What's up with the constant rancher bashing?

[Troy Jones]

Where I live we appreciate and respect the rancher. In my County 83% of tax revenue is generated by your so called "welfare rancher". In a County study, ranchers only used around 10% of the County services they payed for. Buzz, next time your kid goes to school, you have a nice road to drive on, or a deputy is saving you from getting your ass kicked, remember a good chunk of those services were paid by your "welfare rancher".

As far as BLM, that property is being payed for as a contractual lease. If you want to lease your local BLM property no one is stopping you. Then you can have a say in the scheme. You say it is your public land. How much do you pay in taxes or leases. I think the rancher has a little more say. All you have is a selfish hunting and me, me, me outlook and if anyone doesn't follow my wants and agenda then they are welfare ranchers.

I have a real problem with the constant insult of lumping all ranchers into the category of "welfare rancher". It is hard to find a group as altruistic or hard working as ranchers. The ranchers I know have forgot more about hard work than most will ever know. Remember that when you sit at your computer while trying to think of things to argue and bitch about pertaining to the so called "welfare rancher". All for a few days of hunting, sad, sad. Thank God here the hunter and the ag producer still work together, but I see it rapidly changing, especially with the attitudes that are prevalent with a few on this site.

How about just rancher or ag producer?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-14-2003 07:12: Message edited by: Troy Jones ]</font>

 

[Muledeer4me]

Troy ,Im with you all the way on that post.
It show's what a person is really made of when all they can post is such hate .
Some of the one's I had the most respect for have lost every ounce of it .
Living in Idaho ,just outside of Boise,I see where alot of it start's and what type of org's. spread this garbage.
All one needs to do is look at the link's and read through them,it becomes very clear that some people are happy to be a mouth piece for the green group's.
I assure you that not all of Idaho share's the feeling's of some of these vocal hate-org.
There are some good invironmental org. that share your respect for the hard working people and understand the need to bring all party's together ,not try to set thereself apart by bad mouthing other's and mimicking the worst of the worst.
What type's of people or org.'s support the thing's you most like to do?
Rancher's,or the racical green org. that would like to see hunting stopped gun control?
Most of this rancher bashing come's from the type of group's that will not support the outdoor recreation I like to do.

 

[RockyDog]

I agree with you Troy, ranchers are generally good people.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Troy,

I wouldn't worry about it. There's only a couple narrow minded, agenda driven individuals here that bash ranchers. The rest of us are far more intellegent then that group of losers!

Paul

 

[Ten Bears]

I've learned alot about cow farming by posting opposition to a few (not FEW) elitists around here. Some grazing can be done better, and some is used to improve habitat. I have few (not FEW) complaint these days with the modern cow farmer.

 

[Tom]

I agree, ranchers are generally by far, some of the greatest people around.

 

[1_pointer]

I have not problem with ranchers as long as they are good stewards of the land. The ones I have a problem with are those that do not take care of public lands as well as they should. Even if they have a 'bigger' say, I still have some degree of 'ownership' to public lands. Just like most any segment of a population, there are the good ones and the bad ones.

 

[Washington Hunter]

I think any rancher bashing that goes on is only directed at the ranchers who do not graze their cattle in a responsible way on public lands. I understand that some ranchers do not treat public land the same as they do their own. I'm sure there are plenty that really do care about the land, and the wildlife, and leaving something on that land so wildlife can flourish. But I am also sure that many care more about money than they do about taking care of public land. It's just like how a few irresponsible hunters give all hunters a bad name. The other thing ranchers do that gives them a bad name is trying to keep hunters off of public land. That probably upsets most hunters more than overgrazing that land.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-14-2003 09:26: Message edited by: Washington Hunter ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Troy, you dont think BLM leases are welfare for ranchers? Thats funny. The whopping current rate of $1.35 per AUM is TEN times lower than rates for private property. In Montana many state leases are as high as $9.00 an AUM. Seriously, you couldnt feed two hampsters on $1.35/month.

As a matter of fact, I do pay toward subsidized leasing of federal lands, beings how the BLM loses money on administration of leases. Therefore, since MY tax dollars are being spent, I sure as hell do have a say in how PUBLIC lands are managed.

Also, why is it that 60% of BLM lands are in poor condition? Why are 90% of riparian areas on BLM leases in poor condition? Is that acceptable to you? We subsidize an industry for land practices that result in public lands being trashed? Sorry, but I dont see the sense in that. I'd rather it was in good condition and supported more wildlife, but hey, thats just me. I'd rather GIVE leases away if proper management was implemented and have 90% of BLM lands and riparian areas in good condition, seriously.

I call it like it is, BLM leases are a joke to the public lands and the tax payer. Its a subsidized land management system, and there is no denying it. Its welfare for ranchers. Therefore: Welfare rancher.

Like I said, I wouldnt mind the subsidy if the land was in good condition.

As far as ranchers go, yeah I agree they are good folks, and they do work.

 

[Ten Bears]

BUZZ,I would bet that your portion of tax contribution, when estimated in with the other tax payers of the nation, would amount to even less than $1.35 per AUM. So that would make you a minor stockholder.

 

[BuzzH]

But, a stockholder non-the-less.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Troy,

The term "welfare rancher" is not meant to be used for all ranchers. It is just for those who use susidized grazing. We run cattle on $15 per animal rent, paid to private parties, based on free market transactions, so we are not welfare ranchers, but those who run on public ground, at below market rates, are welfare ranchers.

And when we haul cattle in to the Sale Yard to be sold, we are bringing our product to market vs. the subsidized cattle. So I think a little bashing is appropriate for the welfare ranchers. They are competitors, using the government.

And as for your comment:

"As far as BLM, that property is being payed for as a contractual lease. If you want to lease your local BLM property no one is stopping you. Then you can have a say in the scheme. You say it is your public land. How much do you pay in taxes or leases. I think the rancher has a little more say."

There are plenty of procedures stopping Buzz, or anybody else from getting a lease on the public lands. Some of these leases have been in families for many generations, and there is no "fair market" opportunity to lease the ground. I can not go to the BLM, and offer $5 for the ground, as the process favors the current leaseholder, period.

The romantic image of the rancher on horseback, smoking Marlboros is ancient history. Ranching as a lifestyle is on its last legs. It is now becoming a business, no more interesting than any other business. No more hardworking than anyother business. Some will make it, some will fail. Some will comply with new environmental regulations, some will not. And just like a Chemical Company, some will be closed down, for failing the enviroment. Others will prosper, even under new regulations.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Elkgunner, Thank you! Great information!

 

[BuzzH]

Elkgunner, you sound like an intelligent person, a real rarity on these boards.

 

[Deerslayer]

Great post Elk Gunner!.....and from the mouth of a rancher!

Troy......I can point out "Ranchers" who spend WAY more time on the computer "bashing" than any of us ever did, all the while their cattle wiping out some of my favorite hunting areas. They are supposed to be moved out by that time, but it seems the "rancher".....and I do use that term loosely, was too busy drinking and sitting at the computer 24/7. You see, the label "rancher" does not necessarily make a guy hardworking or right....that has to be earned just as with any other profession. You can't lump them all together. It's bad enough to get grazing for practically nothing, at the expense of the elk and deer as well as hurting ranchers like Elkgunner, but then to abuse the priveledge...well, that is where the bias comes in.

We don't lump all ranchers in to the "welfare rancher category"...only the ones who earn it. The ones like Elkgunners family has no problem or insecurity with it because they know who they are, and know the difference.

 

[Troy Jones]

I try to look for the best in any situation. Be thankful it's not corporate ranching your dealing with. Give it a few years, maybe you'll end up with your hunting preserve. What are your feelings on corporate feed lots? I am sure your not happy unless you have something to whine and bitch about. I just thought that the term "welfare rancher" is being used way too liberally. It's hard to see the hunting partnership we should have, through all the green. Seems like a lot more gets accomplished working with someone than trying to force your will on them. Do some of you have problems getting dates? Good luck on building your perfect world. The West coast would be a good place for you to start. A couple of you would fit in reeaal nice, for sure.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Troy, "It's hard to see the hunting partnership we should have, through all the green." I'm not interested in any hunting partnership with public land ranchers. It's bad enough being in partnership with them on grazing---where the rest of us get the shit end of the stick. They can post their private land all they want. If our public lands in the West were in good condition no one would ever need to hunt on private land. What kind of "partnership" are we in with ranchers who have overgrazed so much that 60% of all BLM is in poor condition? You call that a partnership? I call it getting screwed.

 

[1_pointer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Seems like a lot more gets accomplished working with someone than trying to force your will on them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm seeing more and more evidence of that everyday. It's worked wonders in many different projects. One I know of even requires the participants who wear uniforms to not wear them to the meetings (other clothes and not naked) so as not to set up these type of barriers (enviro vs. rancher vs. BLM etc.).

 

[Ithaca 37]

Times are changing, but it's taken some real hard core radicals to scare the welfare ranchers into coming to the negotiating table, and it's taken some real tough environmentalists to fight the battles that have brought us to where we are today. It's still taking lawsuits to make much real progress in most places. So I believe in balancing out the hard core resource extractors with hard core environmentalists who are just as far out as the ranchers, timber companies and mining companies on the other end of the spectrum. Once that balance is obtained there's a chance for some moderates to make progress. We haven't had anywhere near the balance needed until just the last few years. Do you think most of those welfare ranchers would be looking at modifying their grazing practices if Jon Marvel wasn't scaring the hell out of them? No way!

Troy, you started out with the same ol' "hard working rancher" term we hear so much, as if that somehow justifies the destruction of public land their grazing practices have led to. Is there any defense you can present to us for the fact that 90% of all the riparian zones on BLM are in poor condition due to overgrazing? Give me a good defense of that and I'll start paying some attention to you!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-14-2003 22:31: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Troy Jones]

The term "welfare rancher" was used too loosely, it's a term used for a very few. That is all I'm trying to say. Some posters are just as selfish and greedy as those ranchers they are trying to slam. I, unlike some, don't need to justify my position for attention. I simply get the job done. It may not be today or tomorrow, but it gets done none the less.

Here on some gov. ground, the water quality was poor due to the cattle grazing. They simply set up a meeting and came to an agreement. Then they set up corridors for watering and fenced the riparian areas and cut the payments down for the lesser acreage for grazing and payed the rancher to fence it. No Problem! Why are you having such a hard time getting anything accomplished. Don't go at these problems like spoiled little children, be men. I do management plans and mediation for ranchers, deal with alot of politics and enviromental organizations. If I had some of your attitudes I wouldn't have a job for very long, or I would have an ulcer the size of a softball.

You know you will never get exactly what you want, but the ranchers that are poor managers won't either. If there is an agreement it will be somewhere in the middle. That's how it usually works. And a plan will be executed in a manner that makes you both think your getting a little more than the other. You know, like children arguing over the bigger piece of candy. We call these agreements memorandums of understanding which usually accompany a management plan.

Buzz and Ithaca, I will tell you what I told my 3 year old daughter when she was crying and throwing a fit about not being able to easily pull her blanket out from under the dog. "Why don't you tell the dog to move, crying and whining isn't getting it done, and I don't want to hear it."