Myth: Welfare Ranching Is Important to Rural Economies

[Ithaca 37]

Time to kill another myth!

"Many livestock supporters attempt to portray public lands livestock production as an essential element of rural economies. It's easy to see the fallacy in this argument if you think about the numbers involved. For example, in Nevada there are fewer than 800 public lands grazing permittees. And in the entire state less than 2,000 people are engaged full-time as farmers or ranchers. One casino in Las Vegas employs more people than work in agriculture in all of Nevada. Although other states may have higher numbers of people involved in ranching, livestock production is proportionally a small part of the economic picture in all western states....instead of rural towns being dependent on the livestock industry for their economic survival, the reverse was true. Ranch families depend on nearby towns and cities to provide full- or part-time jobs that help keep the ranch financially afloat."

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

Would you drink from the stream in the picture?

"According to the Department of the Interior's 1994 Rangeland Reform Environmental Impact Statement, the elimination of all public lands livestock grazing would result in a loss of 18,300 jobs in agriculture and related industries across the entire West, or approximately 0.1 percent of the West's total employment...."

GM or Ford can lay off 18,000 people and nobody blinks! Talk about layin' off a few welfare ranchers and they cry like babies!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-13-2003 23:00: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

I asked one of the local experts on Welfare Ranching about how much money the State of Idaho got from grazing leases on State Land. His answer was about $300k per year and the state spends MORE than $300k per year to administer the grazing.

From that point Welfare Ranching is actually a drain on our local economy.

 

[RockyDog]

Ithaca,I never seen anyone with such a boner for ranchers.

One of these days a "welfare rancher" is gonna kick your ass big time.

 

[Ten Bears]

RD, He'd never call anyone a welfare anything to their face.

 

[Leanwolf]

Well, here we go again, more of the Rancher/Farmer hating bias from Ithaca's favorite Utopian book, "Welfare Ranching."

First, that "book," was put together from articles written by extremely biased people who have one goal, and one goal only, and that's to destroy the ranching and farming -- and you can bet your last unbanned rifle -- eventually, mining, logging, oil drilling, hunting, fishing industries, etc.
Bring it all down, man!!

And of course, along with all that, we gotta blow up dams all over the West, too, 'cause those evil cattle and sheep ranchers, and those rotten dirty farmers just steal all the water for their cows, sheep, and beans 'n taters! (Better buy stock in E.I. DuPont, Inc., boys and girls. It's gonna take a whole bunch of dynamite to knock down as many dams as the enviros want to destory.)

Let's look at some of the statements in the article posted by Ithaca. According to Ithaca's and Elkgunner's (and others, here)"EXPERTS," there are only 2,000 full time ranchers and farmers in Nevada, who do not number even as many as one gambling casino employs, in Lost Wages. Hmmmm. (Implies, so who the Hell needs these John Deeres, anyway? Gambling is where it's at!)

Of course, the biased writer doesn't bother to tell us how many FAMILY MEMBERS will be also effected, when the writer and the Ithacas of this Board, get their way and the ranchers and farmers are put out of business. Nor, does the writer tell us where these ranchers and farmers and their families are to move, and get jobs, to support themselves. (Ahhh, who cares about those doofusses anyway?!)

These "expert" writers -- nor Ithaca, et al, ever bother to introduce the aximoatic certainty of "unintended consequences," which follow like night follows day. Do you really believe that these extreme left wing groups with whom you make your alliances, do not intended to later destroy your Rights, also? Better examine just who you "think" your friends are.

As for jobs, I get it now: all those shlubs who kick cow patties and sheep pellets, can just sell their ranches and farms to suburb developers for five acre ranchettes, move to Lost Wages and get a job sweeping out the casinos!

Or, another solution, as the casinos employ thousands and thousands of people, MORE casinos can be built -- preferably on the now-empty public lands, where there is PLENTY of room, and all the hicks off the farms and ranches can get jobs in the many new casinos, which will add even more money to the coffers of the Mafia and politicians. See, no problemo!!

The "Welfare Ranching" "EXPERT" (self annointed???) tells us that the proposed loss of 18,300 jobs across the entire West, would be meaningless, because these people and their families already work part time to suppliment their ranch/farm work, in the many surrounding small towns?? So that's a solution to destroying the ranchers and farmers?? I think not.

The biased writer did not bother to tell us that these small communities exist symbiotically BECAUSE of the rancher/farmer. Take away the ranches and farms, and each and every one of these small towns will wither away and die.

Of course, that is the object of the extreme left enviros. Then the towns and all buildings and improvements that have existed for 175 years, can be bulldozed, and the land brought back to its "original, pristine" (what a macabre joke!) condition, as before the Evil Great Satan White Devil exploitative capitalistic pigs came along. And hey, millions of buffalo can be brought back on all those now-empty mid-U.S. lands, where the deer and the antelope play!

(And, speaking of the "buffalo article" in "Welfare Ranching," did anyone notice that the biased writer DID NOT tell us that although the cattle sometimes break down some of the creek banks, that the millions of buffalo he implies should be put back on the middle of the U.S., did exactly the same to the creeks and riparian areas, but even more so! Nahhh, no bias there.)

Obviously, it can only naturally follow, that the writer(s) of one posted report, ordered by the King Klinton Department of Interior, under the control of Bruce Bah Bah Bah Bah Bah Bah Bah Babbitt -- would produce biased "data", to support the left wing goal to justify kicking the cattle and sheep ranchers off the public lands.

Who was the "local welfare rancher expert" quoted by ElkGunner?? Where did he get his "facts??" Remember those "Lies, damned lies, and statistics," folks.

I also keep wondering just who is funding these agitprop groups, too?? Hmmm. Maybe, for the helluvit, I'll do some Freedom of Information Act searching to see who is throwing the millions and millions of $$$$ to fund the incessant effort to destroy ranching, farming, mining, logging, dams, oil drilling, eventually hunting, fishing, ATVs, etc. (No, I don't own one, nor ever have.) Might be kinda interesting... and enlightening.

I say again, the abuses of the ranchers and farmers, can be rectified, without destroying them. Extreme zealots, from either side of the fence, are dangerous and destructive.

L.W.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Lean, In the interests of accuracy, could you edit the part about blowing up dams so people aren't any more confused about dam breaching, or don't you understand the issue either?

The rest of your diatribe is entertaining, but can you please supply us with any facts to back up your claims?

We've had long discussions on bison, too, in case you'd like to learn something about them. You'll just have to go back thru the SI topics.

You coming to Moosie's gathering?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-14-2003 14:28: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Leanwolf,

Luckily, since this is the Internet I don't have to name names of my sources. It is not a big deal, but I was told this particular fact beside a campfire, in a social setting, on the banks of the Main Salmon river, so I will not be posting this guy's name. I was there as a guest, as I rowed a boat for their party down the river, hauling a ton of food, beer, and wine, plus MY dutch ovens. It was an incredibly good time, and to see the passion these lawyers have for the rivers, mountains, and game in Idaho is truly amazing. That is why I think they will win vs. the Welfare Ranchers as they have a passion for their cause, while the attorney for the Forest Circus or the Welfare Ranchers is just looking to justify his wages. No true passion for his side of the court room.

In formal, official, situtations, he will put out press releases for his group, and if I see one that goes to this topic, I will post you a link.

I believe the $300k number to be accurate, and to provide the context of how it came. I asked How much does all the Grazing Permits to the State Land Board generate in income. He answered "none". They lose money on the overall program. I then asked him how much the state would get (net) if he would quit suing them, and he said about $300k. In that context, I felt his number was accurate.

The problem with the State grazing leases, is that they are not competitive, and the $300k is small $$$ to our Schools, which is the constitutional mandate of the State Land Board.

If you feel the $300k number is Bogus, please let me know, and I will delete the post. It is not my intention to make up facts. Your call........... Or even better, if you want to use your FIA rights, then go to the Land Board and get a better number, and I will gladly start quoting it.

As for where the money comes from that is funding these groups that are suing the Land Board, BLM, and Forest Circus, you will likely find my name on the donor list. (no, not Elkgunner...

) But, I am likely in the low $$$$ category. The big funders are the US Government and then there are tons of Foundations that provide money for worthwhile causes. But, to be honest, my guess is that a lot of it is people who just give $100 here, and a $100 there.

The group I support is incredibly frugal, and likely has the highest Court Victory per $$$ ratio in the West.

And finally Lean, good job working aximoatic into a post. I don't know that I have ever seen that before on this Board.......

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-14-2003 20:54: Message edited by: Elkgunner ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

I remember Marvel once claiming that the net gain to Idaho on the state land grazing leases was less than $100,000 per year.

 

[Ten Bears]

I think you mean/meant axiomatic

 

[JoseCuervo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> These "expert" writers -- nor Ithaca, et al, ever bother to introduce the aximoatic certainty of "unintended consequences," which follow like night follows day. Do you really believe that these extreme left wing groups with whom you make your alliances <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ten, I just cut and pasted it from LeanW's posting. How the hell should I know how to spell it, I barely could remember what it meant....

Ithica,
Marvel's number sounds very close to the number I believed, but I will leave it up to LeanW if I should delete the post. I do know that the number shocked me, and I realized just how little benefit the school kids get from grazing.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Rocky Dog and Leanwolf,

IT can't help it. It's just the closet vegan in him that is trying to get out.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

And more facts are presented by Paul....

Are you ever going to bring a fact into your lame assed posts or what?

Ithacas wrong, Ithacas wrong...but I cant prove it so I'll just make an ass of myself...is that what your thinking Paul?

Good strategery.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Oak,

IF you don't believe me, stop by a school some time. They send all the kids out on the grass for morning recess, and they waste all their time on the Monkey Bars or playing soccer. They get no benefit from the grass. Then at lunch, they have to fire up the kitchen to supplement their grazing, by feeding them "Pigs in a Blanket", Tater Gems, Mixed Fruit, and Milk.

 

[Muledeer4me]

"IT can't help it. It's just the closet vegan in him that is trying to get out."

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/index.htm


LOL You got that right Paul,lets not forget who we got that priceless link above from

OHHHHHHHH the compassionatespirit!!!!!!
Damn ,I guess some of us missed those "day" of enlightenment ,I have to wonder what form of enlightment some folk's are still "partaking" in today

 

[Ten Bears]

The department of lands in Idaho is mandated to utilized their lands "in such manner as will secure the maximum long term financial return to the institution to which granted..."
http://www2.state.id.us/lands/overview.htm
If your not grazing it, farming it, or logging it, your not profitable, and the land is sold to developers in sections. Right IT, isn't that part of what's happening down along the Boise front to all the IDL winter range for the deer and elk. It was deemed no longer profitable to graze (somebody was suing the state about that). So it's going to be divided up and sold into development.

Antigrazers win, wildlife and hunters lose.

 

[Ithaca 37]

MD and Paul, Can't you ever supply us with some facts? All we get from you is sniping and bitchin'.

MD, ""Ithaca,I ran into one of your buddies that was out collection signiture I told him I was going to sign, but I know this (Ithaca)guy and he knows everything and he told me not to sign it because it was a load of crap The guy about fell over and said (Ithaca) told you that? I just said yep and walked away." 04-15-2003 08:31 "

Anyone who would brag about telling a lie is a real lowlife!

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, You're wrong again.

 

[Ten Bears]

I am, prove it.

 

[Oak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> and I realized just how little benefit the school kids get from grazing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Elkgunner, YOU should be a lawyer!

Oak

 

[Lostagain]

I don't know how Idaho taxes are, but MT has a property tax as well as an income tax and a select sales tax.
In MT, the moneys paid in by those folks leasing that land; AG, mining, petro, commerical, cabin sites, homes, etcetc. from the state ground is supposedly to be used to fund the public K-12 schools. Now every one of those activities may or may not be a 'money maker' for the state based on the value of that ground, but the activities generate so much more value that can be taxed do make up the shortfall and then some.
Since you all are so bothered by the ag folks... each extra cow that rancher can have b/c of his lease....those extra cows are taxed as property. That cabin on that state ground is taxed, not the land but the cabin is.
I believe if you count up all the EXTRA taxes that come in b/c someone can have that extra, it would more than make up for the 'welfare' they are given. Do away with ALL the 'welfare', and the tax base will undoubtly shrink by more than just that welfare amount. Then who will make up that shortfall? yup, you urban homeowners. So your taxes will go up and listen to ya scream some more.