More welfare for livestock operators

Read this. You can find it at Thomas

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:s3211:

Ralph Maughan

– – – – – – –

S. 3211

To amend the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, to clarify eligibility for livestock indemnity payments.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 26, 2008

Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. TESTER, and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry


A BILL

To amend the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, to clarify eligibility for livestock indemnity payments.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIVESTOCK INDEMNITY PAYMENTS.

Section 9002 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28; 121 Stat. 214), is amended–

(1) in subsection (a)(5)(B)(iii), by striking `if such notice applies to a county included under (ii)’; and

(2) in subsection (b)(1)–

(A) by striking `There are hereby appropriated’ and inserting the following:

`(A) IN GENERAL- There are appropriated’;

(B) in subparagraph (A) (as so designated), by striking `due to a disaster, as determined by the Secretary’ and inserting `due to any natural disaster’;

(C) by striking `To be eligible’ and inserting the following:

`(B) INCLUSION- Eligible livestock losses under this subsection shall include the death of livestock in a disaster county due to a natural disaster, regardless of whether the death is related to any natural disaster that is the basis for a natural disaster declaration for the disaster county.

`(C) ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS- To be eligible’; and

(D) by adding at the end the following:

`(D) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS- To be eligible for assistance under this subsection, producers on a farm shall submit applications for assistance under this subsection not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subparagraph.’.

Salt Lake Tribune: Sayonara cyanide: Poison land mines should be banned

This is today’s SLC Tribune editorial against continuing use of ranchers getting to use cyanide and 1080.

Battle over Bighorn, part II

Battle over Bighorn: Opposing views on disease and economics. This is part II. By Sven Berg. South Idaho Press

– – – – – –

I posted part I earlier. Here is it again. Battle over Bighorn, part I.

– – – – – –

There is more on this on the Western Watersheds Project blog. “Dear Governor” – Bighorn, Mule deer opportunity, & domestic sheep in southern Idaho.

The blog shows the influence trail with actual documents.

– – – – – –

Update: Idaho bighorn plan could mean more wild sheep would be killed. Idaho Statesman. By Keith Ridler. Bighorn sheep in Idaho have dropped from 6500 in 1990 to about 3500 today. You wouldn’t know it to hear the domestic sheep lobby moan and whine. Now the Idaho Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Working Group is nearing their recommendation to the governor. Not surprisingly, the “solution” will be to restrict the bighorn from reoccupying their native range and to kill bighorn that venture outwards from some boxed-in areas where they will be allowed to persist if they can.

The article says, “There are some 260,000 domestic sheep in Idaho, and they brought in more than $17 million to the state in 2006, according to the state Agriculture Department.” It doesn’t say how much the bighorn bring in, although a ram with a full curl has had tags sold at auction at $75.000.

$17-million dollars is a piss-poor return for an industry that monopolizes millions or acres of land in Idaho, much of it public land that could have abundant wildlife instead.