John Yeager

PERSPECTIVE

outtake:

The guy with the big operation got most of the money and the small rancher, who we should be

trying to help and no doubt needs all the assistance he can get, received very little. In fact, 71 percent of all farm-ranch subsidies go to the top 10 percent of the largest operations.

Recently I had the privilege of attending a two-day conference in Boulder, Colo., held by a group called Range Net and sponsored by the Western Watershed Project. They, along with other groups that attended, share a common goal of removing livestock from our public lands.

One topic of considerable interest was House Bill 3324 - the Voluntary Grazing Permit Buyout Act, which has been introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and seven other representatives. According to its sponsors, this legislation "benefits our nation's environment and budget and provides a lucrative offer to ranchers." Under the proposal, a rancher with 300 cow/calf pairs that graze public lands for five months would receive a one-time payment of $262,000.

About now you are probably wondering why are we paying ranchers to get their cows off our land. After all they don't own the land, we lease it to them. At the conference I learned that to do it any other way would probably take years and cost the taxpayer even more than the buyout.

This is because of the political pressure and money the ag industry would invest in fighting this legislation. They know this would bring a screeching halt to a racket that has been going on for years. How so? It costs our government about $500 million per year to administer the grazing program on our federal lands. Ranchers pay meager fees to graze their livestock on those lands. For example, in 2003, they paid $1.35 a month to graze a cow and calf on our federal land, about 10 times below market rate. These fees add up to a puny $7 million leaving a staggering $493 million. Who picks up that difference? You guessed it … you, me and our fellow taxpayers. Add to that total another $20 million a year the government spends to protect the ranchers' interests in the form of predator control!

Some ranchers have already weighed in on this bill, whining that if it is implemented, they will go broke. Aren't these the same voices we've heard trying to dupe us into believing that it's good for the land when they graze their cows on it?

Sounds like the ploy the timber industry and their political cronies use when they tell us they need to

cut down the trees to save the forest.

Give us a break! Science and the Lewis and Clark diaries do not support these myths perpetuated

by the livestock and timber industries. What these industries do is ravage our federal lands and stick the taxpayer with the bill!

Rep. Barbara Cubin and Sens. Enzi and Thomas are against the bill, despite the fact that according to Kerin Clark, the Farm Bureau media representative, less than 2 percent of Wyoming's population is involved in agriculture. It appears as though our representatives in Washington, D.C., are more interested in helping this 2 percent continue to line their pockets and fill their plates at the government trough than saving the other 98 percent of us from an ongoing, unfair tax burden. Each of us needs to contact these legislators and let them know they should reconsider their stance and support this bill. If our efforts fall on deaf ears, Cubin, Enzi and Thomas need to be voted out. Maybe then they'll understand that their representation should have been for all the people.

In 2002, the Bush administration paid out $752 million in drought aid to Western ranchers.

According to government figures, if this was paid out equally to every rancher, each would have received $40,000. Was that the way it was done? No way.

The guy with the big operation got most of the money and the small rancher, who we should be

trying to help and no doubt needs all the assistance he can get, received very little. In fact, 71 percent of all farm-ranch subsidies go to the top 10 percent of the largest operations.

Aside from those handouts, ranchers receive millions more in government payouts. Not only would this buyout wean them from a large portion of those subsidies, but it would free taxpayers of a substantial tax burden.

Although they have tried to con us in to believing they are good neighbors and stewards of our

federal lands, ranchers (the large and well-to-do operations, in particular), are enjoying the

good life from our tax dollars and at the same time denying us access to what is rightfully ours -

public land. This deceptive way of doing business has worn thin, and except for a few naive, trusting folks, people are seeing it for what it is and say enough is enough!

To read more about this subject and/or verify this information, get a copy of "Welfare Ranching" by George Wuerthner or go to Web sites (EWG.org) or (westernwatersheds.org). On the other hand, if you'd like to commiserate with the "poor" ranchers, you might want to have your credit card or checkbook handy.

John Yeager is a member of the steering committee for Citizens for Public Access. He lives in Sheridan.