Originally Posted By: Hankster
Originally Posted By: Illahee

A good overview of what's been transpiring.
It appears the butthurtness comes from the feds changing their rules on subsidized grazing.
Generations of western rancher's business model has included government subsidies, now the feds have started to back off the idea federal lands need to be managed for the benefit of subsidized cattle grazers.
I bet people losing their food stamps could relate.

http://www.heraldandnews.com/breaking/wi...9c7a0d4dc7.html

Your point of view depends on what side you butter your bread.

If you buy a Tesla you don't mind the gubmint giving you a $7K subsidy.

If you grow sugar you don't mind tariffs on imported sugar keeping the price high.

If you buy a ranch and the grazing fees on federal land are set at a certain price, you might be a bit miffed when the gubmint raises the fees. Especially if you think the gubmint is raising the fees with the express intent of driving you off your land by making it too expensive to make a profit from raising cattle.

I'm not endorsing the actions of the whack job Bundy bunch, but I can at least understand their point of view.


Close Hank, but not quite there. First and foremost, the land in question is federally owned public land. The federal land management agencies have multiple use management mandates, not single use, subsidized grazing mandates. The management plans are subject to change. The grazing fees are subject to change. The rancher who went into ranching depending on leased grazing lands, and a static price model, well, let's just say he had a very poor business plan.

And unlike our concern over CA Central Valley federally subsidized irrigation water that grows 25% of the US food supply, these rugged individualist Marlboro cowboys dependent on subsidized grazing land produce less than 3% or 2% of the nation's beef supply, depending on the info source.