Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West

[SHRED]

It's what the Hammonds and Bundys do.
They are on welfare plus they destroy our public lands.

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm


...

[phantom power]

1. And even that wasn't enough for them.

They just expect it to be given to them. Because they want it, that's why.

[SHRED]

2. Selfish...but as long as they are white and wear cowboy hats

The Jeebus, hat-talk radio, FOX crowd will fall for it.
Details and facts are foreign to them.

[2naSalit]

3. Thanks for posting!

This is a great illustration of what this argument is about which includes consideration of wildlife habitat and the reason we have wild lands which are deemed "public".

I know the author and I know that he is very involved in trying to change this set of poor management practices and outdated policies. He was also instrumental in the writing and passage of the Wilderness Act among others.

There are several organizations involved in changing the policies that allow the destruction of the public lands while we pay the destroyers to do it.

Info sources:

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/ George submits articles on this site.


http://www.westernwatersheds.org/ He is on the BoD of this organization.

ETA: I added the links for further info on the topic of public lands welfare ranching.

[SHRED]

4. Thanks for the links

[NickB79]

5. A caller on NPR today called the damage done to streambeds "cow nuking"

Because the herds of cattle congregate in the streams, destroy the native vegetation on the riverbanks, crap in the water, and kill off the trout.

[2naSalit]

6. It's what they do...

I heard that lady from Nebraska who fought the KXL thing on the Ed Schultz radio show yesterday talking about how the cattle are good for the range etc... (emphasis hers).

I am trying to compose a letter to Ed so he can have the real info not just some rancher's say so.

Here's what cattle do to the landscape, especially out here in the west where the soil profile is shallow and delicate:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=141420

[NickB79]

8. Cattle are horrible here in Minnesota too

Lots of farmers like to pasture their cattle in their woodlots. The cattle, being herd animals, like to congregate together under large trees for protection from rain, snow, or for shade. The problem is that most trees, even those with deep taproots, actually have most of their rootmass within the first 1-2 ft of soil, because that's where the water and oxygen is highest.

20-30 cattle can mass over 10 tons, and when they're all lying under one or two trees, they compact the soil to such an extent that over time the trees dies from root damage.

Trees with very shallow root systems that require light, fluffy soils (maples and basswoods) die off quickly. Trees with deeper roots more adapted to savanna habitat and large grazing animals (oaks, hickories) do better, but still die eventually. And with grazing all around them, no seedlings can survive to regenerate the forest.

I would think cattle would actually be OK for areas like the Great Plains, seeing as it's soils and flora evolved with massive herds of bison over millennia, but the key would be constant movement of the herds to replicate nature.

[2naSalit]

9. Agreed.

The bison move a lot, we have them out in my area, but cattle are different in nature too. They are so hybridized that they have no natural sense of self preservation. They don't lick snow to keep from dying from dehydration; they don't know to push snow aside to get at forage below among other things. But truly flush grasslands could withstand their presence, on this side of the continent the soil is not deep, destruction of an area requires a long time to recover if it ever does. And the USDA refuses to even consider the damage done by livestock in public lands when conducting/reporting EISs and designing/assigning grazing allotments. They (USDA/DOI*) have no system of discipline for violations like over grazing by putting far more than the allowed (supposedly based on EIS findings) and these violations can be recurring yet the violators keep getting to use their grazing allotments year after year.

*Dept. of Interior heads BLM, USFWS and Park Service, I mean all of them here.

[2naSalit]

7. Here's Mr. Wuerthner's thoughts on the seige at the refuge...

He just posted this a little while ago...

Rugged individualism and Independence with a government safety net
By George Wuerthner On January 7, 2016

The standoff in Harney County Oregon highlights one of the great ironies of the rural West. More than any other people, western rural residents are more heavily dependent on government (read taxpayer) largess than any other part of America. Yet the average rural residents sees himself as a “rugged and independent” and by the way, “hard working” to boot. They may indeed work hard—but no harder than anyone else in this country, but more than other residents, their work and lifestyles are dependent on government and subsidies.

From the pioneer days onward, the federal government has subsidized western rural lifestyles. The earliest federal military expeditions exploring potential trade route, military roads, and railroad routes as well as the military outposts that protected the “independent” western frontier communities from the Native people to the US Army expeditions which helped to subdue the “savages” and sequester them on reservations—all done with tax money from others citizens to largely benefit the western frontier men and women.

---SNIP----

And though there is a strong “anti-government” rhetoric expressed by rural communities, when there is an effort to reduce or modify these subsidies and/or charge the real price for services, the outcry from rural residents about how the government is out to destroy their way of life (welfare) usually puts a quick stop to such campaigns.

Take for instance, the debate over ranching on public lands being promulgated by the militia and the Hammond family who are now serving time for arson. Ranchers with grazing privileges (they are not rights) on federal lands pay fees considerably lower than the cost for grazing on identical private lands. The current price is $1.69 an AUM (the amount of forage it takes to feed a cow and calf for a month) is considerably less than the average of $20.00 an AUM on private lands. One can’t feed a cat for $1.69 a day, much less a thousand pound cow and a 500 pound calf for $1.69.

---SNIP---

Much more at link, a great and informative read.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2016/01/07/rugged-individualism-and-independents-with-a-government-safety-net/

I think I'll make an OP for this article.