of the spring into the tub so his cattle dont have to walk down the wash to get water. I have watched the deer and javelina population go from excellent to shit. It used to be you would find tracks and sign all over near the spring and the critters were close by. Now all you find is 40 cows and a nasty stench, almost 0 wildlife sign. There are tons of other places in the desert where I see the same exact thing. Rancher pulls water from a natural source into his concrete tub and the cows take over the area. The only place that I can see any benefit to wildlife is cases where the rancher may haul in his own water to a place that would otherwise be dry and some wildlife may use these tanks. Even though welfare rancher water helps SOME wildlife in SOME areas if you take into consideration the impact over the whole state I think the ranchers are responsible for hurting alot more than helping. JMO

BTW 90% of welfare ranchers weigh over 400 pounds on the hoof. LMAO

 

[FEW]

I would guess that 95% of those 30% that owe their existence to welfare ranchers, are in that predicament because of unfavorable conditions caused by welfare ranching and other practices that destroy habitat.

Heres a dumbass analogy. There is 10 people living on a farm and live completely off the land. I come in and let my cattle graze all of their food down to dust and shit in their water until it is unpottable, now they are #@)(*%*. I start supplying them with food and water which keeps them alive, so they now owe their existence to me right? It may be dumb but it is damn close to what ranchers have done in AZ, except the ranchers only help widlife occassionally and only by accident when trying to care for their cattle.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-29-2003 11:22: Message edited by: FEW ]</font>

 

[Oak]

Wildlife existed in AZ long before the welfare rancher. How did they do it without the water sources ranchers provide? The land doesn't need more animals than it can support...water isn't the only issue. Sure, large chunks of habitat have been lost to development, but the solution isn't to cram more animals on less land. Therefore, the welfare rancher isn't doing shit for wildlife. JMHO

Oak

 

[cjcj]

well this is a topic i have mixed feeling`s about. i know of many area`s in this state that would`nt have any quail if it wasn`t for the rancher`s stock tank`s, now they are doing it for their cow`s and not the quail,this is true, there also are two huge tank`s in the upper part of unit 7east, all put in by rancher`s[ one i know is by the babbit`s] and i can`t stand the babbit`s, but these huge tank`s provide water for elk, deer,and antelope, so they do provide some good for wildlife, especially during the drought, i won`t put a percentage on how much they help because i don`t know! but when i see all of these critter`s drinking that water, then i have to say it help`s them survive.

 

[JoseCuervo]

CJCJCJCJCJCJCCJ,

THose deer and Elk at the Water, wouldn't they be there without the tank? Wasn't the water already there, and some rancher just put it in a tank? And by putting it in the tank, it no longer flows, or does whatever it would of naturally done? There was probably benefit to having the water on the ground, creating vegetation for Quail to hide in, or something else.

Unless a rancher hauls in new water, I don't think there is much of a "net' improvment to the "System". And my guess is, that if a rancher is spending $$$$$ hauling water, he will be not too thrilled with deer and Elk stealing it. He will likely be whining to F&G looking for a depradation payment.

 

[danr55]

Few, I can answer your question with a simple statement. Prior to the pumping of water at Boquillas Ranch, there was no free flowing water in that portion of Unit 10. It was devoid of any huntable populations of game animals. The same is true for most of the units in Arizona west of Flagstaff. There are no springs, no rivers, virtually no year around, naturally flowing water. So.. if you disagree, call AZGF and ask them.. Talk with Tim Pender, the game ranger for Unit 10. Today, because of the water brought in by the ranchers at Boquillas/Big A and the Double O, we have water and huntable populations of game. All of the water on the Cataract Mesa (The area above Rhodes Canyon) is pumped up there from Pica Camp. None of the Antelope on the Cataract Plain would be there without the ranchers and the water they pump. I'm not talking about damaging pre-existing populations of wildlife, I'm talking about huntable populations of elk and deer and antelope where they never were in recorded histroy of the state. There were no populations because there was no year around water...

And yes, most all statistics, I believe about 43%, are made up on the spot....

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-29-2003 12:36: Message edited by: danr55 ]</font>

 

[FEW]

I was not aware of that but I do believe it. Like I said if the rancher is bringing the water into a place that would otherwise be dry then I think it is a benefit.

BTW thanx for the stats on how many stats are made up on the spot.

 

[Ithaca 37]

OK, So the question now is: Who paid for the water to be brought in? Did a rancher pay for it or did the BLM pay for it? Is it another way they've subsidized ranchers (remember, the BLM grazing program actually costs taxpayers at least 50 million bucks a year. It's a money loser for the gummint)?

So if we want to enhance the wildlife populations why not bring in the water and run it thru a more natural type system that would benefit wildlife more than having it go into a stock tank? Leave the cows out. The taxpayers would save more money and we'd have more wildlife!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-29-2003 18:17: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[danr55]

Ok.. you got me there,, the Cholla Land and Cattle Co. paid for the water.. They also pay for the pump system the pumps the water up to the top of Rhodes Canyon, and the hundreds of miles of pipeline that have been laid to distribute this water across 1.7 million acres of ranch property.. (They pump the water to a tank on the high point on the property, then gravity feed the rest of the ranch... )

I've seen your numbers about "Welfare Ranching" costing the USG $50 Million a year, I'm curious about where that number came from.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Dan,
And the next question would be "Whose money did they use to pay for the water?" Up here in Idahome, any time you try and move water for ag purposes, there are about 10 government agencies writing you checks to cover your costs. I am not sure what programs are down there, but the farmers / and ranchers up here rely on all sorts of government grants to move water. Right now there is a huge program to change much of the valley from gravity irrigation to Sprinkler irrigation, and Soil Conservation Services and USDA will pick up the tab.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Dan, 50 million is actually more conservative than any other estimate I've seen in many years. And we've had links many times to sites that discuss the cost of welfare ranching. All you'd have to do is go thru some old topics.

But here's a couple good places to start. If you find out welfare ranching costs the taxpayers more than 50 million buck a year will you be opposed to it?

"NPLGC has estimated the annual cost to taxpayers of the federal grazing program to be $500 million. This estimate is based upon the best available information and is generally supported by current published analyses, albeit all are severely limited. A definitive government study is still needed.

Direct USFS and BLM Costs

The direct costs of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grazing programs are published annually. For FY 2000 (2001 data not used due to accounting changes that made the data less transparent), the Forest Service spent $54.3 million for range management and deposited $1.6 million to the federal treasury from grazing fees, for a net deficit of $52.7 million. 1 For FY 2001, BLM spent $77.3 million and collected approximately $4.5 million, for a net loss of $72.8 million. 2"

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/fs_estimating_500_million.htm

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_welfareranching.htm

"In a one year period alone, welfare ranching cost taxpayers an estimated $72 million loss for Bureau of Land Management's Range Management Program (2001) and more than $52 million for Forest Service Program (2000)."

Considering total receipts from grazing leases and total costs for things such as grazing management and range improvements, the net federal receipts in 1982 was negative $36.4 million. The federal government lost over $41 million on grazing in 1983. (13) These losses were accrued to produce only 2% of the total food eaten by cattle in the U.S. (14) Ranchers with federal grazing permits make up only 2% of the nationwide total of cattle producers, and only 7% of cattle producers in the West. Forty-one million dollars does indeed sound like a lot of money to be spent on such a small number of people. (15)"

http://www.thebeckoning.com/environment/cattle/grazing.html#3-2-2

"Grazing has also been the target of budget reformers; grazing programs subsidize what environmental writer Edward Abbey called "welfare cowboys." These programs cost taxpayers about $50 million a year. Some permit holders, however, have found public lands to be quite profitable."

http://www.free-eco.org/pub/Range92.html

"That year, BLM, the USFS, and Animal Damage Control (now Wildlife Services) spent $140 million on grazing programs (including killing predators) but collected only $22 million in grazing fees (it actually costs a child more to feed a pet hamster than our government charges grown ranchers to feed a half-ton cow). "

http://www.rangenet.org/directory/diehlp/callendplr.html

Do your own further research here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=U TF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=blm+subsidies+ranching+public+lands+grazing+taxpayers&btnG=Google+Search

Dan, you recently implied that I don't back up what I post. Can you name any poster who supplies more back up quotes and links here in SI than I do?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-29-2003 19:07: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[cjcj]

hey elkgunner NO there wouldn`t be any elk in that area i mentioned [north 7e] elk were brought in from colorado, to establish the herd that is here, and no the rancher`s don`t haul this water in, but they do bulldoze berm`s for the tank`s and maintain them to some degree,so if it wasn`t for them and there ranch there wouldn`t be WATER in certain area`s in az.

 

[danr55]

No Ithica, I can't name anyone who provide more references than you do, but I don't want references. I want source data... I want to see where these clowns who pull numbers out of their ass, get the numbers... The first reference you posted in support of your argument is a bunch of really swagged out ex hippies in Tucson at a place called the Center for Bio-Diversity... The only diversity they want is the diversity that they claim is right for the land. Let the coyotes multiply until they outnumber the rabbits and start to die by the hundreds of thousands... They are completely opposed to any use of the land that extracts anything.... Hell, these guys make the Sierra Club look like a Hunting Organization... References from places like that are worthless.... You know before you start what the outcome will be...

Does the word IMPARTIAL or FACTUAL ring any bells?? How about SOURCE DATA??

The research that I did, based on USG published accounting reports showed that the two states that I looked at, Arizona and Oregon, were both turning a profit from grazing leases... I'm not sure where these other folks get thier info, maybe other states are different... Maybe I picked the only two states who made money from grazing leases... I don't know. I do know that a review of the numbers will prove what I say.. How much original research do you do with any of this stuff that you get so excited about??

 

[Ithaca 37]

Dan, I really don't have time to track down where websites get their numbers from, but I can tell you that there are many other factors besides what the USG takes into account. You'll see that if you check out some of the other sources. In fact, I've never heard anyone try to deny that the BLM and FS don't lose many millions of dollars a year on grazing leases. Even the welfare ranchers will admit that. And I've never heard anyone try to justify public land grazing by saying it is actually a money maker for the gummint.

That's such basic stuff nobody even tries to question it. At least nobody who knows anything about it. And I usually provide more than one reference just to avoid having people like you jump on one of them and say they're a bunch of hippies. So try looking at more than the first one. I don't put them in any particular order.

Why don't you show us some sites that claim public land grazing is NOT a subsidized program?

As for how much research I do----I've been real involved in these issues for about 25 years, so I'd have to guess the time I've spent on them would be in the many thousands of hours. After awhile ya get a pretty good feel for them. Most of the best info I get comes from people I know in professional wildlife management, the FS and BLM. There's plenty of books about public land grazing, too. Start with "Sacred Cows at the Public Trough".

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-29-2003 22:01: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Oak]

Ok, who can spot the welfare??

"The grazing fees established for ranchers using public lands and national forests have never reached the level of fees on private and state lands. Despite reforms instituted by the Clinton Administration, significant undercharges remain. The low price for federal land grazing creates competition with state-owned lands and provides incentives for ranchers to overgraze federal areas. In addition, the fees charged by both Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service fail to recover the costs of running their grazing programs."

"Not only do the federal agencies fail to charge fair market value for grazing on public lands, but current law also requires that half of the receipts from those subsidized fees go back to the states, which mostly distribute them to local grazing boards. The local grazing boards, in turn, are operated by the same ranchers who pay the fees initially. They use the proceeds for a variety of grazing-related activities, including at least one occasion when a grazing board voted to distribute the proceeds directly to its members. There also have been reports of these receipts being used to lobby Congress, or to sue the federal agencies."

"The Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act passed in 1988 provides cash or feed directly to ranchers who can demonstrate that their is little grass for livestock grazing in a given year. Although low grass production would typically result from drought, it can also occur due to other conditions, such as overgrazing. Since the program was instituted, ranchers have received up to $500 million in cash or feed per year -- averaging about $100 million per year. Apart from the drain on the Treasury, the program gives ranchers incentives to overgraze both public and private land, since they know that low forage production in subsequent years will be supplemented by support from the Treasury. The 1996 Farm Bill suspended payments from the program, but an emergency appropriation was provided for FY97 later that year."

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/105cong/democrat/hr919/subprb.htm

Oak

 

[Troy Jones]

50 million is a great deal. That is absolutely nothing in the wasteful spending of the feds. Cut out half of the less than needed BLM's bureaucratic hierarchy and the program would show a tremendous profit. I work with people from several federal agencies and they seem to spend most their time trying to justify their position. NOT ONE!, drives a pickup that is not new, and toting a new laptop and a $4000 GPS that they don't know how to operate. Where I come from those are called gravy jobs and the ones we all aspire to have. We are getting away from the basics that are needed to run an effective government program. If you are bitching about 50 million you are obviously not grasping the big picture. If the BLM, Forest Service ect. was a business, it would have been bankrupt many years ago.

Ithaca, I can understand where you are coming from, but with everything you state there is other dynamic forces to be understood also. The whole concept behind any federal mandates pertaining, for instance, "your wellfare ranching losing money". The system is whether you know it or not, based on weights and measures. Yes, the BLM is losing 50 million,(this is just an example) but tax revenue generated directly or indirectly make up 350 million. So if it wasn't for how that system is made up, those tax dollars is what you would have to make up.

Be careful, things are not generally as simple as you make them out to be. However I don't hold you in contempt of that. I believe that you have tunnel vison, so to speak, and that is where we all need education.

 

[Oak]

This info is 12 years old, but I doubt things have gotten better since then. The charge per AUM has actually dropped $0.63 since then.

"In the West, federal agencies charge significantly lower rates to lease federal grazing land than those for state or private lands. Apart from this question of the relative value of federal versus private grazing land, two other factors suggest that federal grazing fees lie below market value: increased land values and profitable subleasing. Holding a federal grazing lease increases the value of the associated ranch by a measurable amount. Thus, the federal lease is regarded as more valuable than simply the opportunity to purchase forage on the open market, yielding the conclusion that the federal price is lower than the open market. In addition, BLM lessees (but not Forest Service lessees) are allowed to transfer or sublease their grazing rights, and frequently do so at a profit."

"The Interior Inspector General reported several cases of profitable subleases, including one in which a California public utility subleased its base property and twenty federal grazing allotments. The sublessees paid the utility $3.90 per animal unit month, in addition to the $1.81 paid to BLM. The profit from these subleases shows not only that the original leases lie below market value, but also that the lessees can convert the subsidy to cash."

"Still a further indication of the subsidy is the GAO finding that federal grazing fees fell through the 1980s, while grazing fees for private lands rose. A recent report by the Department of Agriculture concluded that ranchers holding federal grazing permits earned more than ranchers without access to federal lands."

"In addition, grazing fees fail to recover the BLM and Forest Service costs of running the program. The shortfall from grazing fees for the two agencies in 1990 reached $52 million."

"In 1992, the Government Operations Committee estimated that the federal government had lost $1.18 billion since 1985 from pricing grazing fees below market value."

http://www.house.gov/resources/105cong/democrat/subsidy.htm#grazing91

There's a bunch more if anyone wants to wade through it. There's even footnotes with source info for those that want it.

Oak

 

[Ten Bears]

And you think hunting is not a welfare sport?

 

[Oak]

Ok, I'll bite. How is hunting a welfare sport?

Oak