What do you think of this proposed bill? It seems like more welfare in the short run, but will probably save taxpayer money over the long run.
ELKO - A Connecticut congressman has introduced a controversial bill that would pave the way for the federal government to "buy" grazing permits from ranchers.
U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., introduced the Voluntary Grazing Permit Buyout Act (H.R. 3324), which has seven co-sponsors.
The plan engineered by the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign would pay ranchers $175 per animal unit month to permanently surrender their grazing rights. The group is made up of Western Watersheds Project, based in Hailey, Idaho, and five other environmental groups.
According to campaign director Andy Kerr, it would cost about $3.1 billion to purchase all of the permits in the West.
The bill, introduced Thursday, would provide $100 million toward that goal, with a number of willing sellers already said to be lined up.
The group says livestock grazing is "ecologically damaging, economically irrational, and fiscally imprudent," according to its Web site. It also claims that taxpayers will ultimately save $12.6 billion if the grazing permits are retired.
"If all federal grazing permittees availed themselves of the buyout offer, the plan would effectively retire a federal welfare program that costs American taxpayers more than $500 million annually in subsidies for public lands ranching operations," said a news release from the group.
"Buying out federal grazing permits is good for Western states and the entire nation," Shays said. "It benefits our nation's environment and budget, while providing a lucrative offer to ranchers who want to sell their permits."
Text of the bill states: "Commercial livestock grazing on Federal lands is increasingly difficult for grazing permittees and lessees due to growing conflicts with other legitimate multiple uses of those lands, such as environmental protection and burgeoning recreational use, and with congressionally mandated goals of wildlife and habitat protection and improved water quality and quantity."
Co-sponsor Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said the timing of the bill would aid ranchers whose businesses are suffering from drought.
Arizona has its own grazing permit buyout campaign. A poll conducted by the group found that nearly 70 percent of ranchers there supported the legislation, according to Western Watersheds.
The bill also has support from nearly 200 environmental groups.
The proposal received mixed reviews when it surfaced in April 2002 and the campaign began soliciting support from ranchers.
At the time, Nevada Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, called it a "major issue" but "a very negative thing to do." He said such a plan would be unmanageable in northeastern Nevada, where private ranches are intermingled with federal land.
Besides Western Watersheds Project, other groups behind the program are American Lands Alliance, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Committee for Idaho's High Desert, Forest Guardians and Oregon Natural Desert Association.
The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Resources, as well as committees on Agriculture and Armed Services.
Oak
ELKO - A Connecticut congressman has introduced a controversial bill that would pave the way for the federal government to "buy" grazing permits from ranchers.
U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., introduced the Voluntary Grazing Permit Buyout Act (H.R. 3324), which has seven co-sponsors.
The plan engineered by the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign would pay ranchers $175 per animal unit month to permanently surrender their grazing rights. The group is made up of Western Watersheds Project, based in Hailey, Idaho, and five other environmental groups.
According to campaign director Andy Kerr, it would cost about $3.1 billion to purchase all of the permits in the West.
The bill, introduced Thursday, would provide $100 million toward that goal, with a number of willing sellers already said to be lined up.
The group says livestock grazing is "ecologically damaging, economically irrational, and fiscally imprudent," according to its Web site. It also claims that taxpayers will ultimately save $12.6 billion if the grazing permits are retired.
"If all federal grazing permittees availed themselves of the buyout offer, the plan would effectively retire a federal welfare program that costs American taxpayers more than $500 million annually in subsidies for public lands ranching operations," said a news release from the group.
"Buying out federal grazing permits is good for Western states and the entire nation," Shays said. "It benefits our nation's environment and budget, while providing a lucrative offer to ranchers who want to sell their permits."
Text of the bill states: "Commercial livestock grazing on Federal lands is increasingly difficult for grazing permittees and lessees due to growing conflicts with other legitimate multiple uses of those lands, such as environmental protection and burgeoning recreational use, and with congressionally mandated goals of wildlife and habitat protection and improved water quality and quantity."
Co-sponsor Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said the timing of the bill would aid ranchers whose businesses are suffering from drought.
Arizona has its own grazing permit buyout campaign. A poll conducted by the group found that nearly 70 percent of ranchers there supported the legislation, according to Western Watersheds.
The bill also has support from nearly 200 environmental groups.
The proposal received mixed reviews when it surfaced in April 2002 and the campaign began soliciting support from ranchers.
At the time, Nevada Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, called it a "major issue" but "a very negative thing to do." He said such a plan would be unmanageable in northeastern Nevada, where private ranches are intermingled with federal land.
Besides Western Watersheds Project, other groups behind the program are American Lands Alliance, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Committee for Idaho's High Desert, Forest Guardians and Oregon Natural Desert Association.
The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Resources, as well as committees on Agriculture and Armed Services.
Oak
