BuzzH
Well-known member
you can use that link I provided to find out how much he gets...
http://farm.ewg.org/search.php?fips=16000®ionname=Idaho
http://farm.ewg.org/search.php?fips=16000®ionname=Idaho
Jefferson County MT may offer wolf/lion bounty
- Thread starter JohnDeereGreen
- Start date
IdahoHombre
New member
Ben, help me understand what you mean when you say,
Do you mean the ranchers are trying to take advantage of the wolf hunting directly? Or indirectly?
thanks ~
Do you mean the ranchers are trying to take advantage of the wolf hunting directly? Or indirectly?
thanks ~
There were several bills in the last legislature to take license dollars away from FWP and put it towards Wildlife Services to pay for coyote control on domestic sheep herds. That refrain has continued in the interim, and is displayed within the OP's article. We offered to work with the Wool Growers, who, along with SFW pushed these bills, to find a better route to fund the livestock predator programs out there, but we were ignored. Ultimately, a bill passed that gave the Dept of Livestock a large chunk of change w/ little oversight to handle livestock loss and mitigation, and it created a new fund into which per capita fees could be placed to help fund WS in their work.
That passed. The other bills did not. I fully expect to see more bills this next session that seek to overturn MT's wolf management plan, erode funding from FWP and give it to WS and even an attempt to reclassify lions as predators (again).
I don't have a problem with Wildlife Services at all, but I do have a problem with people forcing a state agency to fund a federal program of which they see no benefit.
IdahoHombre
New member
Wow. Just wow. Thanks, I guess I didn't realize exactly what Montana was going through.
sweetnectar
New member
So I was reading through this thread and I'm having a hard time understanding a correlation between farm subsidies and wolves. Are wolves causing drought, crop loss, crop insurance payments and making farmers want to enroll in more conservation programs??? Or are you saying that farmers are super profitable and if you really want to make bank from farming then take every subsidy you can? Somewhere I got lost.
But if you want to pay some livestock producer for losses out of his pocket from some wolves that were forced upon his lively hood then I simply see the livestock producer taking the money and still being pissed reimberssed for his lose and an expanding wolf population causing more losses. If you give the money to a government organization and put them to task to control wolf populations that may be an option but why not give some money to hunters and trappers (a bounty if you will) to help set them to task as well as part of your management strategy. Give them all money. Every way I see it, it is spend spend spend....the wonders of the wolf black hole.
But if you want to pay some livestock producer for losses out of his pocket from some wolves that were forced upon his lively hood then I simply see the livestock producer taking the money and still being pissed reimberssed for his lose and an expanding wolf population causing more losses. If you give the money to a government organization and put them to task to control wolf populations that may be an option but why not give some money to hunters and trappers (a bounty if you will) to help set them to task as well as part of your management strategy. Give them all money. Every way I see it, it is spend spend spend....the wonders of the wolf black hole.
BuzzH
Well-known member
You still havent discovered that farmers/ranchers farm the State and Federal Government every chance they get?
Some farm the Government via drought, crop loss, crop insurance, conservation programs, etc. etc. etc. some farm the G via wolves, coyotes, etc.
Bottom line, tax payers and hunters pick up the tab on both...as usual.
Even more entertaining is listening to a farmer/rancher whine about "those bums on welfare, food stamps, etc."...really? That takes a pretty large pair.:W:
Some farm the Government via drought, crop loss, crop insurance, conservation programs, etc. etc. etc. some farm the G via wolves, coyotes, etc.
Bottom line, tax payers and hunters pick up the tab on both...as usual.
Even more entertaining is listening to a farmer/rancher whine about "those bums on welfare, food stamps, etc."...really? That takes a pretty large pair.:W:
IdahoHombre
New member
Exactly, Buzz. And do you think the Feds don't love it when the farmers cash those checks? Of course they do. It's job security for the USDA.
That is exactly why ranchers should not take predation loss pay outs from the Feds. Why give USFWS the time of day after they created this mess in the first place? I wish they wouldn't take the payouts. And if ranchers really want the wolves gone, I would have no problem if the livestock industry created a bounty program.
There's definitely a lot of practical problems with running a bounty program, especially in preventing fraud. But there would be ways to make it work.
But it has become apparent to me in this thread that the politics differ quite a bit between ID and MT. The Idaho administration has taken more of a "screw you, feds" approach, and MT is treading a little more lightly, not wanting to end up in the doghouse like WY.
In my humble opinion.
That is exactly why ranchers should not take predation loss pay outs from the Feds. Why give USFWS the time of day after they created this mess in the first place? I wish they wouldn't take the payouts. And if ranchers really want the wolves gone, I would have no problem if the livestock industry created a bounty program.
There's definitely a lot of practical problems with running a bounty program, especially in preventing fraud. But there would be ways to make it work.
But it has become apparent to me in this thread that the politics differ quite a bit between ID and MT. The Idaho administration has taken more of a "screw you, feds" approach, and MT is treading a little more lightly, not wanting to end up in the doghouse like WY.
In my humble opinion.
JohnDeereGreen
Member
Not sure how this turned into farm subsidies but...
I grew up raising wheat and cattle on the Hi-Line of Montana. The cows are gone, but I still spend much of my time there, farming. So...I'm gonna have to take exception to Buzz's remark that "they do a much better job of farming the govt. than the land".
Here goes...
Based on the assumption that we "do a much better job of farming the govt. than the land" I will take it to mean that Montana farmers make more money from their govt. payments than they do from raising crops (if this is not what Buzz meant, I am certain he will let me know
). Let's take a look at how that scenario pencils out.
The crop production values are from the 2010 USDA/NASS report for Montana. Google "2010 Montana crop production" if you want to see it.
In 2010, Montana raised 9.8% of all the wheat in the US, only Kansas and North Dakota surpassed us for wheat production. That works out to 215,360,000 bushels of wheat.
Montana crop values for 2010:
Winter wheat:$589.7 million
Spring wheat:$731.4 million
Barley crop: $159.0 million
Corn crop: $24.8 million
Durum crop: $109.9 million
Oat crop: $4.3 million
Flaxseed: $2.9 million
Canola: $6.0 million
Beans: $9.6 million
Peas: $34.7 million
Safflower: $4.4 million
Lentils: $77.6 million
Potatoes: $46.3 million
Sugar beets: $53.5 million
Hay: $499.9 million
Total: $2.354 billion.
According to EWG, total govt. payments to Montana in 2010 (I'm gonna throw in CRP,livestock, wool, wetlands reserve, and dairy, to help Buzz out): $330,135,018.
So, let's subtract the value of all those payments from the value of all the crops Montana farmers raised:
$2,354,000,000 -
$330,135,018
=
$2,023,864,982
Huh, look at that.
As far as subsidies are concerned, it's pretty clear that direct payments to producers are on the chopping block in the next version of the farm bill. What will remain is crop insurance. It is hard to justify the direct payments at a time when most of the major commodities are selling at solid to high prices. I personally cannot and will not make an arguement for the current existence of the program. However, keep in mind that those subsidies were introduced when commodities had hit rock-bottom prices. Unfortunately, like so many massive govt. programs, it had flaws. When prices got better, we still got the payments, and, over time, that has given us a black eye.
Farming has changed so much in the last 10-15 years-the techniques and technology we use, and the rise in input costs-that the subsidies are not the make or break factor they once were. When I figure what it costs us to plant a crop, spray for weeds, maintain and update our equipment (anyone buy a new combine or tractor in the last 5 years?), buy several thousand gallons of diesel, hire labor when we need it, and pay ourselves a living wage etc... We're just a small-medium size operation and our input costs run hundreds of thousands of dollars. In 2010 our govt. payment covered well uner 10% of what it cost us to operate our farm. The bottom line is, farmers who do a poor job managing the land and managing their finances go under like any other business, direct payment or not.
Crop insurance is more helpful to us, in the long run. As it is, I don't think farmers can make a strong argument for direct payments when we get a good price for the crops we raise, but at the same time, when the program started out, it really did do some good.
What will be interesting is if the payments go away, and then the commodity prices drop. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Montana farmer who will tell you that he can afford to stay in the business if, say, winter wheat were to drop below $5/bushel and stay there for a couple years. In the interest of providing some perspective, cash price today (at least the price I would get today) was $7.12, with the elevator taking 45 cents off the top, for $6.67/bushel.
Thought some of you might be interested in hearing the perspective of a Montana farmer on this issue...
I grew up raising wheat and cattle on the Hi-Line of Montana. The cows are gone, but I still spend much of my time there, farming. So...I'm gonna have to take exception to Buzz's remark that "they do a much better job of farming the govt. than the land".
Here goes...
Based on the assumption that we "do a much better job of farming the govt. than the land" I will take it to mean that Montana farmers make more money from their govt. payments than they do from raising crops (if this is not what Buzz meant, I am certain he will let me know
). Let's take a look at how that scenario pencils out.The crop production values are from the 2010 USDA/NASS report for Montana. Google "2010 Montana crop production" if you want to see it.
In 2010, Montana raised 9.8% of all the wheat in the US, only Kansas and North Dakota surpassed us for wheat production. That works out to 215,360,000 bushels of wheat.
Montana crop values for 2010:
Winter wheat:$589.7 million
Spring wheat:$731.4 million
Barley crop: $159.0 million
Corn crop: $24.8 million
Durum crop: $109.9 million
Oat crop: $4.3 million
Flaxseed: $2.9 million
Canola: $6.0 million
Beans: $9.6 million
Peas: $34.7 million
Safflower: $4.4 million
Lentils: $77.6 million
Potatoes: $46.3 million
Sugar beets: $53.5 million
Hay: $499.9 million
Total: $2.354 billion.
According to EWG, total govt. payments to Montana in 2010 (I'm gonna throw in CRP,livestock, wool, wetlands reserve, and dairy, to help Buzz out): $330,135,018.
So, let's subtract the value of all those payments from the value of all the crops Montana farmers raised:
$2,354,000,000 -
$330,135,018
=
$2,023,864,982
Huh, look at that.
As far as subsidies are concerned, it's pretty clear that direct payments to producers are on the chopping block in the next version of the farm bill. What will remain is crop insurance. It is hard to justify the direct payments at a time when most of the major commodities are selling at solid to high prices. I personally cannot and will not make an arguement for the current existence of the program. However, keep in mind that those subsidies were introduced when commodities had hit rock-bottom prices. Unfortunately, like so many massive govt. programs, it had flaws. When prices got better, we still got the payments, and, over time, that has given us a black eye.
Farming has changed so much in the last 10-15 years-the techniques and technology we use, and the rise in input costs-that the subsidies are not the make or break factor they once were. When I figure what it costs us to plant a crop, spray for weeds, maintain and update our equipment (anyone buy a new combine or tractor in the last 5 years?), buy several thousand gallons of diesel, hire labor when we need it, and pay ourselves a living wage
etc... We're just a small-medium size operation and our input costs run hundreds of thousands of dollars. In 2010 our govt. payment covered well uner 10% of what it cost us to operate our farm. The bottom line is, farmers who do a poor job managing the land and managing their finances go under like any other business, direct payment or not.Crop insurance is more helpful to us, in the long run. As it is, I don't think farmers can make a strong argument for direct payments when we get a good price for the crops we raise, but at the same time, when the program started out, it really did do some good.
What will be interesting is if the payments go away, and then the commodity prices drop. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Montana farmer who will tell you that he can afford to stay in the business if, say, winter wheat were to drop below $5/bushel and stay there for a couple years. In the interest of providing some perspective, cash price today (at least the price I would get today) was $7.12, with the elevator taking 45 cents off the top, for $6.67/bushel.
Thought some of you might be interested in hearing the perspective of a Montana farmer on this issue...
IdahoHombre
New member
Those 2010 crop values are gross receipts, right? So once a farmer pays for all input costs, then the payments can come in handy on the balance sheet. MT is primarily small grains/oilseeds/peas & lentils, where there is a much cleaner cash crop basis. But the Midwest corn growers can't survive without subsidies. The corn market is generally built on it. It will be interesting to watch how some ag industry groups howl at the new Farm Bill, if it does indeed get chopped bigtime.
But if subsidies are gone, I think ag prices will go really volatile for awhile before the free market can establish itself again. So hang on, buddy! 'Cause if corn prices get dizzy, your wheat will follow!
But if subsidies are gone, I think ag prices will go really volatile for awhile before the free market can establish itself again. So hang on, buddy! 'Cause if corn prices get dizzy, your wheat will follow!
