THANK YOU for this, Glenneda. One of the points that keeps hitting home throughout your piece is that the smaller farms and ranches don't even receive most of these subsidies. This reflects the government/corporate cronyism that goes on in so many other areas of our life, not just agriculture. One wonders if giving so much clout to corporate farming may have actually harmed our industry!
That said, another thing that stuck out like a sore thumb to me is that only one of these seven programs is administered through the ISDA. Under Pat Takasugi's leadership, ISDA was a model that other states envied. He hired top people in every division, trusted his people to do their work, had them involved in national committees and agencies giving Idaho a seat at the table and a heads-up on what was going on, and truly supported every aspect of Idaho agriculture. Now, two short decades later, while we still have a somewhat robust Animal Industries Division, the Plant Industries Division, the Agricultural Resources, and some of the other subdivisions are struggling. Much of the expertise and experience level with the industry is sorely lacking. The once-productive relationship with our Land Grant college (U of I) has all but been severed. Increasingly, control of our industry within our state has been ceded to these very same federal programs which are now being threatened. This is an issue which has been largely ignored by our state legislature and its House and Senate Agricultural Affairs Committees.
Because of that, Idaho is not in a very good position to weather the inevitable federal shuffle--and agriculture is the #1 industry in our state. Alongside our fiscal bloat as a state, this is one of the primary reasons why I put my hat in the ring to run for a House seat in my district!
I love this article. FINALLY SOMEONE IS EXPOSING THE TRUTH. Yet my concern is the use of subsidies. Subsidies is another term for welfare. The farmers and ranchers have been on welfare for years, receiving federal and state tax dollars to stay alive, including the minimal fees charged for exploiting public lands in grazing fees, leases and allotments. A lot of corporate owned ranches and farms use this welfare to extract higher profits and drive out the small farms and ranches.
No one is watching what is going on. To make room for the exploitation and sell-off of public lands, water rights are being stolen, wild horses and burros are being slaughtered for food and products, and the wildlife obliterated through non stop hunting, trapping and further exploitation. This isn't a comment from a bleeding heart liberal. This is a wake up call to the permanent loss we as Idahoans are facing that will change out state forever and can't return.
As the article stated, the subsidies are not going to our smaller family farms and ranches--and that is a huge issue to me.
That said, our ranchers are not "exploiting" our public lands. They actually put in much of the labor themselves to maintain those lands and do range improvements. I've been on that side of the equation, and have seen and participated in the labor that ranchers put in. That said, there have been numerous studies in years past comparing cost of utilizing public land versus leasing land from a private entity. When you rent or lease grazing land, the land owner maintains the fences, maintains, the water sources, and the pasture is usually turnout ready, unless there have been aspects of the contract negotiated, lowering the price in favor of renter/lessor labor. With public land, the rancher maintains the fences, the rancher does the labor of water improvement, and many of the other tasks involved in maintaining the land. The contracts require that of the ranchers, and most go above and beyond. When one factors in their labor and their costs, the land use cost is essentially the same.
I'd further point out that grazing is one of the key tools (and often an underutilized tool) in many areas to limit fire fuels and hence minimize the damage done by rangeland fires.
Anyone who would suggest that the ranchers "exploint" these lands has clearly never worked with either ranching or public lands!
When one looks around the West on public lands it becomes evident of leasing abuses. It is not everyone but very evident of water control and even starving wildlife from sources so cattle and sheep can have it. However, having worked on my family's ranch and farm, I am very aware of the hard work it takes. But if you have to be subsidized at taxpayer expense to stay afloat then maybe one needs a new career that is financially viable without some form of taxpayer assistance that others can't get or are offered.
Where are there starving wildlife? The improvements made by ranchers have actually benefited wildlife in every instance I've seen, particularly with spring improvement so that wildlife have better year-round access to water. If anything, ranchers have suffered losses from elk being driven down onto private lands by wolves in the winter, where they feed in the meadows and eat our hay alongside our livestock. I dealt with this for 13 years living up in Tendoy, and I know it is prevalent across the state in many other areas. Since cattle and sheep are regulated and are only out during times of plentiful grass, they actually tend to enhance the resource. I suspect you may be able to find individual instances of abuse here and there, but they are certainly not the norm.
The truth is Federal money is bad for farmers and taxpayers alike.
My father grew up on a Midwest farm, spent 28 years in the military and retired back to the farm. He said he thought he could live on the farm's income and subsidize it with his military pension. But that turned out to be just the opposite. Farming is expensive and generates little real income. Most farmers work full time jobs and farm in the side as a labor of love.
Dad attempted to put land in the CRP program to get the federal payment for leaving the land fallow. But the neighbors cattle broke down the fence and they grazed on Dad's CRP land for just a few hours before being pushed back through the fence and the fence repaired. That violated the CRP agreement and Dad lost a years income off that land.
That is just one example I know of. I'd like to know how much if the Federal farm subsidies actually make it to the farmers it's supposed to help vs how much gets drained off into other hands.
The bottom line is we'd all be better off without the Fed's help. And, we could keep those tax dollars in our pockets.
Yes! Stop the subsidies! Thank you for bringing this truth out! I have said for years that "conservation easements" are deals with the devil. More of government and NGOs paying people not to farm and ranch.
An even bigger question is, "Can IDAHO survive without federal money?" 37.2% of the FY2025 funds came from the feds!
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." Thomas Jefferson
Thank you for sharing your well researched info on farming. I agree 💯 with your take and Chris Milstead's comment below. In fact, Chris's concerns are urgent as we are seeing water rights, grazing rights, selloff of public lands, killing wild animals for sport, removal by the deep state corporate run BLM of our iconic wild horses across the West resulting in their actual decline and death. You can bet DOGE will investigate and cut wasteful agriculture grants if Idaho cannot demonstrate effective improvements.
I truly appreciate your time and effort on research of Idaho farming. And I love your passion! I came away much more educated. I have limited resources that prevent supporting your Substack and for that I feel bad. I read every newsletter. Thank you for your historical and biblical references.
THANK YOU for this, Glenneda. One of the points that keeps hitting home throughout your piece is that the smaller farms and ranches don't even receive most of these subsidies. This reflects the government/corporate cronyism that goes on in so many other areas of our life, not just agriculture. One wonders if giving so much clout to corporate farming may have actually harmed our industry!
That said, another thing that stuck out like a sore thumb to me is that only one of these seven programs is administered through the ISDA. Under Pat Takasugi's leadership, ISDA was a model that other states envied. He hired top people in every division, trusted his people to do their work, had them involved in national committees and agencies giving Idaho a seat at the table and a heads-up on what was going on, and truly supported every aspect of Idaho agriculture. Now, two short decades later, while we still have a somewhat robust Animal Industries Division, the Plant Industries Division, the Agricultural Resources, and some of the other subdivisions are struggling. Much of the expertise and experience level with the industry is sorely lacking. The once-productive relationship with our Land Grant college (U of I) has all but been severed. Increasingly, control of our industry within our state has been ceded to these very same federal programs which are now being threatened. This is an issue which has been largely ignored by our state legislature and its House and Senate Agricultural Affairs Committees.
Because of that, Idaho is not in a very good position to weather the inevitable federal shuffle--and agriculture is the #1 industry in our state. Alongside our fiscal bloat as a state, this is one of the primary reasons why I put my hat in the ring to run for a House seat in my district!
I love this article. FINALLY SOMEONE IS EXPOSING THE TRUTH. Yet my concern is the use of subsidies. Subsidies is another term for welfare. The farmers and ranchers have been on welfare for years, receiving federal and state tax dollars to stay alive, including the minimal fees charged for exploiting public lands in grazing fees, leases and allotments. A lot of corporate owned ranches and farms use this welfare to extract higher profits and drive out the small farms and ranches.
No one is watching what is going on. To make room for the exploitation and sell-off of public lands, water rights are being stolen, wild horses and burros are being slaughtered for food and products, and the wildlife obliterated through non stop hunting, trapping and further exploitation. This isn't a comment from a bleeding heart liberal. This is a wake up call to the permanent loss we as Idahoans are facing that will change out state forever and can't return.
As the article stated, the subsidies are not going to our smaller family farms and ranches--and that is a huge issue to me.
That said, our ranchers are not "exploiting" our public lands. They actually put in much of the labor themselves to maintain those lands and do range improvements. I've been on that side of the equation, and have seen and participated in the labor that ranchers put in. That said, there have been numerous studies in years past comparing cost of utilizing public land versus leasing land from a private entity. When you rent or lease grazing land, the land owner maintains the fences, maintains, the water sources, and the pasture is usually turnout ready, unless there have been aspects of the contract negotiated, lowering the price in favor of renter/lessor labor. With public land, the rancher maintains the fences, the rancher does the labor of water improvement, and many of the other tasks involved in maintaining the land. The contracts require that of the ranchers, and most go above and beyond. When one factors in their labor and their costs, the land use cost is essentially the same.
I'd further point out that grazing is one of the key tools (and often an underutilized tool) in many areas to limit fire fuels and hence minimize the damage done by rangeland fires.
Anyone who would suggest that the ranchers "exploint" these lands has clearly never worked with either ranching or public lands!
When one looks around the West on public lands it becomes evident of leasing abuses. It is not everyone but very evident of water control and even starving wildlife from sources so cattle and sheep can have it. However, having worked on my family's ranch and farm, I am very aware of the hard work it takes. But if you have to be subsidized at taxpayer expense to stay afloat then maybe one needs a new career that is financially viable without some form of taxpayer assistance that others can't get or are offered.
Where are there starving wildlife? The improvements made by ranchers have actually benefited wildlife in every instance I've seen, particularly with spring improvement so that wildlife have better year-round access to water. If anything, ranchers have suffered losses from elk being driven down onto private lands by wolves in the winter, where they feed in the meadows and eat our hay alongside our livestock. I dealt with this for 13 years living up in Tendoy, and I know it is prevalent across the state in many other areas. Since cattle and sheep are regulated and are only out during times of plentiful grass, they actually tend to enhance the resource. I suspect you may be able to find individual instances of abuse here and there, but they are certainly not the norm.
The truth is Federal money is bad for farmers and taxpayers alike.
My father grew up on a Midwest farm, spent 28 years in the military and retired back to the farm. He said he thought he could live on the farm's income and subsidize it with his military pension. But that turned out to be just the opposite. Farming is expensive and generates little real income. Most farmers work full time jobs and farm in the side as a labor of love.
Dad attempted to put land in the CRP program to get the federal payment for leaving the land fallow. But the neighbors cattle broke down the fence and they grazed on Dad's CRP land for just a few hours before being pushed back through the fence and the fence repaired. That violated the CRP agreement and Dad lost a years income off that land.
That is just one example I know of. I'd like to know how much if the Federal farm subsidies actually make it to the farmers it's supposed to help vs how much gets drained off into other hands.
The bottom line is we'd all be better off without the Fed's help. And, we could keep those tax dollars in our pockets.
Yes! Stop the subsidies! Thank you for bringing this truth out! I have said for years that "conservation easements" are deals with the devil. More of government and NGOs paying people not to farm and ranch.
An even bigger question is, "Can IDAHO survive without federal money?" 37.2% of the FY2025 funds came from the feds!
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." Thomas Jefferson
The same is true from any level of government.
Thank you for sharing your well researched info on farming. I agree 💯 with your take and Chris Milstead's comment below. In fact, Chris's concerns are urgent as we are seeing water rights, grazing rights, selloff of public lands, killing wild animals for sport, removal by the deep state corporate run BLM of our iconic wild horses across the West resulting in their actual decline and death. You can bet DOGE will investigate and cut wasteful agriculture grants if Idaho cannot demonstrate effective improvements.
I truly appreciate your time and effort on research of Idaho farming. And I love your passion! I came away much more educated. I have limited resources that prevent supporting your Substack and for that I feel bad. I read every newsletter. Thank you for your historical and biblical references.
Very detailed. Thank you for protecting our state. Protect our small farmers and get rid of federal monies. Martin downen
If the government will not stop 🛑 geo engineering farming will cease to exist.
The sky is polluted daily with deadly nano particles to block sunlight to reduce earth temperature while in fact it will destroy the earth.
Your voice can make a difference.
If you want more information please contact Dane Wiggington