My list of criticisms of the NPS

[DanS]

Once more how about the costs for recreationalists, you know trailheads, trails and their maintneance, trash removal, etc?

I believe that people that recreate on public land do pay taxes don't they? Therefore they do pay for said things.
There are however some public land users that pay extra fees because their use incurs higher cost.
Examples, hunting licenses pay for wildlife management, fishing permits pay for fisheries management, etc etc.
Grazing income doesn't even come CLOSE to covering the costs.
Generally the health of the local ecology is what pays the price in covering such costs!

I personally think that ranchers do pay the full costs of leasing lands for grazing... I persoanlly think the numbers are juggled to make the costs of hikers trails fit into grazing costs.

Come on ELK... there is just no way here.
Remember the facts that I posted?
Grazing leases take in approximately $6.1 million a year, yet on western PUBLIC LANDS over $8 million a year is spent on predator control for nothing else except the benefit of the livestock owners.
Or are you thinking that predator control is really a "hikers" cost.

Let's also not forget the damage that is done by grazing livestock, the heavy use of roads, trails, riparian area damages, fisheries damages, overgrazing, competition with actual wildlife, etc, etc.

Do you know what the deficit is for hikers? Are you concerned?

Absolutely.
However this is a discussion of how the livestock industry dictates policy on public lands.
Also why is it you ONLY bang on hikers?? It seems that you are again trying to distract from the original conversation. Although you obviously welcome any opening that you can turn into something to do with your anti-enviro agenda.

Oddly enough, in your haste to bash "hikers" you have conveniently forgotten to mention that these "trails" are also used by, ATV's mountain bikes, dirtbikes, snowmobiles, skiers, hunters, fishermen, etc. They are not "only" used by the stereotypical "enviromentalist" uses. Ooops!

[DanS]

I am not in the least concerned about any perceived breaks the ranchers get,

That you've made abundantly clear. Whatever breaks the livestock industry gets is A-OK by you!

in the first place I KNOW a lot of it is bookkeeping juggling by the feds.

Really? Care to show us some evidence of this knowledge?

Also I'm really curious why you think the "feds" would be juggling their books in order to make it SEEM that they are handling the grazing leases so poorly?

In the second again, the food they produce at a reasonable cost is extremely valuable to the ordinary people in this country.

The food prices at the store don't seem as "reasonable", when you look at the exorbitant annual taxpayer losses however.

By the way you mention half a billion, you do realize that is how many taxpayer dollars were spent for Plum Creek ?

Hey, have I ever supported Plum Creek?
Why do you insist on trying to divert attention from the topic here? Repeatedly trying to change the subject doesn't make me think that you feel so strongly about your argument here.

No, I don't worry about the politicians, they all represent special interests, that is how environmetnal groups have gotten so much power.

No kidding.
Absolutely the politicians in this country all represent special interests.
That is one reason why the livestock industry is annually able to dictate LOSING public land policies to US taxpayers.

The environmental groups have gained so much power in part, because people are sick of the large power of special interest groups such as the livestock industry!

[Mikessa]

{snip snip}
This leads me to ask if brucellosis were such a threat that it needed to be controlled at a huge taxpayer cost... why the indifference towards elk? Especially since logic tells us that elk are the more real threat...?

So to sum up, YNP bison are basically being harassed, hazed or slaughtered on public AND private lands in Montana for the private financial benefit of private stockgrowers... at OUR cost as taxpayers. Meanwhile the livestock industry turns a blind eye to elk populations that are actually the bigger threat. Therefore our tax dollars are being spent in an ineffectual manner for essentially nothing other than to placate the local livestock industry.
Furthermore the Montana livestock industry has aggressively blocked any of the common sense & taxpayer saving solutions brought forth over the past 5 years.

In my mind, this is a travesty and an absolute waste of taxpayer money brought about by the livestock industry in Montana and because they are a willing participant the NPS is just as guilty.

Personally I'm really curious that if brucellosis were eradicated from the YNP bison herds if the livestock industry would somehow come up with a different reasoning as to why bison shouldn't be allowed outside YNP.

First the livestock lobby has wanted to limit the elk migrations, but the hunting lobby is also large. Bison weren't so lucky...

Second, the NPS has wanted to allow the bison to migrate as they see fit, but they got overruled by higher ups...

Third, you ain't gonna to get rid of brucellosis from the Yellowstone herd. It's just not possible.

Brucellosis is a real pain in the ass. It can remain inactive in the ground for over 50 years and still be brought back to life. The post 911 scare unfortunately killed that long term study. A set of soil samples were taken decades ago and stored at room temperature. Every 5 years some were taken out to see if they could be revived. They made it to 50, then 911 happened. The rest of the stored samples were destroyed so we won't know how far past 50 they will survive. Go to any dust or mud wallow frequented by bison in the past and you can culture brucellosis out of the soil. I know a number of mud wallows where it can be cultured out of. Thankfully none are on my farm.

As for livestock... Well, unfortunately we humans can also get brucellosis. They get a bit touchy about livestock diseases that humans can get. Brucellosis in a state usually means a decrease in the value of the animals from that state due to the increased costs of dealing with them at slaughter time. I may be mistaken on this, but I think meat from cattle from a brucellosis positive state can only be sold after being throughly cooked. This means steaks from them are no longer as valuable. Slaughter plants don't make money on hamburger. They only make it on the high value cuts like steaks. Given that, would you want to buy a steer from a brucellosis positive state? At a certain lower price point it becomes profitable to sell them as a cooked meat product.

Bogo, if brucellosis is found in livestock and they get buchered, why would they sell the meat if humans could get it too? Its like selling meat infested with E-coli, no one wants to get that either.

I certainly wouldnt walk into a store and ask for a pound of brucellosis.

[Bogo]

Bogo, if brucellosis is found in livestock and they get buchered, why would they sell the meat if humans could get it too? Its like selling meat infested with E-coli, no one wants to get that either.

I certainly wouldnt walk into a store and ask for a pound of brucellosis.

Brucellosis can be killed by fully cooking the meat, just like E-coli, and leaves no harmful toxins behind. It can be cleaned off of most surfaces using standard cleaning methods and disinfectants.

If an animal is known positive it is not allowed to be sold for human consumption. It is NOT allowed to go into the human food system. Known positive animals are all destroyed, often along with all their herd mates. However it is too costly and time consuming to test all animals that go through slaughter. So instead of testing, they force all the meat from livestock in areas that have had recent history of brucellosis positive animals to be fully cooked before retail sale. The attitude is we don't know if it's positive, but we force it to be fully cooked to make sure it's safe to eat. They don't allow retail sale because way to many people don't safely handle and cook their meat. If you eat a rare steak from a brucellosis infected animal you have a good chance of getting sick. Brucellosis, https://health.google.com/health/ref/Brucellosis, has no assured cure and possibly produces a chronic recurring sickness. You don't want to get it. Hence the reason they go to such measures when it is found in a herd.

[Bruce Gourley]

It seems this discussion never ends. But for the record, welfare ranching is a huge part of the American West, and there is a reason the ranchers who live off of taxpayer subsidies try to divert attention to environmentalists. (Not all ranchers do live off government welfare, of course; many smaller ranchers have to work second jobs just to keep their ranches, while others, typically big ranch outfits, take money from taxpayers, as noted in a previous thread a few months ago).

For those wishing to see the history and data regarding welfare ranching, see Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West.

Here is some fairly recent data, from a news article earlier this year: "The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2005 that the BLM and Forest Service spends $132.5 million annually on grazing management, but collects only $17.5 million in grazing fees, for an annual loss of at least $115 million to taxpayers. The average grazing fee on equivalent, non-irrigated private lands in the West was $15.90 per AUM in 2007."

That's right: western ranchers received some $115,000,000 in government welfare in 2005 from subsidized grazing fees alone.

The only way to truly resolve the conflict between Yellowstone wildlife (bison, wolves, grizzlies) and ranchers is to remove the roughly 2000 head of welfare cattle grazing on public lands adjacent to Yellowstone at taxpayer's expense.

[DanS]

It seems this discussion never ends. But for the record, welfare ranching is a huge part of the American West, and there is a reason the ranchers who live off of taxpayer subsidies try to divert attention to environmentalists. (Not all ranchers do live off government welfare, of course; many smaller ranchers have to work second jobs just to keep their ranches, while others, typically big ranch outfits, take money from taxpayers, as noted in a previous thread a few months ago).

I completely agree this discussion seems to be one that is never ending.
There are those obviously that have issues with how cheaply our public lands are just given away & there are those that support the livestock industry's use of those public lands without question.

One thing that makes me optimistic about this is that more & more people are starting to open their eyes & take notice in regards to what is actually happening. In fact a good number of ppl that I know that are upset about dirt cheap livestock grazing are not "environmentalists". They are actually hunters & fishermen like myself. They realize that their recreational opportunities can be & are in many ways negatively effected by cheap public grazing.
Others that are just simply looking for more efficient government are upset that these grazers get by paying peanuts while taxpayers are footing the bill.

The political climate is changing slowly in this area away from the absolute dominance of livestock interests... but luckily it is changing in my opinion.

For those wishing to see the history and data regarding welfare ranching, see Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West.

Here is some fairly recent data, from a news article earlier this year: "The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2005 that the BLM and Forest Service spends $132.5 million annually on grazing management, but collects only $17.5 million in grazing fees, for an annual loss of at least $115 million to taxpayers. The average grazing fee on equivalent, non-irrigated private lands in the West was $15.90 per AUM in 2007."

That's right: western ranchers received some $115,000,000 in government welfare in 2005 from subsidized grazing fees alone.

Those numbers are similar to the source that I had posted earlier with direct taxpayer loss being over $100 million & indirect costs coming close to half a billion. That's just amazing.

Anyone who is a financially conscious & for more efficient government should be going nuts over this situation.

Btw, thanks for the book link as well... I haven't read it as of now, but will be adding that to my list!

[ELK]

The only way to settle this completely truthfully is for the GAO to proved a specific breakdown of the expense and income from public land. Every dime paid in grazing or trailing fees must be listed specifically, every dime from hiking fees and camping fees. Then every dime spent by the government for fences (ranchers build and maintain), weed control (ranchers often get a break on cost of herbicides, but do the labor), maintain the trails (self maintaining), cost of maintaining water sources (maintained by the rancher for wildlife and livestock), cost of sending out bills, that is a cost born by the government, I have to admit and they pay the secretary or whoever to make out the deposit slips when the checks come in. Perhaps they can streamline that to auto pay and direct deposit. On top of that the ranchers are paying for the right to do this, which none of them object to.
Perhaps it would be cheaper to obtain our beef from Mexico or Australia, then we could do away with the USDA and those pesky meat inspections, might cost double, but hey who cares as long as hikers don't step in a cow pie, right?
Then of course we need a breakdown of the expenses of building each hiking trail, going back yearly and maintaining it, building the trailheads for the hikers to park their vehicles, some even have toilets right there, then of course there is the expense of hauling out trash left behind on foot or perhaps horseback, maybe use a helicopter to fly it out. The toilets in back country have to be cleaned, remember the 25,000 annual cost of the one in the Tetons? Tehy finally took it out and left folks to leave their waste and tissue on the ground for the wildlife to enjoy. I will admit they do not have to worry about secretaries to send out bills or take the money from hikers to the bank, in most cases.
Once again, you forget the benefit to wildlife that spend a good part of their time on ranches private property, and benefit from water sources kept open in back country areas.
I truly believe that the American people benefit far more from ranching and raising Americn food than they benefit from hikers in back country. I will have to see a line by line breakdown to be convinced otherwise.

[Photodude]

Dear Mr. Gourley,

I just read your post in the 'endless' thread concerning figures you provided from the GAO. Would you happen to have any numbers for us on how much the NPS spends (not just YP) vs. how much they take in in entrance fees????? Want to bet the ranch the numbers would reflect WELFARE VISITATION???????

Maybe the country outside the outer boundaries of YP are just cattle management areas with little aluminum signs attached to steel posts every so often. Yea, that's it..."Cattle Management Area Do Not Enter"!!!!!

And shall we throw in WELFARE RESEARCH? And all those 'special' folks who enter the Bear Management Areas of YP passing the little aluminum signs attached to steel posts posted every so often in YP, those are the WELFARE RESEARCHERS are they not? Or are they the WELFARE NPS STAFFERS whose balance sheet reflects running at a loss because they do not collect enough in entrance fees to run the park and need additional hand-outs from US?

Waiting for the numbers,

Photodude

[Bogo]

Numbers for 2001 to 2005
www.gao.gov/new.items/d06631t.pdf

Quick skim says it is running less than %10 funds from visitor fees.

[Joe_C]

The only way to settle this completely truthfully is for the GAO to proved a specific breakdown of the expense and income from public land...Then of course we need a breakdown of the expenses of building each hiking trail, going back yearly and maintaining it, building the trailheads for the hikers to park their vehicles, some even have toilets right there, then of course there is the expense of hauling out trash left behind on foot or perhaps horseback, maybe use a helicopter to fly it out. The toilets in back country have to be cleaned, remember the 25,000 annual cost of the one in the Tetons? Tehy finally took it out and left folks to leave their waste and tissue on the ground for the wildlife to enjoy. I will admit they do not have to worry about secretaries to send out bills or take the money from hikers to the bank, in most cases.
Once again, you forget the benefit to wildlife that spend a good part of their time on ranches private property, and benefit from water sources kept open in back country areas.
I truly believe that the American people benefit far more from ranching and raising Americn food than they benefit from hikers in back country. I will have to see a line by line breakdown to be convinced otherwise.

You've never answered the question...How far do you have to walk from the road to be considered a hiker? Isn't everyone a hiker or potential hiker? I think hiking trails benefit an awful lot of people and are open to everyone. You don't need a herd of cattle in order to benefit from the program and when you hike on a trail you don't fence anyone else out of the area.

As for the cost, most trails are maintaned by volunteers. (See Appalachian Mountain Club for an example.) And those that are maintained by state depts, particularly the ones I have hiked in WY, seem to be built to accomodate hunting parties (eg: really nice wooden bridges made to accomodate stock parties for stream crossings).

And for all your belly aching about a trail, I've yet to read about you complaining about the cost to build and maintain roads that cut through national forests and parks. These road costs have got to be exponentially more in expense than a dirt footpath. What's up with that? Oh, right, you understand the benefit from the roads cause YOU drive YOUR truck on them. I hope you don't walk more than 10 paces from your car. That would make you a hiker in my book and just another part of the problem cause you aren't paying your fair share to walk on a dirt path built back in the 1930s.

[Wyo Native]

And those that are maintained by state depts, particularly the ones I have hiked in WY, seem to be built to accomodate hunting parties (eg: really nice wooden bridges made to accomodate stock parties for stream crossings).

The State of Wyoming DOES NOT maintain trails on National Forest or BLM lands.

Although there may be a few volunteer organizations that maitain a few trails around my state, I have never seen one. Every single trail system that I have ever been on or used has been maintained by the Federal Government.

During the summers of 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996, I worked as a summer hire out of the Kemmerer and Pinedale Ranger Districts in the Bridger Teton National Forest, with the specific purpose of trail maintenance. This included everything from clearing of downed trees across trails, building walkways and foot bridges, repairing washed out sections of trail, istalling Rip-Rap on trails next to waterways, and ensuring that the trail system had the proper blaze markings Iientifying it. Most of the work was completed with horses with many nights spent in the field. We used chainsaws in the National Forest sections, nad Buck Saws in the Wilderness sections.

Also, on the foot bridges we made or that are in service now, horses are not allowed to cross them. They are for humans only. If the bridges or walkways are placed in a sensitive area, there is ALWAYS an alternative route for horses. The Lake Alice trail in the Wyoming Range is a perfect example of this.

[ke4yyd]

[quote="Bruce Gourley"]It seems this discussion never ends. But for the record, welfare ranching is a huge part of the American West, and there is a reason the ranchers who live off of taxpayer subsidies try to divert attention to environmentalists. [quote]

I get the feeling that anyone or group that receives payment by a gov't agency is on welfare. I guess that makes me one of the biggest welfare freeloaders on the forum. I receive military retirement pay, teacher retirement pay, social security and elected official pay. I received a stimulus check. Just wondering if anyone else besides me is on welfare. Anyone else get some benefit from the gov't? Stimulus check, cash for clunkers, driving on gov't paved roads,etc? My welfare is in return for services I provided our nation and state. I believe all payments of subsidies are because of benefits one provides the nation. We all may not agree on whether those benefits are justified but the laws were passed because congress felt they were worth while. One of the greatest examples of "welfare" benefits is the "GI Bill". It was blasted in its conception as a waste of money and not affordable. Yet the GAO has proven that the taxes collected because of the extra earnings due to education more than paid back what the gov't spent.

Does anyone really believe that the management of public land expenses would be reduced if grazing on public land was eliminated. When environmental groups purchased leases previously held by ranchers, did the cost of management go down?

I am interested where the numbers mentioned on the cost of private land leases came from. From what is said the numbers you gave would be against the law. Public land lease fees by law are supposed to reflect current prices so that the lessors would not have a financial advantage over the non lessors. Has anyone heard of a rancher that had no leases complain that they were no longer able to compete in the market? If so, it would seem that there would be grounds for a lawsuit.

[mertle]

Here is some fairly recent data, from a news article earlier this year: [i]"The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2005 that the BLM and Forest Service spends $132.5 million annually on grazing management, but collects only $17.5 million in grazing fees, for an annual loss of at least $115 million to taxpayers. The average grazing fee on equivalent, non-irrigated private lands in the West was $15.90 per AUM in 2007."

That's right: western ranchers received some $115,000,000 in government welfare in 2005 from subsidized grazing fees alone.

Those numbers are similar to the source that I had posted earlier with direct taxpayer loss being over $100 million & indirect costs coming close to half a billion. That's just amazing.

Anyone who is a financially conscious & for more efficient government should be going nuts over this situation.

maybe it's because most of the BLM land and the FS land isn't worth a plugged nickel for grazing and that's all the $ that someone is willing to pay. These grazing leases are offered through competative processes, are they not? Now just because their are a bunch of BLM workers on the taxpayer dole, it's "welfare ranching" rather than too many BLM workers doing alot of nothing. maybe ppl should get off the YNP boardwalks and take a look at BLM land up close and personal. I think you'll see what I mean...

[mertle]

Dear Mr. Gourley,

I just read your post in the 'endless' thread concerning figures you provided from the GAO. Would you happen to have any numbers for us on how much the NPS spends (not just YP) vs. how much they take in in entrance fees????? Want to bet the ranch the numbers would reflect WELFARE VISITATION???????

Maybe the country outside the outer boundaries of YP are just cattle management areas with little aluminum signs attached to steel posts every so often. Yea, that's it..."Cattle Management Area Do Not Enter"!!!!!

And shall we throw in WELFARE RESEARCH? And all those 'special' folks who enter the Bear Management Areas of YP passing the little aluminum signs attached to steel posts posted every so often in YP, those are the WELFARE RESEARCHERS are they not? Or are they the WELFARE NPS STAFFERS whose balance sheet reflects running at a loss because they do not collect enough in entrance fees to run the park and need additional hand-outs from US?

Waiting for the numbers,

Photodude

A rancher who follows the rules and leases public lands through a competative government process is a worthless leech but a person who does nothing and gets a welfare check and free health care and a mortgage bailout and earned income tax credit is a fine, upstanding Amercian citizen. that's how I am understanding this arguement anyway...

[mertle]

from "Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West "

"Finally there are the social costs resulting from beef consumption. Though the subject is beyond the scope of this book, a heavy meat diet contributes to numerous health problems that society pays for directly and indirectly, from higher costs to reduced life expectancy. "

hmmmmm...no agenda in this masterpiece...

[ELK]

Interestingly enough there are some 300 back country campsites in Yellowstone, which are free to many of the same folks complaining the food producers are getting to good of a deal for grazing. Would both be considered welfare?

[Bogo]

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/d ... udget.html

Only $10m listed for range land improvements nationwide of which a maximum of $600k is for administration. That includes fencing, seeding, spraying, etc.. Trails gets $16m which is for all trails on all BLM lands. Roads and bridges are in a different listing, but only $25m total and that includes all BLM lands.

BTW that $10m is a mandated minimum. See section Range Improvements of http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Business_and_Fiscal_Resources/justification.Par.56889.File.dat/FY2010_BLM_Greenbook.pdf for details. It also lists a projected income of $13.51m in grazing fees and land utilization rents for 2010.

http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/
Shows $49.949m allocated for grazing management and $50m in projected grass lands income.

Everybody loves to fudge the numbers to support their agenda. What are the real numbers? Only the real numbers count.

[Steve]

Interestingly enough there are some 300 back country campsites in Yellowstone, which are free to many of the same folks complaining the food producers are getting to good of a deal for grazing. Would both be considered welfare?

The cattle sales go on 1040 Schedule F.
Is there a tax form for campfire stories?

[ELK]

Interestingly enough there are some 300 back country campsites in Yellowstone, which are free to many of the same folks complaining the food producers are getting to good of a deal for grazing. Would both be considered welfare?

The cattle sales go on 1040 Schedule F.
Is there a tax form for campfire stories?

I suspect there is not a single cow raised inside of Yellowstone showing up on 1040s (or anywhere else). However I doubt that there is any more of a tax form for the freebie campgrounds than for those used by those of us who pay. I think comparing back country camp sites to regular pull in camp spots might be a little better comparison.

[Steve]

Interestingly enough there are some 300 back country campsites in Yellowstone, which are free to many of the same folks complaining the food producers are getting to good of a deal for grazing. Would both be considered welfare?

The cattle sales go on 1040 Schedule F.
Is there a tax form for campfire stories?

I suspect there is not a single cow raised inside of Yellowstone showing up on 1040s (or anywhere else). However I doubt that there is any more of a tax form for the freebie campgrounds than for those used by those of us who pay. I think comparing back country camp sites to regular pull in camp spots might be a little better comparison.

I don't think comparing an income generating, for profit business to a campsite makes any sense at all. Grazing fees are an itemized deduction. Camping fees are not because camping is not a business and does not generate income.

[Bogo]

The cattle sales go on 1040 Schedule F.
Is there a tax form for campfire stories?

I suspect there is not a single cow raised inside of Yellowstone showing up on 1040s (or anywhere else). However I doubt that there is any more of a tax form for the freebie campgrounds than for those used by those of us who pay. I think comparing back country camp sites to regular pull in camp spots might be a little better comparison.

I don't think comparing an income generating, for profit business to a campsite makes any sense at all. Grazing fees are an itemized deduction. Camping fees are not because camping is not a business and does not generate income.

Tell that to a professional wildlife photographer...

[ELK]

First of all, we are talking about the free Yellowstone campsites. There are no cows there. Now if you want to compare the money making entities inside of Yellowstone to the campsites that is fine.
The fact remains all campsites on "our" land are maintained with tax dollars for the______________________fill in with any of the favorite names used to describe food producers who are not paying as much as enviros want them to. In most cases the back country sites are free. You receive a value anytime you use them whether you sell that value or not. The value is strictly for your benefit. The food producer provides a reasonably priced product. It will cost6 much more if it has to be imported and hauled all the way from another country. Then of course there is always the possibility residents of any country willing to sell us beef will want them removed there so they have more recreation land for a few.

[Bogo]

The food producer provides a reasonably priced product. It will cost6 much more if it has to be imported and hauled all the way from another country.

So why does Mc Donalds have huge cattle farms in Brazil? It sure isn't because it costs more. The reason we don't import more food is mainly because of our food safety laws. All food must meet them to be sold here in the US. Of course this doesn't stop some producers from trying to slip sub standard food past the system. For a foreign company to sell tuna steaks here in the US it's plants must be USDA inspected.

[Steve]

.

[Steve]

Tell that to a professional wildlife photographer...

You could win $100 playing poker in camp. You could have 2 hookers in your tent and make $1000.
Which is generating the income: the photos, the hookers, the card game or camping?