Floating an idea, don't kill the messenger

[SAJ-99]

then is farming just another over subsidized business nationwide?

Yes.

Perhaps we should be importing meat from other countries to balance things out a bit since its so hard for these poor farmers to turn a profit.

Argentina has entered the chat.

It appears you are a pretty normal American. You want the best stuff but don't want to pay for it.

 

[Mallardsx2]

With the current federal system tax payers are footing the bill instead of the consumer. Shouldn’t the consumer be the one financially responsible for what they consume?

Also a solid point for sure!

 

[Mallardsx2]

Yes.


Argentina has entered the chat.

It appears you are a pretty normal American. You want the best stuff but don't want to pay for it.

The importing the meat thing was a joke. DICK.

 

[44hunter45]

I worked with the USFS, local water district, and several non-profits on how to upgrade or even just maintain a popular river section south of Denver. A few decades ago, it was basically only accessed by fishermen, but now it is popular with hikers, dog-walkers, picnickers, etc. The parking lot holds maybe 20 cars and then people start parking every damn place along the narrow dirt USFS road. People and their dogs shit everywhere, erosion is out of control, etc, etc. I asked the USFS employees if they could institute a fee to help pay for expansion/maintenance of the parking lot, bathrooms, bridges, trails, etc and their response was "No, it's too much of an administrative hassle." It's not just coming up with an access/permit/fee system and enforcing it, but even getting approval from higher headquarters. Now, there are places like Sedona, AZ that have a system of pay-to-use parking lots, trailheads, etc on federal public land that I think works well (from my perspective the fees are reasonable and the facilities are well-maintained at appropriate levels, ie nothing extravagant). So, I like the Sedona model, but I kind of understand the hurdles to get there - ie the inertia of a federal land manager that is used to a mostly hands-off model.

Funny you point out Sedona. You can't get a parking space there for love or money.

 

[44hunter45]

The importing the meat thing was a joke. DICK.

"Dick" is only one of the words I use when I see those imported stickers on meat at Safeway/Albertson's

 

[2rocky]

Since all entrants to National Park and USFWS managed lands pay access fees, I wonder about the idea that USFS and BLM institute a permit or stamp based system for access to their lands. Would hunters pay $10-$25 per year for a USFS or BLM access stamp? Could PR and DJ payer somehow be exempted. (In Idaho, hunting license holders are free to access IDL managed lands.)

Many if us pay for access to State or Corporate lands. Would there be social acceptance of a permit system for Federal lands access?

Enforcement cost would outweigh the benefit. National parks and refuges have controlled access points and a large target population. They also do not have a mandate to offer opportunity for all.

Isn't there a benefit to society to having close access to wild lands? Otherwise would people still want to live in cities and towns where they can see into their neighbor's windows? At least if there is a trailhead 10 miles anyway they can go after work and be in nature and not feel confined.... A population who is well exercised, and healthy because of time outdoors has less crime and conflict than a purely urban culture.

 

[44hunter45]

If people feel the cattle industry is only able to turn a profit by having low grazing fees (which the govt controls) then is farming just another over subsidized business nationwide?

Interesting to run two Google searches:
"Is US agriculture sustainable with subsidies?"
"Is US agriculture sustainable without subsidies?"

Both searches say no, for different reasons.

 

[44hunter45]

Enforcement cost would outweigh the benefit. National parks and refuges have controlled access points and a large target population. They also do not have a mandate to offer opportunity for all.

Isn't there a benefit to society to having close access to wild lands? Otherwise would people still want to live in cities and towns where they can see into their neighbor's windows? At least if there is a trailhead 10 miles anyway they can go after work and be in nature and not feel confined.... A population who is well exercised, and healthy because of time outdoors has less crime and conflict than a purely urban culture.

I tend to agree that enforcement may outweigh the benefit. It is a given that compliance would suck. But isn't any compliance better than nothing? How many of us have been checked for our Duck Stamp on USFWS refuges? I never have. I sometimes forget to buy my stamp until I'm actually in the refuge. Can't buy it at the gate, if there even is gate. I'd have to go to a P.O. to get one quickly. The closest USFWS refuge is hours from me, but I buy the stamp for the sake of wildlife. I used it all the time when I was on the road for work. There are rarely gates or kiosks at USFWS sites, but we buy the stamps.

There is great benefit in having open access to public recreation. But too many recreators that I see are not walking or even biking. Their fat asses are driving around USFS roads, around gates, and chewing up trails with dirt bikes and OHV. They are squatting at turnouts and leaving trash everywhere. They are disturbing vulnerable wintering wildlife with snow machines. They are shooting up trees and signage. USFS and BLM recreation users are often the worst our society has to offer.

What I am crowdthinking here is a source of funding for land managers not dependent on the Russ Fulchers in Congress. Consider this thread an Agile Scrum. Don't just say no, throw out some other idea.

 

[brymoore]

Interesting to run two Google searches:
"Is US agriculture sustainable with subsidies?"
"Is US agriculture sustainable without subsidies?"

Both searches say no, for different reasons.

U.S. government should follow the NZ model of no ag subsidies.