• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ranchers- Welfare Queens?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Welfare Queens in Cowboy Hats
Apr 18, 2014 8:31 AM EDT
By James Greiff



The tale of Cliven Bundy, a Nevada cattle rancher, had all the elements of a certain type of political theater, making it inevitable that he would become a hero in the conservative blogosphere and a fixture on Fox News.

The story line, as told in those forums, went something like this: Heavy-handed federal bureaucrats, having seized Bundy's cattle, were forced to back down after being confronted by cowboys on horseback toting nothing more than their side arms and an unshakable faith in the U.S. Constitution. (A little-told detail: A sniper or two were concurrently taking aim at the federal agents.)

Bundy was painted as a man being "squeezed" by the federal government, and deserving of our sympathy. Or, more profoundly, he was cast in the same mold as Mohandas Gandhi and George Washington, men who disobeyed unjust laws to bring about revolutionary change. The word "tyranny" was used so often it became background noise in the news coverage.

Let's dispense with niceties: Bundy is a freeloading scofflaw, a welfare queen in a Stetson who claimed what wasn't his. He took subsidies from U.S. taxpayers and refused to pay the $1.2 million he owed for using federal -- make that our -- land.

Bundy has neither history nor law on his side in his long-running dispute with the U.S. government. He asserts that his grazing rights were established in 1880 when his ancestors settled the land where his ranch sits. By some reasoning understood only by him and his range-war sympathizers, the federal government has no constitutional right to interfere with his grazing cattle.There is a gaping flaw with this argument. As several writers have noted, the Nevada constitution, adopted in 1864 as a condition of statehood, trumps Bundy's right to graze on public land. It says:


That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States.

Bundy no doubt is pining for the days, which he never actually experienced, when cattlemen could let their herds roam at will on public lands. That changed in 1934 when federal control of grazing was formalized under a law designed to prevent overuse and degradation of the range. The legislation was backed by ranchers (it was drafted by a rancher turned congressman), in part because it made it that much harder for newcomers to get into the business.


The law, the Taylor Grazing Act, gave existing ranchers permits allowing them to run their herds on federal land. In turn, ranchers paid user fees, which were lower than what most private landowners would have charged. Because those fees capture only a bit of the costs of the grazing program, it amounts to a taxpayer subsidy to ranchers of as much as $1 billion a year. Subsequent court rulings clearly established that the law didn’t grant ownership rights to ranchers who used federal land.


Bundy's specific complaint dates to 1993, when regulators began a program to protect the endangered desert tortoise. They placed certain grasslands off-limits for grazing, and the government bought out the permits of some ranchers. Among others, Bundy refused to sell and kept grazing his cattle on restricted federal land without a permit.

The fees and fines kept mounting, and Bundy kept losing in court. In 1998, a federal judge permanently barred him from letting his cattle graze on protected federal land.

Finally, agents of the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees grazing rights, began rounding up Bundy's cattle to remove them from federal property a few weeks ago. Things got hot when Bundy's family and other ranchers confronted the agents. Wary of the standoff escalating into another Ruby Ridge or Waco -- totemic events for some Americans -- federal officials backed down and released Bundy's cattle.

Where it goes from here is unclear. But what shouldn't be in dispute is the nature of the conflict. This wasn't a matter of capricious enforcement on the part of the federal government but the steady ratcheting up of pressure on a defiant lawbreaker. There is no grand principle here, just the ill-judgment of a man who has helped himself at the public trough while believing he has a right to pick and choose which laws to obey.


This was one of the reasons I said I didn't think Bundy and his case was the one ranchers want to take up as their flag bearer... This is the direction many of the articles now appearing are taking.. With a national public where the large majority are no longer involved in ranchs or government leases they are getting more play.. This article is going viral on FB within the hunting and sportsmens crowd....
Not only do a large number of legitimate hard working ranchers that pay their fees, work within the law, or don't have government allotments not support him- but now all ranchers with government leases are coming into question- and it may do much more harm to the government lease/allotment on public lands than it helps...
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
You knuckle headed son of a bitch! THERE ARE NO SUBSIDIES FOR PERMITS. WE OWN THE DAMN RIGHT TO GRAZE! I HAVE HAD AN ENTIRE GUTFULL OF THIS CONTINIOUS BULLSHIT! YOU TELL US NOT TO SUPPORT BUNDY AND THEN POST THIS DRIVEL WHICH IS NOTHING BUT FAR FETCH LIES? WHAT A TOTAL BUNCH OF GARBAGE. I AM DONE. AND RANCHING IS COMPLETELY SCREWED WHEN OUR OWN PEERS HAVE NO DAMN IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BUT JUST KEEP SPOUTING PROPAGANDA........EVEN AFTER YOU ARE CORRECTED TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

You say public land ranchers are losing support? Well why the hell wouldn't we when fellow ranchers, WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER, KEEP THROWING US TO THE WOLVES. :roll: When the government comes calling for the buffalo preserve I intend to laugh my ass off! You and Tam don't get it at all. Congrats! You deserve each other. Now I will get back to being a good for nothing welfare ranching scumbag. Talk to ya never.

I have some great friends here. I encourage you to contact me via email or phone if you would still like to associate with a lowlife like myself. Time to get a new hobby where a guy doesn't have to fight with folks who are supposed to be playing on my team. I've enjoyed ranchers.net but not any more. This is where the cowboy rides away. Macon, please delete my membership. I've reached the end of my rope.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States.

So, were those lands appropriated to his family, or not?

If his family had settled those lands, before Nevada became a state, can they legally sign them over to the Federal Government, as a condition of statehood?

Did the Federal government renege on their promise to give back those lands to state, after statehood?
 

Larrry

Well-known member
So we are to take the word of one guy who has a pen and a piece of paper that decides he wants his opinion out there
I'm sorry but there are many more saying the opposite and recognize this government run amok. This one guys opinion can't justify the killing and abusing of animals on this ranch
I'm sorry the guy doesn't get it and overlooks the atrocities the blm performed
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
leanin' H said:
You knuckle headed son of a bad word! THERE ARE NO SUBSIDIES FOR PERMITS. WE OWN THE DAMN RIGHT TO GRAZE! I HAVE HAD AN ENTIRE GUTFULL OF THIS CONTINIOUS BS! YOU TELL US NOT TO SUPPORT BUNDY AND THEN POST THIS DRIVEL WHICH IS NOTHING BUT FAR FETCH LIES? WHAT A TOTAL BUNCH OF GARBAGE. I AM DONE. AND RANCHING IS COMPLETELY SCREWED WHEN OUR OWN PEERS HAVE NO DAMN IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BUT JUST KEEP SPOUTING PROPAGANDA........EVEN AFTER YOU ARE CORRECTED TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

You say public land ranchers are losing support? Well why the hell wouldn't we when fellow ranchers, WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER, KEEP THROWING US TO THE WOLVES. :roll: When the government comes calling for the buffalo preserve I intend to laugh my ass off! You and Tam don't get it at all. Congrats! You deserve each other. Now I will get back to being a good for nothing welfare ranching scumbag. Talk to ya never.

I have some great friends here. I encourage you to contact me via email or phone if you would still like to associate with a lowlife like myself. Time to get a new hobby where a guy doesn't have to fight with folks who are supposed to be playing on my team. I've enjoyed ranchers.net but not any more. This is where the cowboy rides away. Macon, please delete my membership. I've reached the end of my rope.


:clap: :tiphat:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 02:03 PM PDT.

An Idahoan shows Bundy what a real Western rancher is

byJoan McCarter


Being a Westerner and the daughter and granddaughter of cattle ranchers, I think it's about time that the non-crazy Western ranchers get some equal national media time. Because they're not all federal government-hating, "wise use," sagebrush rebelling, gun-toting crazies—even in a state like Idaho. One of Idaho's most influential cattle ranchers and conservationists is proof of that. His name was Bud Purdy, and in his 96 years, he became sort of a legend in the state. Unfortunately, he passed away this week, but this remembrance from the Idaho Stateman's Rocky Barker tells the story.

Purdy, 96, led the ranching industry into rest and rotation grazing on public lands that both protected the range and improved cattle production. He duck-hunted and skied with Ernest Hemingway and hosted Jimmy Stewart and Gary Cooper at his Picabo Ranch.
He helped start the Idaho Cattle Association, led the University of Idaho Foundation as president and was chairman of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry. In addition to the ranch, he and his late wife Ruth owned the Picabo Store, the Picabo Elevator and Silver Creek Supply, a seed business. […]

Purdy donated a 3,500-acre conservation easement on all of the ranch along Silver Creek in the 1990s to the Nature Conservancy, adjacent to its own Silver Creek Preserve. Purdy didn’t even take the tax break on the easement valued at $7 million. […]

He loved the cattle business, he explained to writer, producer and author Steve Stuebner in an article in 2012 for the Idaho Rangeland Commission (which he co-founded). "Every morning, you get up and do something different," he said. "You turn out on the range and ride a horse every day. Even now, I go out and make sure the water is OK, check the fences and make sure the gates are closed.

"It's just a constant going out there and doing it," Purdy said. "I was never a cowboy, but I've ridden a million miles."
As one of my good friends here in Idaho wrote on Facebook, "He loved his land so much he owned it and when owning it wasn't enough to preserve it for future generations, he figured out a way to do that."
Cliven Bundy doesn't represent the West. He doesn't represent cattle ranchers. He represents a minority of right-wing cranks who are good at making a lot of noise through threats of violence. He's also nothing more than a common crook.

If you're looking for an emblematic man of the West, it's not Bundy. It's Bud Purdy
.

Story and video: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/16/1292565/-An-Idahoan-shows-Bundy-what-a-real-Western-rancher-is#

Here is another that is making the circles of FB and the blogs... While I'm not a fan of nature conservancy's and think they will end up being the way much more land gets in the hands of the greenie weenies and bunny huggers- this is a great video of a rancher that believed in working within the system- and takes advantage of the educational and training opportunities offered to do better...
Definitely watch the video... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/16/1292565/-An-Idahoan-shows-Bundy-what-a-real-Western-rancher-is#
 

Mike

Well-known member
leanin' H said:
You knuckle headed son of a bad word! THERE ARE NO SUBSIDIES FOR PERMITS. WE OWN THE DAMN RIGHT TO GRAZE! I HAVE HAD AN ENTIRE GUTFULL OF THIS CONTINIOUS BS! YOU TELL US NOT TO SUPPORT BUNDY AND THEN POST THIS DRIVEL WHICH IS NOTHING BUT FAR FETCH LIES? WHAT A TOTAL BUNCH OF GARBAGE. I AM DONE. AND RANCHING IS COMPLETELY SCREWED WHEN OUR OWN PEERS HAVE NO DAMN IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BUT JUST KEEP SPOUTING PROPAGANDA........EVEN AFTER YOU ARE CORRECTED TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

You say public land ranchers are losing support? Well why the hell wouldn't we when fellow ranchers, WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER, KEEP THROWING US TO THE WOLVES. :roll: When the government comes calling for the buffalo preserve I intend to laugh my ass off! You and Tam don't get it at all. Congrats! You deserve each other. Now I will get back to being a good for nothing welfare ranching scumbag. Talk to ya never.

I have some great friends here. I encourage you to contact me via email or phone if you would still like to associate with a lowlife like myself. Time to get a new hobby where a guy doesn't have to fight with folks who are supposed to be playing on my team. I've enjoyed ranchers.net but not any more. This is where the cowboy rides away. Macon, please delete my membership. I've reached the end of my rope.

H!!!! Don'y leave because of big fat sloppy stupid sumbeech. He ain't worth the time of day........

Besides he left long ago...........................
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
obviously another "right wing extremist"...or, "domestic terrorist", as Reid and OT would have you believe...

1980 Sagebrush Rebellion

Shortly after he was elected in a landslide over President Jimmy Carter in 1980, Ronald Reagan sent a telegram to the "Sagebrush Convention" in Salt Lake City.

In the telegram President-elect Reagan sent "best wishes to all my fellow 'Sagebrush Rebels'" and gave the conventioneers some hope for a successful campaign to turn federal land over to more local control. Reagan wrote, "I renew my pledge to work toward a 'sagebrush solution.' My administration will work to ensure that states have an equitable share of public lands and their natural resources. To all, good luck and thanks for your support."

http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Policy/States_Rights/1980_Sagebrush.aspx
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
leanin' H said:
You knuckle headed son of a bad word! THERE ARE NO SUBSIDIES FOR PERMITS. WE OWN THE DAMN RIGHT TO GRAZE! I HAVE HAD AN ENTIRE GUTFULL OF THIS CONTINIOUS BS! YOU TELL US NOT TO SUPPORT BUNDY AND THEN POST THIS DRIVEL WHICH IS NOTHING BUT FAR FETCH LIES? WHAT A TOTAL BUNCH OF GARBAGE. I AM DONE. AND RANCHING IS COMPLETELY SCREWED WHEN OUR OWN PEERS HAVE NO DAMN IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BUT JUST KEEP SPOUTING PROPAGANDA........EVEN AFTER YOU ARE CORRECTED TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

You say public land ranchers are losing support? Well why the hell wouldn't we when fellow ranchers, WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER, KEEP THROWING US TO THE WOLVES. :roll: When the government comes calling for the buffalo preserve I intend to laugh my ass off! You and Tam don't get it at all. Congrats! You deserve each other. Now I will get back to being a good for nothing welfare ranching scumbag. Talk to ya never.

I have some great friends here. I encourage you to contact me via email or phone if you would still like to associate with a lowlife like myself. Time to get a new hobby where a guy doesn't have to fight with folks who are supposed to be playing on my team. I've enjoyed ranchers.net but not any more. This is where the cowboy rides away. Macon, please delete my membership. I've reached the end of my rope.

Leanin H I always thought you were above the "stick your head in the sand and hide" mode of operation :???: .... A person will never know what the rest of the country thinks if you just run away from it... Remember- your view and perception is only one of many...
Like it or not-- these are the articles that are picking up steam with the press and internet... Sportsmen's groups who are some times in conflict with ranchers about "public" land are waving a big flag.... And they will get a big backing from the greenies....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
leanin' H said:
You knuckle headed son of a bad word! THERE ARE NO SUBSIDIES FOR PERMITS. WE OWN THE DAMN RIGHT TO GRAZE! I HAVE HAD AN ENTIRE GUTFULL OF THIS CONTINIOUS BS! YOU TELL US NOT TO SUPPORT BUNDY AND THEN POST THIS DRIVEL WHICH IS NOTHING BUT FAR FETCH LIES? WHAT A TOTAL BUNCH OF GARBAGE. I AM DONE. AND RANCHING IS COMPLETELY SCREWED WHEN OUR OWN PEERS HAVE NO DAMN IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BUT JUST KEEP SPOUTING PROPAGANDA........EVEN AFTER YOU ARE CORRECTED TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

You say public land ranchers are losing support? Well why the hell wouldn't we when fellow ranchers, WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER, KEEP THROWING US TO THE WOLVES. :roll: When the government comes calling for the buffalo preserve I intend to laugh my ass off! You and Tam don't get it at all. Congrats! You deserve each other. Now I will get back to being a good for nothing welfare ranching scumbag. Talk to ya never.

I have some great friends here. I encourage you to contact me via email or phone if you would still like to associate with a lowlife like myself. Time to get a new hobby where a guy doesn't have to fight with folks who are supposed to be playing on my team. I've enjoyed ranchers.net but not any more. This is where the cowboy rides away. Macon, please delete my membership. I've reached the end of my rope.

Leanin H I always thought you were above the "stick your head in the sand and hide" mode of operation :???: .... A person will never know what the rest of the country thinks if you just run away from it... Remember- your view and perception is only one of many...
Like it or not-- these are the articles that are picking up steam with the press and internet... Sportsmen's groups who are some times in conflict with ranchers about "public" land are waving a big flag.... And they will get a big backing from the greenies....

After posting your views on the Bundy situation, do you really think we are going to believe you were posting this article, just to let us know "what others are saying"

:roll:

This article matches the opinions you have expressed in the past...that's why you posted it.

"How to not influence, and to lose friends" by OT
 

Steve

Well-known member
Maybe you can answer this for me OT.

just to clear things up a bit.. for a guy out east who isn't as bright as you are...


and this isn't a question about your operation or how many head you run..
but,.. to help me understand, I need to use a few numbers...

so lets say you have 1880 head of cattle/pairs.. and you paid for a fair amount for grazing based on AUM.

if the government came in one day and said.. you could only run 300 AUM starting today..

the next morning you look out over the land your family has ranched on for a hundred or so years and realize that this means that you will be liquidating a significant portion of their herd..

your fixed cost wouldn't go down.. the loan from the bank wouldn't go down.. the cow/calf check would help.. but it would only be a one time payment and wouldn't earn money like a decent herd would,.. and you know it will effect the Ranch's ability to survive.

and while that check from liquidaiting would help.. you know prices won't be the best since all the ranchers in your area were just handed the same fate,.. so you know for the most part the ranch that was your families life for one hundred years is now in jeopardy.

you now have to pay the bills with less then 1/6th of the herd you had the day before..

and now if you go to sell it.. well it ain't worth what it was yesterday..


Now for my question.

how would you feel?,.. and could you make it work?



now as this is an honest question.. I hope no one steps in and throws out the usual insults and taunts..

cause to be honest.. I can't understand OT's position,..

cause for me I know when I lost half the acreage I leased it was no longer profitable.. so losing 5/6ths just doesn't seem like it would work either..

and while I was a bit upset, I didn't have my entire life invested in it,.. and it wasn't property my family held, but just a bit of bought and a bit of leased land..

so I can't fully understand how a guy would feel losing a place he was raised on and had been in the family for a 100 years or so..


and I am just hoping OT can explain how he would feel in the situation some of the Nevada ranchers were put in.

Now for my question.

how would you feel?,.. and could you make it work?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rosendale calls for transferring federal lands to state

April 18, 2014 6:02 pm • By CHARLES S. JOHNSON Gazette State Bureau

HELENA — Republican U.S. House candidate Matt Rosendale is proposing that the federal government transfer Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands in Montana to the state to manage and control.

Federal lands make up 35 percent of Montana.

“The U.S. Constitution clearly defines the purpose for the federal government to retain land for post offices, batteries and things like that,” Rosendale said. “There is no call in the Constitution for the federal government to own national forests or BLM land and just to manage those additional lands."

Both Congress and the Legislature would have to approve his proposal. Rosendale, a Republican state senator from Glendive, said he’s been working on the idea with the American Lands Council, a group in South Jordan, Utah.

Rosendale’s proposal wouldn’t affect Glacier National Park or other National Park Service lands or Indian reservations or national monuments.

The Forest Service now manages 19.1 million acres in Montana, while the BLM manages 8.3 million acres, plus 47.2 million subsurface acres here, according to the agencies.

“If we were able to manage and control those lands, we would be able to generate much more economic-development opportunities,” Rosendale said. “We would be able to harvest a lot of that timber, we’d be able to acquire the minerals that are located in those areas and once again utilize the economic opportunities that are located in there.”

He said the federal government is losing money managing federal lands in states. The federal government is denying access for recreation, compromising air quality by not allowing logging, which leads to forest fires, and hurts fisheries as well.

“It’s economically unfriendly, environmentally unfriendly and adverse to the Constitution,” he said.

But Nick Gevock, outreach director for the Montana Wildlife Federation, adamantly opposed the idea.

“This isn’t personal, but getting to the policy, I think it’s a horrible idea,” Gevock said. “Montana has a $5.8 billion annual outdoor industry and these federal lands are absolutely essential to that. These are the places where Montanans hunt and fish and hike and ski and go wildlife watching, and that is essential to the quality of life here.”

Gevock also predicted that if the state took over the federal lands, Montana would have to sell off large swaths of land to private landowners in order to pay for firefighting costs.

“We couldn’t afford to manage these lands,” Gevock said. “It would be a budget buster for the state of Montana. Once those lands are in private hands, they are off-limits, or they very well could be.”


In response to these concerns, Rosendale said, “I don’t believe the lands would need to be sold to the private sector. If the state did believe it, that would (be) the citizens of Montana doing it, not someone 2,200 miles away."

He said he’s confident the transfer will spur economic growth for the state through added revenue that could be realized from development of the lands.

The Forest Service had the equivalent of 1,570 full-time employees in Montana as of 2012, not counting the Missoula Fire Lab and the Missoula Tech Development Center. The BLM had 571 full-time equivalent employees combined in Montana, and North and South Dakota in 2012.

Rosendale said he believes the state would need to hire far fewer employees to manage these lands and is confident the many more private-sector jobs would be created.

Gevock said the federal employees whose jobs may be lost if the lands are transferred “are members of their communities and taxpayers themselves.”

He said the BLM as a federal agency returns $4 to the U.S. Treasury for every $1 it spends.

The Montana Wildlife Federation official also predicted that ranchers would experience a sharp increase in grazing rates if the federal lands are transferred.

“We should be honest with our cattle producers that there will be sharp increases in grazing rates,” Gevock said. “Market rates are well over $20 an AUM (animal unit month). They pay $1.35 an AUM to the BLM.”



Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/rosendale-calls-for-transferring-federal-lands-to-state/article_4ae4e88a-0d20-55db-95ec-72fb88fd1d20.html#ixzz2zZcMXLfL

As far as your Sagebrush Rebellion-- this fellow isn't getting the greatest of support locally with ranchers or sportsmen-except for a few anti all federal government folks... The majority of the ranchers I've seen locally comment on this is they support local and state government having much more input into how federal lands are operated- but don't want the state in total control/take total liability for them....And I don't think some would like to see the increase in grazing fees that the state is being pressured to make...In 2011 they raised the fees to around $10 an AUM (in comparison to BLM which is approximately $1.40 AUM) - but there is a lot of pressure from state residents to raise them to match private lease rates which are going as high as $50 an AUM, to allay some of the property tax rates...
In our area since so much of State owned land is interspersed with Federal land the BLM works closely with the management on state land...

Other candidates react to land-transfer idea

April 18, 2014 8:51 pm • Gazette State Bureau


HELENA — Here are comments from other candidates for the U.S. House on a proposal by Republican Matt Rosendale to transfer certain federal lands to the state:

State Sen. Elsie Arntzen, a Republican from Billings: “I would like to see Montana be in much more control, yes. But I think you need to have a more detailed, in-depth plan on how you’re going to work with counties on PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes). Federal lands are not being taken care of to the best extent possible.” Montana local governments last year received $26.5 million in PILT payments from the federal government to compensate counties for lost property tax revenue from the lands.

Former Public Service Commissioner John Driscoll, a Democrat from Helena: “People better take that proposal seriously. I’m not for it. If I had anything to say about it, we better get our act together.” He said Montanans need to organize to preserve what they have.

John Lewis, a Democrat from Helena: “The devil is in the details, but in general, transferring all federal lands to the states is not a realistic or responsible solution that would not guarantee that Montanans have a greater say in the land use designations that affect them and their businesses.” Lewis said he fears such a transfer could raise taxes on Montanans when the state takes over the job of fighting wildfires and managing roads, bridges, trails and campsites and the financial obligations.

Former state Sen. Corey Stapleton, a Republican from Billings: “Yes, I would support looking at how you would do it. I don’t know how you would be able to do it. I support the idea. The feds haven’t proved to be good stewards at all. … I think Montanans could solve it better than the blowhards in Washington, D.C.”

Drew Turiano, a Republican from Helena: “I support that. I think the federal government owns a lot of land. It should be our prerogative to do what we want.” He said if the state wants to drill for oil, manage the forests or mine the federal lands, it should be the state’s prerogative, he said.

Former state Sen. Ryan Zinke, a Republican from Whitefish: “I think his plan is not well thought out. At the end of the day, I think you have to do a cost-benefit analysis and be very careful. I do believe that Montana can manage its land probably better. Montana does get a buck forty back from the federal government. You have to remember there is a liability, too. ... So you’re saying we’re going to get in and say America can’t manage its land anymore. I fundamentally disagree. We need to put the (federal) bureaucracy and overreach back in the box.”


Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/other-candidates-react-to-land-transfer-idea/article_9416bad4-d521-5317-8f21-aa5d93e85820.html#ixzz2zZeky9Xo
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
So, what you are saying OT, is that Montana is being Federally subsidized by Federal Taxpayers, from the rest of the Country?

Why couldn't Montana afford to manage the land, that is now federally owned?

Are you guys "Welfare Queens" in Montana?

Sounds like a Socialized system to me?

Aren't you guys in the middle of a BIG oil boom, in Montana?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
So, what you are saying OT, is that Montana is being Federally subsidized by Federal Taxpayers, from the rest of the Country?

Why couldn't Montana afford to manage the land, that is now federally owned?

Are you guys "Welfare Queens" in Montana?

Sounds like a Socialized system to me?

Aren't you guys in the middle of a BIG oil boom, in Montana?



As a few of the candidates said- Montana gets a lot of income off federal "public" lands- not only in the cattle/timber raised on them but the hunting, fishing, and recreationists tourist monies...

As far as our county- which has a large percentage of federal lands that pay no taxes-- without the federal governments PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) funds- the local and county governments would have a tough time operating.... And if the state took over- that federal money would no longer be coming in- but remember that payment is not only for ranchers/lessee's but the public of the country that come to this area as tourists and folks recreating ...

Out here on the prairie- yes I think the state could manage the land.... Like I said- it would probably take a big raise in state grazing rates to cover the lost PILT money's....Over in the national forests- not so sure... One fire year could bankrupt the state...

Oil boom- yes on the edge of it... Mostly in eastern Montana now- and only now is our Governor talking of allowing some money to trickle down to this part of the state (we would be better off in ND) or if we had local sales taxes like ND... local governments getting both the benefits and the expenses of it right now until the local infrastructure gets built up...
 

Triangle Bar

Well-known member
There are a lot of issues here with the Bundy situation, but none of them have anything to do with subsidies.
Permittees own the grazing rights on the acres under their permit. It is the exact same thing with mineral rights, just because you own the property doesn't mean you own the minerals. I would be willing to bet that a lot of property owners in the Dakota's can attest to that.
H, the thing you have to understand is that OT is a pot stirer. There is no way to know if he means what he types or he is playing devil's advocate. Frankly it's a very tiresome game.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Mike said:
Valley County, Montana received a whopping $0.88 per acre in 2013 for PILT payment. :lol:

What did they pay in Federal tax?

Nothing on the land- which would be the amount the county would receive if the state owned it...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Mike said:
Valley County, Montana received a whopping $0.88 per acre in 2013 for PILT payment. :lol:

What did they pay in Federal tax?

Nothing on the land- which would be the amount the county would receive if the state owned it...

So let me get this straight, you pay nothing in federal tax, and get .88 per acre, you are not subsidized, and you call others' "welfare queens".

You don't think the citizens of Montana pay Federal tax, for the benefits they receive back, from the Feds.?



And it is NOT true that the county would get nothing, if the state owned it...it could be whatever the citizens of the state decided, if the state owned it, with one less "middleman", that just so happens to pay higher union wages, than other "middlemen"
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
This discussion reminds me of the discussion that was had in Alberta, years ago, concerning our vehicle/licensing agencies.

"Privatize them, are you nuts"

Now we get better service (opinion), at a lower cost (fact).

Maybe the Feds. could take over our Provincial highway maintenance, so we can pay less tax... :lol:
 
Top