Welfare ranchers in MT want even more

[Muledeer4me]

Dgibson,that is all I have been trying to get across,
Is that it isnt a fair statement to paint everyone in a bad light over those that are doing wrong.
Sure Marvel does win some and rightly so in some cases---------But then he goes on and state's his intent is to flat run the rancher off.
Working anything out isnt his goal.
I will stand by my statement that Marvel is one of the lowest of people I have seen.
There are many other org. that are working with rancher's and hunter's & outdoor group's that REALLY have the best interest of the land in mind,and understand that there are indeed good working ranchers out there that have and are doing a good job.
I can and do support those group's.
I never will understand anyone that work's like Marvel and run's down good people .
No one I have talked to (with the exception of Ithaca) has said they like Marvel ,they admit some of his stuff is needed but that his end result is out of line and the way he works is wrong.

Hell he was the only group that was told he could not be apart of the Owyhee Initiative,out of ten group's that are working on it The Western Watershed Project headed by Jon Marvel was barred from being apart of it.
That should tell people something about him.
Im all for making people toe the line and do what's required ,but we all know if we dont have view's that fit into Ithaca and Marvel's line of hard ass warped thinking we must be stupid!!!!!!
Many of us have stated we want reform,we need rule's, But the only thing we get back is being told how stupid we are, WHY? Because we arent following Ithaca's view's that he want's to ram up everyone's butt,as the only truth out there.
Like I have said (and many of the other poster's have said)it isnt the abuser we are standing up for,it is the person that is getting trashed and hurt when they do not deserve it!!!!

There are alot of good rancher's out there ,just as there are alot of good hunter's,ATV rider's and it pain's me to admit this LOL but good invironmentalist

These Rancher's are trying to do what they can to let people know that are willing to do what it takes to get along ----------Marvel will not back off the law suites long enough to let them do it.
Most of these ranchers are small time ,and do not have the money to both fight in court and keep there places up.
We are not talking about big money here.
But like Marvel --the only way some poster's know how to win or get there way is by bad mouthing and talking down to everyone that doesn't have there same view's .
I do know how to spot a good heart and it isnt Marvel or anyone that has to call others stupid all the time to get there point across.

 

[Ithaca 37]

"These Rancher's are trying to do what they can to let people know that are willing to do what it takes to get along ----------Marvel will not back off the law suites long enough to let them do it."

Exactly how much time do they need? Would one more year be enough time for them to show they can obey the law? The law has been clear for many years and Marvel has been pointing it out for at least ten.

"Many of us have stated we want reform,we need rule's,..."

You've got all the rules you need. When Marvel sees to it that they are enforced you whine about it!

"Most of these ranchers are small time ,....."

After all this time you still don't know who the public land grazers are. Why don't you tell us how small time the thirty largest public land grazers are? And what percent of BLM and FS are they grazing?

The small timers should really be pissed off about what the big timers have done to bring all this trouble on to the whole industry!

And if you want to see how much the small timers are doing to reform their grazing practices I'll be more than happy to tell you a couple of places nearby to go take a look at land that is grazed right down to the bare dirt.

Here's a good place to start. Go to Horseshoe Bend, turn West and head for Emmett. Notice the private land in the first mile, especially. Then take a look at all of it to Emmett. You'll have a nice drive in the country and lots of beautiful well cared for public and private land to look at! Then get back on this board and try to tell me those ranchers care about the land!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-24-2002 10:15: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[MarlandS]

Well, let's talk about why they have the name welfare ranchers...

Farm Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 23,342
in Idaho
Recipients from this state received $1,105,257,391 from 1996-2001

RANK NAME LOCATION FARM SUBSIDY TOTAL
1996-2001
1 Double C Farms Burley, ID 83318 $2,945,519.91
2 Thompson Farms Pingree, ID 83262 $2,851,302.00
3 Cranney Bros Oakley, ID 83346 $2,526,431.95
4 Barker Ag Soda Springs, ID 83276 $2,053,266.54
5 Century Farms Joint Venture Pingree, ID 83262 $1,909,136.89
6 Larry Boyer Ld & Cattle Company Culdesac, ID 83524 $1,905,707.27
7 Polatis Farms Blackfoot, ID 83221 $1,785,388.94
8 Barry J Christensen And Sons Blackfoot, ID 83221 $1,644,280.51
9 Raft River Farms Burley, ID 83318 $1,641,915.62
10 Spratling Farms Burley, ID 83318 $1,501,170.80
11 Driscoll Brothers Aberdeen, ID 83210 $1,494,832.94
12 Green Ranch, Partnership Grangeville, ID 83530 $1,472,823.55
13 Weston & Weston Rockland, ID 83271 $1,452,093.23
14 Cornelison Farms Part Rexburg, ID 83440 $1,438,274.33*
15 G Hofmeister And Sons American Falls, ID 83211 $1,422,154.70
16 Foster Land & Cattle Co Ptr Rigby, ID 83442 $1,417,575.45
17 Ward Farms Arbon, ID 83212 $1,398,147.71
18 Golden Ridge Farms Rupert, ID 83350 $1,393,925.99
19 Wiley Wagner Farms Craigmont, ID 83523 $1,377,902.84
20 Mickelsen Farms Idaho Falls, ID 83401 $1,362,803.55
Source: USDA. Compiled by EWG.

Montana... Recipients from this state received $2,293,188,811 from 1996-2001
1 Dnrc, Trust Land Management Helena, MT 59620 $21,249,638.10
2 Montana Board Of Investments-sep Bozeman, MT 59772 $12,692,206.27
3 Neil Johnson Farms Cut Bank, MT 59427 $3,185,173.80
4 Singleton Farms Miles City, MT 59301 $2,748,666.40
5 Windancer Farms General Partnersh Cohagen, MT 59322 $2,303,939.64
6 Manchester Farming Partnership Black Eagle, MT 59414 $1,974,434.68
7 Patriot Farms Billings, MT 59105 $1,904,880.77
8 Me 2 Ag Partners Billings, MT 59105 $1,871,457.59
9 Williams Brothers Big Sandy, MT 59520 $1,846,845.31
10 Bliss Farms Partnership Conrad, MT 59425 $1,746,662.69
11 Fort Peck Tribes Poplar, MT 59255 $1,742,389.53
12 D B Kraft Farms Cut Bank, MT 59427 $1,723,193.12
13 K B Farming Conrad, MT 59425 $1,676,046.39
14 Snowy Mountain Farms Lewistown, MT 59457 $1,642,790.00
15 Aageson Grain & Cattle Gildford, MT 59525 $1,642,444.75
16 Ralph Johnson Farms Browning, MT 59417 $1,627,931.58
17 Henke Land & Grain Chinook, MT 59523 $1,595,052.19
18 Knerr Ranch Roy, MT 59471 $1,541,956.78
19 Bowman Farms Ii Belt, MT 59412 $1,517,629.75
20 Toeckes Farms Power, MT 59468 $1,516,395.35
Source: USDA. Compiled by EWG.

{b] those are your tax dollars do you really think you should even be paying trespass fees? {/b] The hell of it is, it's nation wide.
Find your favorite right here.. http://www.ewg.org/farm/

 

[Lostagain]

And here is the real kicker.
You as a taxpayer agreed to pay them thru your reps. You also agreed to pay them for conservation measures, you also agreed to pay them to take land out of production, improvements to water systems, and ersoion control. You agreed to pay them for these things amongst other provisions. And now, that they have played the game to your rules, you're pissed and want to change the rules.

 

[MarlandS]

NOw how am I going to stir anyone up with replies like that

 

[MarlandS]

Oh wait, yeah, THEY WERE CRAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS...

 

[dgibson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>those are your tax dollars do you really think you should even be paying trespass fees?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And now, that they have played the game to your rules, you're pissed and want to change the rules.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True enough that we agreed to do pay subsidies. But what does that have to do with giving them welfare game tags? I NEVER agreed to that. Or does giving them one subsidy automatically mean that we should give them whatever the heck they want?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-24-2002 12:34: Message edited by: dgibson ]</font>

 

[Michaelr]

from the same web page.

Why has EWG created the Farm Subsidy Database?
Farm assistance is vital for agriculture and rural America. We need robust programs to support farmers’ incomes while helping them protect our natural resources and the environment. EWG staff have worked for many years on policies that have brought billions of dollars in support to the farm sector through the conservation programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve and other important conservation programs.

We think even more conservation support is warranted, which is why EWG worked hard during the farm bill process in 2002 to get more funding for these programs.

Most farmers and ranchers in the U.S. receive little or no assistance from traditional crop subsidy programs. The only way they do get some help is through USDA’s conservation programs. Unfortunately, tens of thousands of farmers who have applied for USDA conservation programs, for instance, have been turned away because those programs have been chronically under-funded. Why? In almost every state, there are multi-million dollar backlogs of applications of farmers and ranchers waiting to get into the program.

The good news is that the new farm bill, the “Farm Security and Rural Investment Act” enacted into law in May of 2002, provided significantly more conservation funding for key programs. Over the next ten years, at least $40 billion will be spent to reduce soil erosion, improve wildlife habitat and save prime farmland from sprawl. Does EWG think this is enough? Probably not because the demand for this money will far outstrip even these resources, but it’s a start.

At the same time, based on projected crop prices, Congress provided about $130 billion in crop subsidies over the next ten years under the new farm bill. According to USDA, this money will only go to approximately 40 percent of all farms that grow the eligible crops. So, while ALL farms are eligible for only $40 billion in conservation funding, only about 40 percent of farms may get $130 billion in crop subsides. Get the picture? Most farms will get less under the new farm bill because most of the money is tied up in crop-specific subsidies that are only grown on about 40 percent of all farms.

EWG’s Farm Subsidy Database is an unprecedented source of information. It lets people know who is receiving the conservation and crop subsidy money provided under the old farm statute and under the newly enacted one. So, you will want to continue monitoring the website for updates. As soon as EWG receives data from USDA, it will be posted.

 

[MarlandS]

WTF Mike, serious info coming from you??? I'll send a get well card ;D

This ain't going the way I had hoped at all.

OH an FYI, the operation I'm part of is on the list too..... since all the fun is already ruined.....

 

[Michaelr]

Our ranch, nor the rancher who leases from us is not on the list.
imagine that

 

[Lostagain]

I didn't look at the list, but I'm sure ours is on it. One of the rules to get on were take erosion prone ground out of crop production and seed it into grasses/etc. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to play by the rules they incorporate. Everybody that wants something from the gov't just needs to get in the right line to get your rep to push for "metoo". Pay attention to what the big boys are going to get and figure out how to qualify too.

 

[MarlandS]

That's exactly the bad part of it too, the big boys are dipping in hard, look at some of the top twenty, how many smaller operators that really need the help that could support.

I know exactly where the boss put most of his subsidy money, let's see , 7 1-week long trips to Fla, two to Acupulco, one to the Orient, one to Europe... (that was in 2002 alone) yeah he needs subsidies (plus he's drawing Soc. Security)

I really believe that once an operator has been in business 20 years or reaches a certain size, the programs should diminish, after all in most cases, if they haven't gotten solvent by then they probably won't make it.

The conservation part of it doen't get used as much as it should, I'll wager MOST of the subsidy money listed comes from LDP and other such things.

My family farm has never applied.....

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-24-2002 15:52: Message edited by: MarlandS ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Here's the list of Montana legislators getting subsidies:

http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=1168&issue=45

I knew this guy!!

""I know a guy who is a real conscientious manager in Idaho," the BLM employee says. "He locked horns with some ranchers. So they just pulled him out of [the district where he worked]. That's from a weakness from [state leadership]. It sends a message that says don't screw with these ranchers. It happened last year. Now he's in a trumped-up job in Boise. There were some politicians involved in all that."

Read the whole series!!

http://cascadia.times.org/archives/1999/cows4.htm

"But in the West, public lands livestock ranching accounts for about one-tenth of a percent of all jobs, according to a recent economic study of the region by University of Montana professor Thomas Powers."

http://cascadia.times.org/archives/1999/cows5.htm


Let's see your side of the story, you whining welfare cowboys!!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-24-2002 19:47: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[BigHornyRam]

Great debate and info being posted here lately!

Some questions to think about.

Would you be willing to hunt a ranch that would only allow you to take antlerless game?

If on the same ranch and given the opportunity and knew you could get away with it, would you shoot an antlered animal? Be honest.

Do you take time while hunting on private (and public for that matter) land, to pick up the cans and candy wrappers from the hog before you?

If you owned a ranch would you let a stranger hunt it?

Would you let a stranger hunt for horns?

If you were a land owner, what would be a reasonable solution to allow for public hunting?

Remember, If you have never paid a dime to buyout lease rights, and you like to use the term "welfare rancher", that the rancher who pays only a penny an acre to lease the land, is paying more to use the land than you are.

So let's quit whining and come up with some good ideas how to make this shitty plan better!


Merry Christmas,
Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-25-2002 14:00: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>

 

[The Hedgehog]

Paul, Hopefully this plan is shut down full stop. There is not one single reason for this idea to have to take place in MT. If a rancher wants to shut his place down, so be it... Become an outfitter, lease to one, allow fee hunting.. etc. There is no reason to allow them to sell licenses.. all the financial gain to be made on hunting is already currently available to ranchers.

I wouldn't call a rancher a "welfare rancher" unless they were one. There are some. There are also some real real good ranchers out there.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Would you be willing to hunt a ranch that would only allow you to take antlerless game?
___________

No.
_____________

If on the same ranch and given the opportunity and knew you could get away with it, would you shoot an antlered animal? Be honest.
___________

No. Remember, I wouldn't be there anyway.
______________

Do you take time while hunting on private (and public for that matter) land, to pick up the cans and candy wrappers from the hog before you?
______________________

Most of the time. I'd never get to hunt if I tried to pick it all up.
______________________

If you owned a ranch would you let a stranger hunt it?
______________________________

I own land and let people hunt, hike, camp, look for horns, etc.
_______________________________________

Would you let a stranger hunt for horns?

If you were a land owner, what would be a reasonable solution to allow for public hunting?
______________________________

First to ask gets permission until we think there's enough hunters on the land. Then we tell them we're full and to come back some other time. The signs say "Hunting with permission only"
_____________________________________

Remember, If you have never paid a dime to buyout lease rights, and you like to use the term "welfare rancher", that the rancher who pays only a penny an acre to lease the land, is paying more to use the land than you are.
______________________________

Actually, the grazing leases are a tax payer sudsidized welfare program. I pay taxes. The gummint would lose less money if they didn't lease grazing. Last time I checked, the grazing programs cost about twenty million dollars a year more than they brought in. The welfare ranchers should be kissing my ass for letting them graze. They should also have to pay the cost of rehabilitating the land they've destroyed. Including the cost of repairing riparian zones and streambanks. They'd owe the taxpayers billions of dollars to repair the damage they've done.

Try reading this report:

http://www.voteaction.org/reports/deranged.PDF

 

[schmalts]

Paul C, I would gladly pay a rancher to hunt his ranch if it was a reasonable fee,on quality land, not some overpriced outfitter deal but a fee to get on a great property to hunt on my own. Those are super hard to come by and i never have come by one. They are always leased out to outfitters who make hunting a rich mans sport. I would pay a rancher more than most outfitters would in fact, because i come from a long way and want a quality hunt and dont want some outfitter charging me for what i can do myself.

 

[dgibson]

There's a distinction here that has to be recognized. This isn't a situation where the public is coming to a rancher and asking for permission to hunt. The rancher is complaining about the wildlife and supposedly wants the population reduced, and therefore is asking for special tags. BUT, they only want those tags if they can SELL them. We're not talking about ranchers being forced to accept public hunting on their private property, we're talking about them crying for help and then wanting to profit from that help. If they were truly sincere about needing assistance they would either a) ask for tags to GIVE away as an incentive to get hunters to thin the herd or b) get tags useable by the landowner ONLY for the express purpose of thinning the herd.

That being said, it's a common belief among the management community that the quickest way to reduce a population is through its females. Paul's question about hunting on a cows-only property is valid. How many hunters would take a cow-only tag, even if it were free? We all talk about "meat for the table," but who would really DO it? If the only way for ranchers to attract a decent amount of hunting to their area is to offer bull tags, what's the point? There's little management advantage to it, so all it can ever really be is a vehicle for making money. Or so it seems.

 

[Ithaca 37]

I doubt any landowner with elk on his land would have any problem finding enough guys with cow permits to hunt them if the hunting were free. Most hunters with cow permits would love to be able to hunt on private land for them, or even to be able to cross private land to hunt them on public land behind the private.

There are many ranchers who whine and cry about the elk on their property and want money from the F&G for what the elk eat, but won't let people hunt or even cross their land.

Often one of the main reasons they have elk on their land is because they've overgrazed the public land around them so much there's nothing there for elk to eat.

 

[Lostagain]

The principle if the thing is the elk are the state's, not the individual's. The private land is private and the owner ought to be able to do as they wish. But the damage money shouldn't go to anyone charges for access to remove "surplus" game. IMO, anyone who pays for access should be hung by their balls on the fence, if there was no market for it, noone would be able to sell theirs.