Friday, June 11, 2010

Lawsuit Targets Harmful Public-lands Livestock Subsidy

Today the Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, and Oregon Natural Desert Association sued the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to compel them to respond to a 2005 rulemaking petition that seeks to increase the fee for livestock grazing across 258 million acres of federal public land. “The federal grazing program is as fiscally irresponsible as it is ecologically harmful,” said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director for the Center for Biological Diversity. “In responding to our petition, the government must now choose between correcting and continuing the subsidized destruction of America’s public land.” "Given the massive budget shortfall our country is facing, we can no longer afford to subsidize a small group of ranchers to graze public lands at public expense," said Mark Salvo, director of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign for WildEarth Guardians. Although the Administrative Procedures Act requires the government to respond to rulemaking petitions, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture have not responded to plaintiff’s 2005 petition. Today’s lawsuit seeks that release

1 comment:

Brett said...

Amazingly, the shortfalls are not being made worse by subsidizing reckless lawsuits from these clowns.

I guess the cattle-free crowd is getting desperate, what with their darling Obama (and Kaboy Salazar) spending all his time flogging BP. I guess they get lonely.

At least this particular bunch of economic illiterates chose a nicer erroneous term than Huey Johnson chose to use and called it a subsidy. Again, I ask you: if one pays more for a Ferrari than a Yugo, does it mean the buyer stole from the Yugo salesman? In that same vein, did subsidies have anything to do with the differential? I think not.