Healthy Rural Economies without Welfare Ranching

JoseCuervo

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
9,752
Location
South of the Border
We had a topic here, a while back, about what would become of all these towns, with out the Welfare Ranching and other subsidized extraction industries...

Well, looky, looky, looky... It appears we already have an example, right in the middle of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, and they have even done the studies to prove it.

Here is a good quote: Throughout the region, hearty economies will spring up when communities make themselves attractive to entrepreneurs and small businesses by providing good schools, fast Internet service, airport connections to major cities and the lure of a friendly place to live with access to outdoor places that are protected and preserved, according to the group’s report.

Now we don't have to waste our time discussing the whole "But these small towns need Welfare Ranching and similar.

And wasn't it the Gunner, who said you need an educated workforce and access to Airports?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Environment called key to new economy
By MIKE STARK
Gazette Wyoming Bureau

CODY – Agriculture, minerals and timber once fueled the greater Yellowstone region’s economy, but times have changed and local communities must look for ways to foster a robust economy alongside a healthy environment, the leader of a new business group said Tuesday.


But before changes are made, communities need to rethink themselves and their connection to places like Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, Janice Brown, director of the Bozeman-based Yellowstone Business Partnership, said during a presentation at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center.


Many people living in places like Cody or West Yellowstone, Mont., know that their economies and demographics have shifted in recent years but haven’t been sure how to react, she said.


“There’s a sense that the future’s a bit uncertain,” Brown said.


The Yellowstone Business Partnership was formed about a year ago to provide a forum in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho with a basic premise: economic vitality in the region around Yellowstone and Grand Teton depends on preserving the natural environment, not degrading it.


That natural world is what draws almost everyone, residents and visitors alike, to the area, Brown said.


“We all recognize that Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks are very attractive not just for the tourists that come here but for us,” she said.


But some communities have struggled in recent years as the economies and demographics have shifted.


The population of the counties in three states in the greater Yellowstone region grew by about 60 percent between 1970 and 2000, and the landscape has seen substantial changes with new subdivisions and commercial development, according to a report by the Yellowstone Business Partnership and the Sonoran Institute.


The economy has changed, too.


While timber, agriculture, mining and oil and gas saw little growth between 1970 and 2000, the service industry has grown by 37 percent, retail by 19 percent, government by 12 percent and construction by 10 percent.


The “services and professional” sector now provides a majority of jobs in the region, Brown said. In some places, that means retail jobs, but in many cases it involves high-wage, high-skill jobs such as engineers, architects and financial advisers.


“That whole arena has ballooned in the greater Yellowstone,” she said.


While traditional industries still play a key part in local economies, small businesses have become important, she said, adding that most new jobs are created at businesses with fewer than five employees.


Perhaps the biggest change is that about 26 percent of the regional economy comes from investments, dividends and rent, Brown said, and often that money is turned over into the economy by retirees who stay in the area.


“They’re spending their money, not saving it until they die,” Brown said, adding that local communities would be smart to make sure they are providing and preserving the amenities that those retirees are seeking.


The Yellowstone Business Partnership is going to try to get communities to think about what changes they’ve seen locally and how they might react and support ideas that benefit both the economy and the environment.


Throughout the region, hearty economies will spring up when communities make themselves attractive to entrepreneurs and small businesses by providing good schools, fast Internet service, airport connections to major cities and the lure of a friendly place to live with access to outdoor places that are protected and preserved, according to the group’s report.


Brown said she hopes her group will provide a network between communities to share ideas, advocate for environmental protections and push for a balance between conservation and economic prosperity.


“This is an idea, I believe, whose time has come,” she said.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
 
There is one problem with Hearty economies just springing up by communities making themselves attractive to new businesses. Who is going to make the investment?
The people who want to move to rural America want to generally live on their twenty acres removed from town. Then the complain that the services they used to have were so much better where they came from. They demand that a T1 line be ran to their busniness out in BFE and that we should help them pay their start up costs because they are bring "so much to the local economy" but the import the builders of their homes, buy their vehicles out of town, they have no interest in fitting into the community, they raise hell with the school teahcers they demand new and improved airports, restruants etc. Pretty soon they have the same problems they tried to escape and they leave.
In the mean time we have lost population, tax base and the ability to make the investment to attract new business and lost what you call our "Welfare ranchers".
Don't you think we all realize the economy has changed and that we want to attract these business. We know that we must change but just kicking ranchers off of the land or buying them or what ever you propose is extremely simplistic and not real practical out here. Thank you for letting me rant.
Also most of the transplants you wish upon of us in the west come with somewhat of an anti hunting bias.
Just my opinion and take it for what it is worth.
I do feel that if you remove the ranching community you will have less access to hunt. The land will all be owned by wealthy nonresidents landowners who wish to have their own private place.
Nemont
 
Nemont, That's exactly why we need lots of public land and we need it in great condition. Those transplants are going to move in and buy land whether you want them to or not. Nothing can stop that. What do you think Montana is going to look like twenty years from now?

Public land in good condition for wildlife is the best hope for the public to be able to continue hunting in the future. Privavte land is just going to be sold, subdivided, etc. as our country becomes more crowded. Would you bet on being able to hunt on lots of private land twenty years from now? Would you bet on being able to hunt on public land twenty years from now? Which is the best bet?
 
valid points from both sides..... at least with you two, you do see in validity in each others position.
The change is coming, but the million dollar question is - change to what?
 
Ithaca,
I understand the issue of open public lands and the future of hunting. What about this: charge hunters to access the public land that ranchers now pay grazing fees on? I am willing to bet we hunters would scream bloody murder is someone used the term Welfare Hunter. Remember some people who pay taxes also may not want to see hunting, hiking, birdwatching, camping, boating, driving, etc,etc. taking place on their lands. If ranchers are removed from public lands the problem just does not end there.
I agree that in twenty years, hell in five years, hunting private land will be a thing of the past. You know something else during that same time the rural communties will continue to depend upon agriculture reciepts for the main economic activity. Why? Because again we cannot afford to make the investments in the infrastructure spread across so few people. Unless the tax payers of this country wish to subsidize us to accomplish that. Then would we have a county full of "Welfare Businesses"? My point again is that there is no easy answer.
Just a point to make I agree with you that public lands need to be open to the public and in good condition. I just think you are not looking at ALL the culprits in the situation. It is not just the rancher at fault here. Again Thanks for listening.
Nemont
 
Hunters, hikers, etc. are not the same as ranchers, Nemont. Hunters harvest game that belongs to the state, with the permission of the state. Ranchers harvest grass that belongs to you and me, and devalue land that belongs to you and me. So, the rancher pays his pittance of a grazing fee for the grass he harvests, while hunters pay a license fee for the animals harvested. Ten Bears already tried (with no success) to prove that we are "welfare hunters". Check it out, starting with the fourth post on the following page:
http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=001553&p=2

Nemont said:"I agree with you that public lands need to be open to the public and in good condition. I just think you are not looking at ALL the culprits in the situation."

You're absolutely right about that. There's lots of extraction industries, such as mining, gas, and oil companies that are just as much to blame. We need to stay vigilent on all fronts.
biggrin.gif


Nemont, we'll listen any time you want to express your view! Please continue! We just might not always agree.
wink.gif


Oak
 
Colorado Oak,
True, hunters and hikers and other users of public lands are not the same as a rancher. The ranchers do take the grass and no doubt pays for less that market value for that AUM.

Also I do not believe that we are Welfare Hunters. I was making a point that if we approached this thing from another angle and just tried to get everyone into a win-win situation ie. Fence off riparian area, reduce numbers of AUM's, ENFORCE existing rules governing grazing land, increase grazing fees, while still keeping the ranchers on the land. In return ranchers would expect less driving on ridge tops, less ATV off road travel, more water development to spread the cattle across the range. Leading to Improved range quality, improved feed base and improved quality of cattle coming of public lands, improved hunting opportunities.

I think if sportsman and ranchers would come together both would realize they have more in common then they think.

At least that is my view through rose colored glasses.

Also I just found out that the state owns the animal until it runs into my vehicle.
mad.gif



Just kidding
smile.gif

Nemont

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-13-2003 13:57: Message edited by: Nemont ]</font>
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also I do not believe that we are Welfare Hunters. I was making a point that if we approached this thing from another angle and just tried to get everyone into a win-win situation ie. Fence off riparian area, reduce numbers of AUM's, ENFORCE existing rules governing grazing land, increase grazing fees, while still keeping the ranchers on the land. In return ranchers would expect less driving on ridge tops, less ATV off road travel, more water development to spread the cattle across the range. Leading to Improved range quality, improved feed base and improved quality of cattle coming of public lands, improved hunting opportunities.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You hit the nail on the head. I don't think anyone here would want the cattle ranchers to leave if ALL the things you mentioned were actually accomplished. Seems like the biggest hurdle to overcome in getting those things done are the ranchers themselves. Many are too pigheaded to realize that they can't get away with doing things like their grandpa did them. An unwillingness to change is what will ultimately spell their demise.

Oak

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-13-2003 14:58: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>
 
Here's an example of a problem that blows all the theories about cattle ranching co-existing with habitat improvement. Just as with the elk farms in MT, sooner or later the cattle find a way to get thru the fence, and then wildlife loses all the gains that were made in the habitat for the last few years.

All these ideas about rotational grazing, etc. for cattle sound great in theory, but unless you have a cowboy there to constantly watch the cattle something will go wrong. Last Sunday I hunted in a place where we drive thru a fenced off acre of ID F&G Habitat Improvement Program area to get where we're going. There was a cow grazing right in the middle of it! The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence and cows will constantly try to get at greener, thicker grass. How ya gonna stop them from getting past a fence when they're hungry? Ever been around cattle for very long? How many times have you seen them get out of a fenced pasture?
 
Nemont,

There is already precedence for charging recreation users for access to our Public Lands. On the Main Salmon and Middle Fork of the Salmon, I get charged $5 per person per day, just to be in the river corridor.

If I were to be charged $5/day to hunt public lands, and they were in awesome condition like the River Corridors in Idaho, then I would probably not cry "bloody murder".

And as for Ag being the basis of the economy, look at how that industry evolved. In the Treasure Valley of Idaho, a family farm was 40 acres, when my dad was growing up. A big farm was 80 acres. And it took the whole family to run it, plus a hired man, plus a hay crew in the Summer. Now, a farm in this valley is 360 acres for a Family, and maybe they hire a hired man to help. You just don't need as many people, when you are running 12 row cultivators, and putting your hay up in 1-ton bales.

And we should all be thankful for the efficiencies in Agriculture, as it keeps our food cheap. But, an Ag community will lose jobs, as you don't need as many people on a farm these days.
 
If the only solution put forth by sportsman is, all cattle grazing on public lands must end then you will never win. Why? because the cattlemen have a few friends in congress. Especially in the Senate where every western state has just as many senators a the more populate states. If a Senator, of any party, in a western state introduced or allowed legislation to stop grazing on public lands they would be committing political suicide.
Reading the Taylor grazing act it states that grazing is a permitted public use. I included a link and exerpt including the part about conservation or propagation of wildlife. IMO you will get more accomplished by working within this frame work rather that stake out your position that no grazing should take place on public lands. Make the Dept. of Interior own up to the responsibilty of it has to find a solution to over grazing.

http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/taylorgr.html
an excerpt
The Act directs the Secretary to promote cooperation among those interested in the use of the grazing districts, such as local associations of stockmen, state land officials and official state agencies engaged in the conservation or propagation of wildlife. The Secretary also must provide for local hearings on appeals from decisions of the administrative officer, and may accept contributions toward the administration, protection and improvement of lands within a grazing district. § 315h.

Thanks for listening.
Nemont
 
Nemont, true enough, but what about this under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act?

"Multiple use means the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the combination that will best meet the needs of the the American People; making the most judicous use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to CHANGING NEEDS AND CONDITIONS; that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, WITHOUT IMPAIRMENT OF THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THE LAND, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and NOT NECESSARILY the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output."

In other words, under that, it would be totally acceptable to do away with Welfare ranching on public lands if the "needs of the American people" are to have better wildlife habitat.

Also, the key part of the whole act,IMO is this passage "WITHOUT IMPAIRMENT OF THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THE LAND". It seems that 60% of the BLM grazing alotments are in "poor condition" (impaired), as are 85% of riparian areas within grazing alotments.

Do you think the "needs of the American people" are being met with welfare ranching? Do you think that the MUSYA is being lived up to by the BLM and the Welfare ranchers?

In reality whats happening is the "needs of the few welfare ranchers" is winning out in spite of what the American People think.

The one thing you said, that I totally agree with, is that the laws need to start being enforced...most leases are in direct violation of the MUSYA.

Good discussion, and good points you bring up.
 
Nemont,

The Taylor Act does not provide any Right to the permittees, and as such, there is nothing sacred about the use of grazing on land. If other uses are more valued by society, then that is allowed. In Omaechevarria v. Idaho, the Courts ruled that: "Congress has not conferred upon citizens the right to graze stock upon the public lands. The government has merely suffered the lands to be so used".

Furthermore, in Osborne v. United States, another Court ruled "it has always been the intention and policy of the government to regard the use of its public lands for stock grazing. . . as a privilege which is withdrawable at any time for any use by the sovereign without the payment of compensation." Therfore, we do not need any new laws to ban grazing, we just need the agencies to manage the land as to the Will of the people and in compliance with OTHER laws the Congress has passed.

And increasingly, the Will of the people is to hunt, hike, fish, and recreate on our Public Lands, without risk of stepping in cow shit.

You are correct, the Cattlemen have friends in the US Senate (Sen. Larry Craig, R-ID), and in fact, the Welfare Ranchers have far more influence than they deserve. Such a small percentage of our Beef comes from Public Lands, and the tide within the industry is starting to realize the Subsidized Welfare Ranchers are taking money out of the pockets of those of US who run our cattle on Private Lands.

But, great discussion, and we are always willing to listen to the other side...
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Throughout the region, hearty economies will spring up when communities make themselves attractive to entrepreneurs and small businesses by providing .... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like another form of WELFARE to me.

I'm not a cow farmer, but I support some levels of grazing on PUBLIC LANDS.

For those that oppose the subsidized grazing of public lands. Do you also oppose the subsidization of grain growers?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-18-2003 10:38: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>
 
BTW, hunting is a welfare sport, and we did show that money to support hunting interests did come from outside the sport.
 
GRINNER, looks to me that your the one starting the same old debate. Answer me this, what is the gross annual income per worker then and now? What is the increase of inflation?

Where do you think the money comes for to make the educational, airport, and other convienince improvements?

I live and WORK in one of your prized depressed economies. We have a small airport (there has no interest in putting in a commuter service). Corporations have run twin engine planes on the strip off and on for years. We have some good primary schools with a college and tech school 40 miles away (we even have off campus class here locally).

We now have Subway, McDonalds, and Taco Johns ( I believe you consider that growth). Yet, we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the state, and the population is decreasing as people move away seeking employment(not growing). The largest number of people moving to the area are older people coming here to retire (and work at McDonalds).
 
C'mon Ten, explain to us all again how hunting is a welfare sport. You did so well last time.
rolleyes.gif
wink.gif


Oak
 
Ten,
none of that matters, b/c it doesn't fit into their little frame work.
The subsidized system we have isn't good, but someof you guys are willing to shitcan it for something that is worse.
If we can change it all to "NO Human extraction" from public ground. That may include you too.
 
Elkgunner,
Can you clarify for me your statement that welfare ranching takes money out of your pocket? I have not heard this before. I am not wanting to start an arguement just want to understand that position.

The reason for my interest in the issue is that my family runs a cow/calf operation in MT. We have private land we graze and then intermixed is BLM and Indian Trust land. My family has ranching on this land for over 100 years. While I did not go into the cattle business my family remains there and makes a living farming and ranching.
My great Grandfather homesteaded this place and bought land during the thirties.

Our BLM grazing is in good condition. We don't have any riparian habitat nor do we have much wildlife, a few deer, a few birds, a few antelope. We have never blocked access to the BLM land, even though it is landlocked. We could graze only on deeded land but the BLM land allows us more rotation and more flexibility.

I just think shaping a one size fits all solution to end all grazing on public land does not take into consideration the use of lands which do not have potential for game to flourish. Also we did not set the price per AUM. The fees are charged by our government. I know there are operators out there who want a free ride but that is not what we want. My family would pay the market price for this grazing.

Anyway I know I won't change anyones mind about public lands grazing. I do think that sportman who demand an end to grazing will find a lot less access to hunting, public and private,lands once you remove all cattle.

You may find the will of the American people may turn on hunting also and in the future find that you don't have access to those lands as well, (I hope and pray it never comes to that) but If you think this is far fetched ask ranchers if they ever thought that ending grazing would ever even be talked about.

a more appropriate motto, at least for me, would be end grazing were it is inappropriate but don't punish the guys who are doing it right.
Sincerely,
Nemont
 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,581
Messages
2,025,880
Members
36,237
Latest member
SCOOTER848
Back
Top