Calif. Hunter
Active member
Where are you at, ScottyMack?
What's a Yuppie Starter Castle???
- Thread starter JoseCuervo
- Start date
JoseCuervo
New member
So... if Joe and Sue Whitetrash haul the single wide out toward the mountains, throw the tires on the roof, build 1/2 a redwood deck, take the tires off the 78 Dodge, pull the motor out of the 86 Cutlass, turn 9 dogs and 8 chickens out in the yard, and send 13 inbred kids to the schoolbus every morning, that would be ok?
But if they have a 5000 square foot house, they are hurting Winter range??? Sounds to me like the issue is not the people, nor the house, but actually a lack of zoning/planning on the county's part.
Are you guys, that are concerned with Yuppie Castles, contributing to the Conservation organizations that are buying Conservation Easements? That would seem like the way to address the situation.
Am I missing anything here? I don't feel the outrage.... I just don't think Sally Struthers, the fat chick from All In the Family, is going to be too successful raising money to stop this plauge....
But if they have a 5000 square foot house, they are hurting Winter range??? Sounds to me like the issue is not the people, nor the house, but actually a lack of zoning/planning on the county's part.
Are you guys, that are concerned with Yuppie Castles, contributing to the Conservation organizations that are buying Conservation Easements? That would seem like the way to address the situation.
Am I missing anything here? I don't feel the outrage.... I just don't think Sally Struthers, the fat chick from All In the Family, is going to be too successful raising money to stop this plauge....
cjcj
New member
Yep overpopulation/growth are "bad" [where does it end?] Reading Beardowns javelina story cracked me up, i`ve ran into many of those big city Yupps that scream OH MY GOD! ITS DEAD! when they see a critter with some blood on it in the back of the truck.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,621
ElkGunner, Come on, I know you have a brain in there somewhere. Do you really think it's Joe and Sue Whitetrash that are buying up the ranch ground along the forest and subdividing it with trailers? Get a grip on reality. The issue is the loss of ranchland, habitat, and much of the time, winter range.
JoseCuervo
New member
Greenhorn,
You may be wrong on the assumption of a brain in there somewhere.... Maybe just a 1/2 a brain...
But now that you have framed the issue as the loss of ranchland, habitat, and winter range, how do you address it? My answer would be to make sure the critters are healthy on the Summer range, instead of fighting for every last blade of nutrition with the Angus crosses of the Welfare Rancher.
Other solutions could be buying up Conservation Easements like RMEF does in Idaho, ICL and Nature Conservancy do similar.
I am a bit skeptical that by providing subsidized grazing land for some Welfare Rancher's 350 head of cows is going to prevent him fom selling his base 200 acres when some developer offers him a couple of Million $$$$. Most ranchers I know would never see a higher offer from somebody else that raises cattle. One can live pretty well off of the intereset/earnings of a couple of million dollars, and never have to pull another calf at 3am.
I think the tide from the economics of development you are fighting are nearly impossible to sway without creative ideas. Depending on somebody to keep raising cattle and eek out a $40k living, when he is sitting on a couple of million $$$ of land is a tough expectation.
You may be wrong on the assumption of a brain in there somewhere.... Maybe just a 1/2 a brain...
But now that you have framed the issue as the loss of ranchland, habitat, and winter range, how do you address it? My answer would be to make sure the critters are healthy on the Summer range, instead of fighting for every last blade of nutrition with the Angus crosses of the Welfare Rancher.
Other solutions could be buying up Conservation Easements like RMEF does in Idaho, ICL and Nature Conservancy do similar.
I am a bit skeptical that by providing subsidized grazing land for some Welfare Rancher's 350 head of cows is going to prevent him fom selling his base 200 acres when some developer offers him a couple of Million $$$$. Most ranchers I know would never see a higher offer from somebody else that raises cattle. One can live pretty well off of the intereset/earnings of a couple of million dollars, and never have to pull another calf at 3am.
I think the tide from the economics of development you are fighting are nearly impossible to sway without creative ideas. Depending on somebody to keep raising cattle and eek out a $40k living, when he is sitting on a couple of million $$$ of land is a tough expectation.
RockyDog
Member
I didnt realize the issue was if Joe Whitetrash could afford to pay 300k for a 20 acre lot on prime winter range, this is way out of orbit. The people that can afford 300k plus another half mill for a castle to do so, and then the elk herds dont winter there, they get split into smaller herds unless somebody wants to pay to feed them like jackson hole. But if its good enough for you to see a few elk eating in the lawns, then hey, whatever blows your skirt up.
Elkgunner, I could see your point if there were such a thing as a 200 acre landowner using the big grazing allotments. This may be true in idaho, but where we are from we are talking more in the several thousands of acres.
I dont see why everybody new to the west hates ranchers. Some of them abuse the system, which should change. But it is one subsidy out of the thousands that our govt funds, and i think preserving the ranching way of life not only makes since for feeding our country, it also preserves a great way of life for hardworking honest people.
For all of you who say it doesnt make a difference if we appreciate the rancher, you are wrong. I have many friends and family in that business. If you felt like all the people building on your property line to look at your open space just plain hated you and thought you were on "welfare", what would you do?
whew, and.....
dont think for one minute that we are not subsidizing every rich californian's dream starter castle in the mountains. The Forest Service spends MILLIONS to save every dam summer home up in the trees AT NO COST TO THE MILLIONAIRE HOMEOWNER. NOW THAT IS "WELFARE".
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-09-2004 10:27: Message edited by: RockyDog ]</font>
Elkgunner, I could see your point if there were such a thing as a 200 acre landowner using the big grazing allotments. This may be true in idaho, but where we are from we are talking more in the several thousands of acres.
I dont see why everybody new to the west hates ranchers. Some of them abuse the system, which should change. But it is one subsidy out of the thousands that our govt funds, and i think preserving the ranching way of life not only makes since for feeding our country, it also preserves a great way of life for hardworking honest people.
For all of you who say it doesnt make a difference if we appreciate the rancher, you are wrong. I have many friends and family in that business. If you felt like all the people building on your property line to look at your open space just plain hated you and thought you were on "welfare", what would you do?
whew, and.....
dont think for one minute that we are not subsidizing every rich californian's dream starter castle in the mountains. The Forest Service spends MILLIONS to save every dam summer home up in the trees AT NO COST TO THE MILLIONAIRE HOMEOWNER. NOW THAT IS "WELFARE".
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-09-2004 10:27: Message edited by: RockyDog ]</font>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Forest Service spends MILLIONS to save every dam summer home up in the trees AT NO COST TO THE MILLIONAIRE HOMEOWNER. NOW THAT IS "WELFARE". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now that I agree on!!
I for one would rather see ranches than subdivisions. But, there is no way we can make these people keep their land as it is. Property rights can be a double edged sword. That aside, this type of issue is why I support habitat minded groups, especially those who agressively help people get into conservation easements. If we want these open spaces we have to pay the $$ to keep them that way.
FWIW, I think the adjective 'welfare' was added in ill-intentioned jest to get a rise out of a few and has stuck.
I for one would rather see ranches than subdivisions. But, there is no way we can make these people keep their land as it is. Property rights can be a double edged sword. That aside, this type of issue is why I support habitat minded groups, especially those who agressively help people get into conservation easements. If we want these open spaces we have to pay the $$ to keep them that way.
FWIW, I think the adjective 'welfare' was added in ill-intentioned jest to get a rise out of a few and has stuck.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
They should let those fires burn, if some idiots' houses burn up, that is their problem. That is what insurance is for.
JoseCuervo
New member
RockyDog,
We are all in agreement, let the Fires burn, and burn down their houses. If you give them the risk that their house will burn down every 20 years, their insurance will be prohibitive and they would not want the emotional trauma. I live within 100 yards of Federal land, and I don't expect the Nat'l Interagency Fire Center boys to protect me. I look to my local Fire Department and the Insurance company.
If their houses burn down, the demand of the subdivisions will be less.
And are you sure the Ranchers that are selling out to subdivisions are Welfare Ranchers or are they regular ranchers?
Look at it this way, right now, in Montana, the conversion of ranches to subdivisions is enough to concern you AND piss you off, correct? And grazing on Public Lands is allowed. I would doubt a single one of those ranchers lost a lease and decided to sell-out. Something tells me that the most likely contributing factor is not the loss of lease, but rather the $$$ waved at the end of their Marlboro cigarette.
I think it is a big leap to assume the end of Welfare Ranching will create more subdivisions.
But again, I ask, what are the other solutions? I think Conservation Easements are the only sure fire way to address the problem, how about you? Even if you allow grazing, and the Welfare Rancher stays in business this year, how do you know he won't sell out next year? Are you satisfied with a short term solution, or would you like to know your children, grand children, and great-grandchildren will have places to hunt?
We are all in agreement, let the Fires burn, and burn down their houses. If you give them the risk that their house will burn down every 20 years, their insurance will be prohibitive and they would not want the emotional trauma. I live within 100 yards of Federal land, and I don't expect the Nat'l Interagency Fire Center boys to protect me. I look to my local Fire Department and the Insurance company.
If their houses burn down, the demand of the subdivisions will be less.
And are you sure the Ranchers that are selling out to subdivisions are Welfare Ranchers or are they regular ranchers?
Look at it this way, right now, in Montana, the conversion of ranches to subdivisions is enough to concern you AND piss you off, correct? And grazing on Public Lands is allowed. I would doubt a single one of those ranchers lost a lease and decided to sell-out. Something tells me that the most likely contributing factor is not the loss of lease, but rather the $$$ waved at the end of their Marlboro cigarette.
I think it is a big leap to assume the end of Welfare Ranching will create more subdivisions.
But again, I ask, what are the other solutions? I think Conservation Easements are the only sure fire way to address the problem, how about you? Even if you allow grazing, and the Welfare Rancher stays in business this year, how do you know he won't sell out next year? Are you satisfied with a short term solution, or would you like to know your children, grand children, and great-grandchildren will have places to hunt?
beardown
New member
I have to agree with you Gunner. I think the long term should be addressed and your right , who's to say they wont sell out tomarrow. .....But if I agree with you , dont think I'll be your lap dog!
How many here would balk at the chance to go from a job that is very hardwork for $40-60K per year to one that requires no work and makes you millions??
I think we as a segment of society must start making are wishes felt with $$$$! The only problem I see is that if $$ is invested in private lands, do we then have a say on it's management??
Especially if these programs are federally funded/subsidized??
For now conservation easements seem to be the best solution, but who knows how they'll be treated by the courts in 50-100 years.
I think we as a segment of society must start making are wishes felt with $$$$! The only problem I see is that if $$ is invested in private lands, do we then have a say on it's management??
For now conservation easements seem to be the best solution, but who knows how they'll be treated by the courts in 50-100 years.
Similar threads
