Replies

This is capitalism at it's best! Finally, an end to the socialist government-sponsored monopoly that the powerful cattle ranchers associations have been able to lobby into effect.

The land will now be leased for what it is worth, and the broken business models of the ranchers will no longer be subsidized by our tax dollars.

Even better, the environmentalist groups will have to buy their influence directly in cold cash to the benefit of the people, rather than in lobbying dollars going to the rich.

I only hope this example is followed in forestry, where now if you buy the rights to a section of forest, you MUST cut down the trees there. Let the environmental groups pay top dollar instead of spiking trees. They'll only be able to afford it for so long, since they make no money off of the land. Any maybe it'll empty the lobbying coffers.

But my greatest hope is that this marks the beginning of the end for our government's socialist farm and ranching subsidies.

Don't have enough time right now, but can't let this go unanswered.

This is capitalism at it's best! Finally, an end to the socialist government-sponsored monopoly that the powerful cattle ranchers associations have been able to lobby into effect.

Wrong. This is outright welfare-state communism; "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities."

The land will now be leased for what it is worth, and the broken business models of the ranchers will no longer be subsidized by our tax dollars.

It is worth what you can grow on it; corn, cows, or million dollar estates. You can't eat million dollar estates.

Even better, the environmentalist groups will have to buy their influence directly in cold cash to the benefit of the people, rather than in lobbying dollars going to the rich.

Except for the few agribusinesses, the farmers and ranchers are cash-poor; their wealth is tied up in the land and equipment. And where do you thing the watermelon groups get their money? Hint: Look at the tax code sometime.

Their coffers have become the bottomless pit of the government and charity largess 'cause it feels good and right.

But my greatest hope is that this marks the beginning of the end for our government's socialist farm and ranching subsidies.

This I can agree with; subsidies are killing all types of productive endeavors in this country.

You guys want to tackle this one? Two days of lobbying and I'm all talked out.

Grange Leader Calls for More, Not Less Farming
Calls Dairy Compacts Most Innovative Agricultural Innovation of 1996 Farm Bill

Cedar Rapids, IA (November 12, 2001) - Speaking to the 135th annual convention of the National Grange, Kermit W. Richardson, National Master (President), called on Congress to create a new Farm Bill that will "…encourage increased participation in agriculture by the largest number of individuals and families through the broadest possible distribution of agricultural assets possible." Contrary to popular thinking that the United States currently has too many farmers and too much production, Richardson hammered home the point that, "Our nation does not suffer from having too many farmers. Our nation's food security is threatened by having too few farmers!"

Richardson called for legislation that will benefit a broad spectrum of farmers rather than favor the few and to reject legislation that will lead to continued consolidation in American agriculture. He also called for legislation that will allow the current generation of farmers to retire with dignity and to easily pass on farm assets to the next generation without onerous financial burdens.

Technical Assistance vs. Land Retirement

Keeping with his theme of "more, not less farming," Richardson pointed out that 92% of all Federal conservation dollars go to land retirement programs and that nearly every state is woefully under funded in technical assistance programs that "help farmers to produce food and fiber in harmony with the environment." He revealed that the host state, Iowa, had funding to cover only 37% of its technical assistance needs. Richardson strongly pointed out that current House legislation would only exacerbate the shortcomings in technical assistance.

Take a look at the first slide. Most ranchers already own the state water use rights on these allotments. Most also own structural improvements like fencing. Why is it a subsidy that they are charged a low dollar amount per Animal Unit Month for such miserable forage? Why do envirals always compare the fee with private pasture rentals and call it a subsidy? Private pasture or range is much easier access. There is usually good water and good forage. Fencing/structures and other services are provided?

When the envirals "rent" these allotments, what happens to the local communities that are dependent upon the circulating dollars initiated by agriculture? (Usually circulates from 5-7 times through the community.)

As for the checkerboard issue, in an open range state, people who don't want cattle on their land must fence it off. (The feds. are an exception.) I think what will happen here is that the cattle will continue to graze the land rented by the envirals under open-range. That is unless the envirals wish to fence miles and miles of land.