Replies

Doing some back reading and came across this. It kind of let me torn. I don't like the idea of subsidizing ranchers, farmers or pretty much anything that isn't both threatened and vital to national security. It does not seem these criteria are fulfilled here.

I am sure the ranchers are great, but the argument they give for a low-price for grazing rights is, I am sorry to say, very French.

Perhaps if the blankety-blank FEDS would stop putting red velvet ropes around every spare lot in the country and calling it "public lands" this wouldn't be a problem. How in the #%*@ can they charge a fee to let some guy's cows eat grass - in the middle of nowhere - and lose money? Do they have federal employees following the cows around to point out the choicest grass? I don't get it. The expenses associated with allowing cows to graze must be minuscule. Are they throwing in other expenses or are they just that incompetent?

To hell with the environmental idiots. They want to "protect" the grass just like they want to "protect" the frozen tundra from the nefarious oil companies. We give those sonsabitches too much authority. God forbid that some barren territory which has never seen a human footprint be made beneficial to someone.

I wouldn't really consider this a subsidy to ranchers. They're paying the fee, and it's not their fault that the FEDS are losing money.