Monday, August 14, 2017

Massive wildfires turned prairies to ash, leading Montana’s cowboys to weigh federal help


In this part of Montana’s rugged eastern prairie, Erwin Weder and the other ranchers and cowboys are not used to feeling kicked around. But as Weder drives his pickup truck onto a bluff to gaze out over “Big Sky Country,” he feels a bit defeated. Hundreds of miles of meadows and scrub grass that feed tens of thousands of beef cattle are gone, replaced by the charred soil and smoldering prairie dog burrows that the state’s largest wildfire in nearly three decades has left behind. But after the massive multimillion-dollar firefight, another battle has emerged in the wide open spaces where there is often distrust of the government: What should the federal role be in helping Montana’s livestock industry respond to, and recover from, the blaze. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) originally rejected Montana’s request for assistance, a process that ranchers say left them feeling forgotten and misunderstood by Washington. Now, many in this deeply conservative region are weighing their wariness about bureaucrats against their need for help. “We lost 70 percent of our grass, which means 70 percent of our revenue,” said Weder , 41, who is trying to locate hundreds of cattle that scattered as the flames tore across his 65,000-acre ranch. “I don’t think people truly understand what an acre of grass is worth to us . . . and the millions of dollars that will be lost over the next few years.” Local officials across the United States worry that it is becoming more difficult to secure help from FEMA for all sorts of natural disasters. Since January, members of Congress and state officials have protested initial FEMA denials following a tornado outbreak in Louisiana, flooding in North Carolina, and snowstorms in Pennsylvania and Oregon. The Trump administration has been hinting that it might limit federal spending on disaster relief and preparation, and FEMA is considering whether to draft regulations to shift more responsibility for rebuilding to the states. The creation of “disaster deductibles” — which states would have to exhaust before FEMA offers federal assistance — was first proposed under the Obama administration...more

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Always amazed at the divide between the urban beehives and rural. They do not even know the specifics/terms of public ground grazing, private ground leased grazing, or that grazing even exists on ones'private ground.....Food prices need to skyrocket to make know nothings appreciate a full tummy. soapweed

Anonymous said...

Soapweed -

Maybe we should try to explain split estates to urbanites in terms they'll identify with -- like condominiums -- where they own the condo but not the building or land it sits on.

Condo owners pay HOA fees that are suppose to cover maintenance, insurance, amenities, and any utilities that come with it - how would they feel if the HOA doesn't hold up their end of the bargain but the owner still has to pay the fees?

Like paying extra for a ranch with grazing allotments - a condo that comes with a parking space costs more - how would they feel if that parking space they paid extra for was taken away?

Or, just recently in the SF bay area, a swanky gated neighborhood had their street sold to the highest bidder ($90,000) for delinquent taxes ($14 per year).

Now they're worried they'll have to pay to park on the street.

How would they feel if their access was cut off - just like the BLM does to ranchers?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the analogy, had never thought of tearing that box top off for discussion......soapweed