Point Creep
Well-known member
I see this mentioned a lot. I'm curious to a definition and some explanation.
What's a "Welfare Rancher?"
- Thread starter Point Creep
- Start date
feclnogn
New member
A welfare rancher according to some is an individual who grazes hit cattle on public land and does not pay the same amount, say that a feed lot would. They also rape the land destroy habitat for pretty little birds and generally cause complete destruction of the earth.
These folks then proceed to go hunting on public land with out paying a fee, so therefore you could argue that they are "welfare" hunters cuz they do not pay the same amount as one would to hunt private land.
Calling someone a welfare rancher sounds really cool when you are with your anti use buds drinking Heineken and watching HG TV.
I would equate the term welfare rancher about = to using a racial slur. It gets your point across with out any real supporting evidence. Just hatred and jeolosy.
edited to keep from hurting any feelings
That ought to get em going.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Now flame away
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-03-2004 17:01: Message edited by: feclnogn ]</font>
These folks then proceed to go hunting on public land with out paying a fee, so therefore you could argue that they are "welfare" hunters cuz they do not pay the same amount as one would to hunt private land.
Calling someone a welfare rancher sounds really cool when you are with your anti use buds drinking Heineken and watching HG TV.
I would equate the term welfare rancher about = to using a racial slur. It gets your point across with out any real supporting evidence. Just hatred and jeolosy.
edited to keep from hurting any feelings
That ought to get em going.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Now flame away
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-03-2004 17:01: Message edited by: feclnogn ]</font>
Ithaca 37
New member
Basically, when a rancher is allowed to turn a cow and calf (one AUM) loose to graze on public land for $1.35 a month (less than it costs to feed a canary), that's welfare ranching.
Here's a good explanation: "Whether on public or private lands, the western livestock industry is subsidized in multiple ways. First, there is the abundance of federal and state funding that props up the industry, including below-market grazing fees, emergency feed programs, low-interest federal farm loans, and many other taxpayer-funded programs.
Even more important are the environmental costs-most of them not counted in any way, and certainly not absorbed by livestock producers. These costs include soil erosion; degraded water quality and the costs of cleanup; the spread of exotic weeds and the subsequent reduction in plant community productivity; and the costs of saving species endangered by livestock production.
Finally there are the social costs resulting from beef consumption. Though the subject is beyond the scope of this book, a heavy meat diet contributes to numerous health problems that society pays for directly and indirectly, from higher costs to reduced life expectancy."
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_intro.htm
Read the whole link (takes five minutes) for an over all picture.
There was some other topic recently where someone (maybe Ten Bears?) tried to make the case that public land hunters are "welfare hunters". As usual, with his dingbat ideas, he was soundly refuted, embarrassed, defeated, disgraced, humiliated, scorned, and laughed off the forum.
Maybe someone can remember what that topic was.
Here's some more reading on the subject of welfare ranching:
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-03-2004 17:59: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>
Here's a good explanation: "Whether on public or private lands, the western livestock industry is subsidized in multiple ways. First, there is the abundance of federal and state funding that props up the industry, including below-market grazing fees, emergency feed programs, low-interest federal farm loans, and many other taxpayer-funded programs.
Even more important are the environmental costs-most of them not counted in any way, and certainly not absorbed by livestock producers. These costs include soil erosion; degraded water quality and the costs of cleanup; the spread of exotic weeds and the subsequent reduction in plant community productivity; and the costs of saving species endangered by livestock production.
Finally there are the social costs resulting from beef consumption. Though the subject is beyond the scope of this book, a heavy meat diet contributes to numerous health problems that society pays for directly and indirectly, from higher costs to reduced life expectancy."
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_intro.htm
Read the whole link (takes five minutes) for an over all picture.
There was some other topic recently where someone (maybe Ten Bears?) tried to make the case that public land hunters are "welfare hunters". As usual, with his dingbat ideas, he was soundly refuted, embarrassed, defeated, disgraced, humiliated, scorned, and laughed off the forum.
Here's some more reading on the subject of welfare ranching:
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-03-2004 17:59: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>
feclnogn
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finally there are the social costs resulting from beef consumption. Though the subject is beyond the scope of this book, a heavy meat diet contributes to numerous health problems that society pays for directly and indirectly, from higher costs to reduced life expectancy." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So this is the rancher fault? Posting shit like this Ithaca makes you look like a loon.
So this is the rancher fault? Posting shit like this Ithaca makes you look like a loon.
Ithaca 37
New member
OK, so don't read that chapter.
I assume you agree with the rest of the quote. We can discuss unhealthy beef diets some other time.
"Approximately 400,000 Americans a year die prematurely as a result of an unhealthy diet and a sedentary lifestyle. Fat and artery-clogging saturated fat are two of the main culprits. Ground beef adds more fat to the average American's diet than any other single food. Yet in many supermarkets, ground beef labels make health and nutrition claims that wouldn't be allowed on most other foods. For example.......:"
http://www.cspinet.org/nutrition/grbeef.htm
" "The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of real food for real people, you'd better live real close to a real good hospital."
-- Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C.
I'd love to debate health concerns related to eating beef someday in SI!
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-03-2004 19:29: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>
"Approximately 400,000 Americans a year die prematurely as a result of an unhealthy diet and a sedentary lifestyle. Fat and artery-clogging saturated fat are two of the main culprits. Ground beef adds more fat to the average American's diet than any other single food. Yet in many supermarkets, ground beef labels make health and nutrition claims that wouldn't be allowed on most other foods. For example.......:"
http://www.cspinet.org/nutrition/grbeef.htm
" "The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of real food for real people, you'd better live real close to a real good hospital."
-- Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C.
I'd love to debate health concerns related to eating beef someday in SI!
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-03-2004 19:29: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>
Point Creep
Well-known member
Ok I get it now. Cattle ranchers are like satan. Funny about that...most of the ones I know work hard 7 days a week and don't have a whole lot to show for it other than their property.
All the dirt cheap grazing and subsidies must not be that attractive though. If they were, most of the ranchers around here wouldn't be throwing their arms up and selling to the Californians and East Coasters who subdivide and build thier dream homes. Being called "welfare ranchers" probably doesn't make that decision too difficult.
I don't know about Idaho, but in most of MT if you put houses on all the private property (welfare ranchers' places), there probably won't be too much wildlife to worry about on the nearby public land.
I eat beef every time I go to a restraunt. There's nothing better than a big old fatty beef steak!!
All the dirt cheap grazing and subsidies must not be that attractive though. If they were, most of the ranchers around here wouldn't be throwing their arms up and selling to the Californians and East Coasters who subdivide and build thier dream homes. Being called "welfare ranchers" probably doesn't make that decision too difficult.
I don't know about Idaho, but in most of MT if you put houses on all the private property (welfare ranchers' places), there probably won't be too much wildlife to worry about on the nearby public land.
I eat beef every time I go to a restraunt. There's nothing better than a big old fatty beef steak!!
JoseCuervo
New member
Greenhorn,
The way I use the term Welfare Rancher is to classify all who graze on Public Lands. The costs of managing the grazing programs are not covered by the minimal fee paid per AUM. Hence, they require Welfare from the government to be able to feed their cattle.
We run our cattle on 100% private pastures. I would love to see every last Welfare Rancher go out of business, as it would increase the value of the other 90% of the ranchers in the country, including my folks balance sheet, mine, and my kids. And why should the other 90% subsidize the 10% by providing them assets (public land) to compete with the 90%?
Don't hesitate to eat beef at a restraunt, as 90% of what you eat was not raised on Public Lands, rather it was on private lands, or imported.
The way I use the term Welfare Rancher is to classify all who graze on Public Lands. The costs of managing the grazing programs are not covered by the minimal fee paid per AUM. Hence, they require Welfare from the government to be able to feed their cattle.
We run our cattle on 100% private pastures. I would love to see every last Welfare Rancher go out of business, as it would increase the value of the other 90% of the ranchers in the country, including my folks balance sheet, mine, and my kids. And why should the other 90% subsidize the 10% by providing them assets (public land) to compete with the 90%?
Don't hesitate to eat beef at a restraunt, as 90% of what you eat was not raised on Public Lands, rather it was on private lands, or imported.
Ithaca 37
New member
Yup, all the subsidies still aren't enough to keep them from selling out when the price is right. And working hard seven days a week isn't any excuse for 65% of all BLM being in poor condition due to grazing. The fact is that all private land is in danger of being subdivided in the next 100 years, so the best thing for hunters and fishermen to do is make sure the piblic land is in the best possible condition for wildlife habitat. Public land is the future of hunting and fishing.
feclnogn
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We run our cattle on 100% private pastures. I would love to see every last Welfare Rancher go out of business, as it would increase the value of the other 90% of the ranchers in the country, including my folks balance sheet, mine, and my kids. And why should the other 90% subsidize the 10% by providing them assets (public land) to compete with the 90%?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So in a nutshell by removing competition your prices will go up, and in the end, the consumer (me) has to pay more.
One of the arguments that the "welfare rancher" has always made was that the low cost of grazing kept cattle prices at a reasonable level. This is usually poo pooed by the enviro crowd, but you are here claiming that it is indeed true.
So the welfare rancher is correct?
On a side not gunner or ithaca or buzz, have you ever been involved with welfare receipients? LEt me tell ya I work with them every day, and there is absolutely no comparison between them (the ranchers) and the trash living off of the government with their ebt, foodstamps and god knows what else these people get. NONE.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-03-2004 22:56: Message edited by: feclnogn ]</font>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So in a nutshell by removing competition your prices will go up, and in the end, the consumer (me) has to pay more.
One of the arguments that the "welfare rancher" has always made was that the low cost of grazing kept cattle prices at a reasonable level. This is usually poo pooed by the enviro crowd, but you are here claiming that it is indeed true.
So the welfare rancher is correct?
On a side not gunner or ithaca or buzz, have you ever been involved with welfare receipients? LEt me tell ya I work with them every day, and there is absolutely no comparison between them (the ranchers) and the trash living off of the government with their ebt, foodstamps and god knows what else these people get. NONE.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-03-2004 22:56: Message edited by: feclnogn ]</font>
JoseCuervo
New member
Fec,
End Welfare Ranching and the subsides end to Public Land grazers, resulting in less taxes paid by me, more $$$ kept in my bank account.
This topic has been debated many times, and nobody has yet to explain what value Welfare Ranchers bring to the system. If you really eat enough beef each year, that you rely on artificially low beef prices to put food on your table, then you must not be a very good hunter.
I have never heard the Welfare Rancher claim that they are doing it for the good of the consumer
. That statement is beyond belief. Beef is a commodity, and the price is determined by Supply and Demand, not cost of production. The Cost of Production may influence Supply in some manner, but usually as a laggard.
End Welfare Ranching and the subsides end to Public Land grazers, resulting in less taxes paid by me, more $$$ kept in my bank account.
This topic has been debated many times, and nobody has yet to explain what value Welfare Ranchers bring to the system. If you really eat enough beef each year, that you rely on artificially low beef prices to put food on your table, then you must not be a very good hunter.
I have never heard the Welfare Rancher claim that they are doing it for the good of the consumer
Ten Bears
New member
EG,IT, & et all, could you show me how much your taxes would decrease with the elimination of grazing allotments on public lands????
EG, if you are a "big" cattleman, why not bid for some of these "leases" and demonstrate healthy grazing practices?
EG, if you are a "big" cattleman, why not bid for some of these "leases" and demonstrate healthy grazing practices?
Nemont
Well-known member
Elkgunner,
If we ended public lands grazing it doesn't necessarily mean that your taxes go down. I would be surprised if any agency which now manages lands for the Govt. would ever shrink in size. So I believe that arguement may be invalid. Maybe not. I just don't see government agency ever getting smaller.
Nemont
If we ended public lands grazing it doesn't necessarily mean that your taxes go down. I would be surprised if any agency which now manages lands for the Govt. would ever shrink in size. So I believe that arguement may be invalid. Maybe not. I just don't see government agency ever getting smaller.
Nemont
JoseCuervo
New member
Ten Beers,
Forest Service and BLM leases are not competitive leases. They are tied to a "base" piece of property. If you sell the Base Piece, the lease goes to the new owner. Yeppers, they sell the rights to Public Lands.
Nemont,
Probably no "actual" decline in taxes, but there is a "theoretical" decline that would be possible, and not just for me, but for you, and the guy in Texas, and the guy in Vermont, and the guy in Florida, and the guy in South Carolina, and the guy in Californa...etc.. etc...
I love to see people defending the practice of the Government providing the assets for production. And as Fecal inferred, in order to manage the market prices of a commodity/food staple. I believe that has been tried, and lasted about 70 years, from about 1917 until 1988 and the end of Communism. Why on earth do people want the Government to subsidize/direct their production? I believe that it is still being tried in North Korea, China, Cuba, and the Western United States.
Forest Service and BLM leases are not competitive leases. They are tied to a "base" piece of property. If you sell the Base Piece, the lease goes to the new owner. Yeppers, they sell the rights to Public Lands.
Nemont,
Probably no "actual" decline in taxes, but there is a "theoretical" decline that would be possible, and not just for me, but for you, and the guy in Texas, and the guy in Vermont, and the guy in Florida, and the guy in South Carolina, and the guy in Californa...etc.. etc...
I love to see people defending the practice of the Government providing the assets for production. And as Fecal inferred, in order to manage the market prices of a commodity/food staple. I believe that has been tried, and lasted about 70 years, from about 1917 until 1988 and the end of Communism. Why on earth do people want the Government to subsidize/direct their production? I believe that it is still being tried in North Korea, China, Cuba, and the Western United States.
dgibson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Forest Service and BLM leases are not competitive leases. They are tied to a "base" piece of property. If you sell the Base Piece, the lease goes to the new owner. Yeppers, they sell the rights to Public Lands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can corroborate this. I saw an ad a while back for a ranch sale; it included x number of actual acres of property, and y more acres of BLM grazing property. The BLM stuff was being sold at a cost equivalent to the actual private acreage, which just simply blew my mind. I still can't believe that people will actually pay real-property money for something they, by definition, cannot own. It further blows my mind that the gubmint would allow it.
Ithaca, I think you know that blaming the beef industry for people's obesity and sedentary lifestyle is just a little bit ridiculous. Puh-leez.
Ithaca, I think you know that blaming the beef industry for people's obesity and sedentary lifestyle is just a little bit ridiculous. Puh-leez.
Ithaca 37
New member
dg, All I did was quote the Dr.
" "The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of real food for real people, you'd better live real close to a real good hospital."
-- Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C.
" "The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of real food for real people, you'd better live real close to a real good hospital."
-- Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C.
feclnogn
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
These guys are anti meat period. They issued a "report" on the atkins diet a few months back and were discredited for thier stance on it. Why dont you pull some quotes from PETA while you are at it Ithaca.
These guys are anti meat period. They issued a "report" on the atkins diet a few months back and were discredited for thier stance on it. Why dont you pull some quotes from PETA while you are at it Ithaca.
Ithaca 37
New member
dgibson
New member
Yes, and McDonald's is responsible for fat kids, and gun manufacturers are responsible for crime, and the Grand Buffet is responsible for the...um...robust lady who just couldn't say 'no' to that second helping of chicken wings.
As I said before, puh-leeze.
As I said before, puh-leeze.
RockyDog
Member
Greenhorn, very good topic. I would like to see the guys who call them "welfare ranchers" go out to some ranchers house in March, they may have to sit and wait in his living room until around 12:30pm because he will be out in a blizzard pulling calves. He'll be happy to see the little 4WD subaru in his driveway and even more happy to hear that he is a "welfare rancher" sucking on the govt teet.
We need ranchers, and most big game on public forests winters on private lands. The game may not do to well on overgrazed land, but its a hell of a lot better than a bunch of rich phucking yuppy rancher-hating move-ins building there 10,000 square foot dream starter castles all over the west.
And most ranchers are good people.
I wonder if there is a website for ranchers who hate computer dweeb trophy hunters?
We need ranchers, and most big game on public forests winters on private lands. The game may not do to well on overgrazed land, but its a hell of a lot better than a bunch of rich phucking yuppy rancher-hating move-ins building there 10,000 square foot dream starter castles all over the west.
And most ranchers are good people.
I wonder if there is a website for ranchers who hate computer dweeb trophy hunters?
Point Creep
Well-known member
RockyDog, I think we agree on that.
I bet you'd really prefer a few of these satanic blood-sucking welfare ranchers in the Bitterroot Valley these days. No value at all to them is there.
When are you going to leave that Griz-loving hippee infested city and come by and have a cheap can of beer with me? Leave that yuppie micro piss at home with all your dreadlocked brethern.
I bet you'd really prefer a few of these satanic blood-sucking welfare ranchers in the Bitterroot Valley these days. No value at all to them is there.
When are you going to leave that Griz-loving hippee infested city and come by and have a cheap can of beer with me? Leave that yuppie micro piss at home with all your dreadlocked brethern.
