I love it when the "subsidy finger" gets pointed around by the usual dbags on this and a few other sites. Gets me to thinking.... How much do all you "sportsmen" pay to use public land? What would comparable cost on private lands be? Does the Forest Svc, BLM, etc. make or lose taxpayer money managing recreation? If you own the public wildlife, does the public pay all costs associated them? Was there a group of cowboy bullies that use to roam Missoula and the Root giving wedgies to shoot straight and Buzz? Never seen grown men with such a hard on against someone.....
Do you understand what a subsidy is? By your post I'd say no. If individuals aren't paying fair market value for something, and tax payers are picking up the rest of the costs, that's a subsidy. The timber industry is subsidised too. Do you know what
fair market system means? How about the tax paying private land rancher, that runs their cattle entirely on ground they own, or lease? Do you think it's fair for them to compete with public land ranchers that get their grazing costs for next to nothing.
Sportsman pay as much, as fisherman, picnickers, backpackers, photographers, recreational miners, etc. Our taxes pay for what maintenance there is.
We don't make money off the resource. Those that do, pay a fee (outfitters, guys like Big Fin etc) The key there is profit from the land. There's are far better lands to hunt on private, that we pay nothing for. The really good leased lands go to outfitters.
If the public lands were enhanced for wildlife, and maintained exclusively for them, Then lets dream that Ranchers decided to quit bitching and let our wildlife alone, I'd probably pay a fee to use that ground. We already pay to use the state ground. We also pay to use private through block. So what was your point again?
The costs for wildlife management are paid for by the state through our tag sales. The public only pays for animals that are under special management, like wolves were.
Cattle on the other hand, take fencing, administration costs, range rehab, range maintenance. Besides the fact that your providing unfair competition between those that graze public lands, and those that don't.
I'm a contractor, if all the materials where given to my competition for a 10Th what I pay, I would be furious. Is that fair?
Explain how running cattle on public lands isn't a subsidy. How $1.35 per AUM compared to $18 per AUM on private isn't a subsidy. Explain why tax payers should pick up the tab for the maintenance on those lands for the damage done by the cattle. If your a rancher you know there's plenty of range maintenance to take care of year in and year out.
Ask Big Fin how much he pays to film on public lands. Nothing he does requires maintenance. His actions don't pollute our water, the ground, erode river banks, etc.
I don't make a profit off of the use of public lands. All of us, whether your a backpacker, photographer, camper, hunter, bike rider, and others use our public lands to recreate on equally. Some do require more maintenance than others. ATV's cause a lot of damage that we all pay for. I think there's a place for them too. Just not running amok, and they should pay for the maintenance, not me.
What costs are there associated with me hunting on public lands? There's law enforcement of public lands for illegal ATV use, that should be picked up by taxes on those type of vehicles. There's road maintenance, but we all pay taxes on our vehicles.
Toss me a bone there dude. Where is that even close to the same?
All these things I said are true, but another thing that pisses me off, about the ranching community, it the entitlement they seem to have. That their industry comes before everyone Else's. That the 2% of the cattle raised on public lands is the most important part of our economy. That, even though they have a huge impact on wildlife.
The shear arrogance shown by yourself, and many in the industry as a whole, is incomprehensible. It's OK for your livestock to graze my public lands down, but when my elk get on your private lands, the Dept is called up and there's a complaint filed.
That your industry is so paranoid my wildlife will compete with your cattle that you legislate laws to have my wildlife reduced to a fraction of what they where. That beef is more important than hunting Industry. That you push for more legislation to keep Bison from being re populated because of a disease that your beef gave to them in the first place. That even though there's a herd that's been in quarantine for 5 years, that's not good enough for your industry.
That your industry promoted bill after bill in the last legislative session in Montana, to privatise wildlife, control the Dept. and stop land acquisitions for the hunting public, even though we have paid into a fund to do so. Hypocrisy, is what it is. Even if a private individual wants to sell his lands to us, your industry doesn't want that to happen.
Lets talk about public land access. Your industry UPOM, wants to pass laws to keep the public off our streams. They want to close roads that the public has used for generations. They don't want people to hope corners because you might invade their frickin air space. For Christs sake, we wouldn't want that. But run your beef all over my elks habitat, making it not fit for them is OK.
Are you following me here, or have I lost your interest. If your industry doesn't want to be attacked for grazing my public lands. Then maybe your industry needs to clean itself up on those other issues. Seems that's not going to happen though, I've already seen a preview of up and coming legislation they intend to run again.
Actually I've never been beat up by a cowboy, ran with a few. I have quit a few rancher friends, and they don't complain about wildlife, they believe their an asset. They aren't near as arrogant as you either.
Cheers
Robert
Still, they are not selling the permit, just the preference! 
I know, it's really all semantics...
