PUBLIC LAND LIVESTOCK FEES HIT ROCK-BOTTOM: Full cost of federal grazing program well overdue for complete analysis

Pasted below is a press release from PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility). At this link to the release, you can find more detailed information. Since so much of the current discussion on this blog has focused on Wilderness, I should point out that approximately 10 million acres of Wilderness is open to private grazing by cows and sheep.

Also, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that Cliven Bundy’s cows are STILL illegally grazing on federal public lands and Bundy STILL hasn’t paid his federal grazing fees, owing the American people over $1 million in unpaid grazing fees. How in the world can he get away with this?

Bundy was also in the news yesterday, sort of, as news broke that a self-described White Nationalist (and would-be terrorist) named Christopher Paul Hasson was planning to kill (assassinate is really the correct term) a number of progressive political leaders and journalists.

According to the New York Times Christopher Paul Hasson, who was also a Coast Guard lieutenant, “mused about taking advantage of some already tense issue, like the standoff in Oregon in 2016 between [heavily armed Bundy Militia] protesters and the Bureau of Land Management.”

Washington―The U.S. Interior Department has reduced fees for grazing cattle and sheep on federal public lands to the minimum allowed under federal law, $1.35 an animal-month. Yesterday’s announcement applies to grazing in national forests and on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

The 41-year old formula has been a boon for livestock operators whose animals graze on federal public lands, but a large proportion of BLM grazing land fails to meet the BLM’s own rangeland health standards. The new $1.35 monthly fee, down from $1.41 a month, is for each cow with a calf, or five sheep or goats. A large proportion of BLM grazing allotments are failing to meet Rangeland Health standards.

“BLM’s own records reveal that much of the sagebrush West is in severely degraded condition due to excessive commercial livestock grazing,” said PEER’s Advocacy Director Kirsten Stade. “Lowering already ultra-low grazing fees only encourages more abuse of public rangelands.”

Costs to administer the grazing fee program exceed the money collected, resulting in taxpayer subsidies of about $100 million per year. Grazing fees were initially based on a “fair-market value” set at $1.23 per AUM in 1966. If the federal government adjusted the fee annually to keep pace with inflation, the current rate would be $9.47. In addition, cattle sizes have increased markedly over the years: In 1974 an Animal Unit Month provided forage for a cow weighing 1,000 pounds; today the average slaughterweight for an adult cow is 1,400 pounds. A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service shows the average monthly grazing fee for livestock leases on private lands in 16 western states was $22.60 per animal unit.

“These rock-bottom prices don’t even cover the cost of administering the permits, so the American taxpayers are footing the bill for a massive welfare program that degrades our public lands,” said Erik Molvar of Western Watersheds Project. “Even with the low fees, our western mountains and basins are typically so arid or fragile that federal land managers have to sacrifice the health of the land to authorize grazing levels that are profitable for commercial livestock operations.”

Half of the federal grazing fees pay for “range improvements” on public lands. These include fences, corrals and cattle troughs that benefit and subsidize livestock operations while causing further environmental degradation. Barbed-wire fences are a major cause of death for sage-grouse and scientists have termed the denuded areas around livestock troughs “piospheres,” which become hotspots for the spread of invasive weeds.

“Federal grazing policy caters to a tiny fraction of the livestock industry and the fees don’t begin to cover the costs,” said Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Indirect costs include the killing of important native predators, such as wolves and bears, and trampled landscapes and rivers. It’s a bad deal for wildlife, public lands and American taxpayers. The federal grazing program is long overdue for an overhaul.”

The fee structure charged to livestock operators on America’s public lands has remained unchanged since Congress passed the 1978 Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA). A three-tier formula dictates federal grazing fees based on market indicators but is not indexed to inflation. A 2015 study by the Center for Biological Diversity, Costs and Consequences, the Real Price of Livestock Grazing on America’s Public Lands, found that federal grazing fees were just 7 percent of what it would cost to graze livestock on similar state and private lands.

“Federal agencies should be charging fair-market value for commercial livestock grazing on western public lands, and only allowing livestock at levels and in places where major environmental impacts can be prevented,” said Chris Krupp of WildEarth Guardians. “With the fee formula set by statute, Congress must step in to reform public lands grazing. It must revise the PRIA’s fee formula as the first step in ending a subsidy that damages more public lands than any other federal program.”

17 thoughts on “PUBLIC LAND LIVESTOCK FEES HIT ROCK-BOTTOM: Full cost of federal grazing program well overdue for complete analysis”

  1. Grazing fees have little or nothing to do with the number of livestock out there. If it does, it’s really a secondary issue. Federal agencies monitor the condition of rangelands. Based on rangeland condition, carrying capacities are allocated. Grazing receipts are based on the number of animal units that are allocated to allotments in play. Range inprovements, often subsidized by federal agencies, help distribute AU use and also provide secondary benefits to wildlife such as water. Clearly grazing fees are too low, but that has nothing to do with the number of AUM allocated per allotment. Grazing, is one of many land uses accommodated under the multiple use Law. Some historic activities were grandfathered with the passing of the wilderness act.

    Reply
  2. If you raise grazing fees (which are too low) do you think that will cause ranchers to be easier on the land? Also, what about fire? No utilization of grass would be similar to no forest management. Even with all that, our public lands are clearly being over utilized via grazing. Whose fault is that? I oversaw F.S. allotments for a ranch I managed , so my neighbors will hate me for saying that.
    Whose fault is it that grazing fees don’t cover the cost of administration? Could it be typical government ineptness? I think so.
    Indian reservations in Northern Calif. distribute funds yearly, to their residents from timber proceeds. Enough for each person to go buy a new car. Why don’t the rest of us get a check every year from the sale of resources? It is telling, the waste and inefficiency of our federal agencies. Any one that has a business knows that you can’t just spend, spend, spend and show a profit. New everything, every two years, New technology (totally unnecesary IMO) new vehicles, the list goes on. Everyone on here knows all this. We are getting ripped off, but our elected leaders and those paid to manage aren’t doing their jobs. Some will disagree of course. Some are trying their best, but the system won’t allow them to make things better. In the end it is wildlife that suffers and that bothers me. A lot.

    Reply
  3. “Indirect costs include the killing of important native predators, such as wolves and bears.” How likely is that, given where grizzlies and wolves are located compared to the vast majority of grazed public land acres? That would be an argument for reducing grazing in wolf habitat, but those folks have been working on different technologies to reduce negative interactions.

    “but a large proportion of BLM grazing land fails to meet the BLM’s own rangeland health standards.” All I could find was this 2014 article in HCN “According to the map, 29 percent of allotted land, or 16 percent of the number of allotments, has failed to meet BLM standards of rangeland health due to impacts of livestock.” This was according to PEER’s own methodology, which was contested by the BLM.

    I’m not an economist, but I think it would be difficult to find out what “fair market value” is.. allotments are tied to a specific location and usually a home ranch that is nearby. It is not unreasonable to think that divorced from summer grazing on the forests or BLM, ranches would become uneconomical and be subdivided in many places. Would that be better for wildlife? Perhaps not.
    “Federal agencies should be charging fair-market value for commercial livestock grazing on western public lands, and only allowing livestock at levels and in places where major environmental impacts can be prevented,” said Chris Krupp of WildEarth Guardians. “With the fee formula set by statute, Congress must step in to reform public lands grazing. It must revise the PRIA’s fee formula as the first step in ending a subsidy that damages more public lands than any other federal program.”
    I could say the same thing about recreation-” fair market value” and “only at levels and places where major environmental impacts could be prevented.” But then we could have a discussion on fair market value (like State Parks? or National Parks? but less by some value) and what is a “major” environmental impact.

    Reply
  4. I wonder why the are so low? Are they really? Cows are very good at turning grass into protein. Especially in areas where crops can’t be grown due to the environmental or economic realities. Someone tried to point out to me once how terrible cows were are the environment. I could only look and mention that cows have grazed here for over a hundred years and the grass is still growing.

    Reply
    • “I wonder why the are so low? Are they really?”

      It’s baffling to me that this is even a question. I mean, please tell me anything of value you get for an entire month for $1.35 per month?

      Reply
      • One thing to consider is the costs of the permitee’s required maintenance and mitigation. I would think that such duties are appraised for and plugged into the economics. For example, keeping fences maintained over a giant allotment is a chore, for sure. I do think the Forest Service should inspect the work, at least once per year.

        Reply
        • “People get access to this website for less than ($1.35/yr.)”

          Your comment suggests, Sharon, that we don’t have to pay for our devices to get access, and an internet service provider, etc.(?) It also seems that you’re suggesting we don’t already have access to a veritable infinitude of free access sources of information in which your site competes in the marketplace of ideas.

          Secondly, your comment suggests our tax dollars aren’t already funding the primary topics of public agencies this site is dedicated to discussing, and that often includes public agencies mismanaging our public resources.

          But the part of your comment I understand the least though, is I see you’ve raised $515 in donations with a goal of 10 times that, but you’ve already stated your maintenance costs are ~$300/yr.

          You’re relying upon volunteer contributors and reposting products of reportage you don’t pay for even though they, more often than not, are originating from paid professional work.

          Lastly, in regards to your previous comment, ‘ I think it would be difficult to find out what “fair market value” is.’

          Finding such an answer is highly unlikely given the predicament of captured public agencies and even if determined, of little merit.

          The neoliberal system agenda we operate under not only actively defunds government through regressive tax policies, it deregulates industries known to profiteer from degradation and disruption of common property resources as basic as soil, land, forests, water, air, climate, biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. The existing corporatism consequently fails to account the ACTUAL COSTS borne by all present and future generations.

          These costs are now known as “negative externalities,” by economists, and EXISTENTIAL THREATS by an international consensus of scientists, educators, diplomats, and millions of environmental refugees.

          Reply
          • David, some of my favorite people are economists. I look at it differently, for most people/bots who are signed up, they do not pay anything extra for the information here. Some might assume that internet and computer access are sunk costs. As to using other folks’ info, we always put links here, and the business model such as it is now is via clicks and advertisers. So they could potentially get more clicks and bucks because we post here.

            I think the term “existential threat” is kind of confusing because it sounds a bit like “existential crisis” which is defined in wikipedia as
            “An existential crisis is a moment at which an individual questions if their life has meaning, purpose, or value.[1] It may be commonly, but not necessarily, tied to depression or inevitably negative speculations on purpose in life (e.g., “if one day I will be forgotten, what is the point of all of my work?”). This issue of the meaning and purpose of human existence is a major focus of the philosophical tradition of existentialism. ”
            I think people mean “a threat to existence” when they say that.. but it’s confusing.
            As to the numbers for people to donate and what the $ have been used for, I have clarified that in a post. Thanks for reminding me to update those widgets!

            Reply
  5. How about we put all federal land user fees in the same context when generating conclusions?

    Dispersed recreationists pay inconsequential or no fees for their use of federal lands while the same use of private land is frequently priced exorbitantly. Are fees collected under Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act really commensurate with the benefits and services provided and comparable to fees charged elsewhere when there is billions of dollars in maintenance backlogs?

    We can all be sanctimonious about our own uses while we vilify everyone else’s selfish interests but the practical reality is that, other than minerals exploitation, none of us pay our own way and the bulk of funding for the federal estate is extracted from the taxpayers who are least likely to use them.

    Reply
  6. erratum:
    please replace, “$515 in donations with a goal of 10 times that, but you’ve already stated your maintenance costs are ~$300/yr.

    with:
    “$515 in donations with a goal of achieving 10 times your previously stated website maintenance costs (as I recall, and personally experience myself) of ~$300/yr.

    I apologize for my oversight and thank you for this opportunity to comment and correct these factual errors in my comment.

    Reply
  7. How about we stop issuing permits to graze and let the farmers use theirs own land, if they have any, to raise their product. No more subsidies, no more money to manage the program, the land can settle back to it’s natural state and become healthy?

    Reply
    • Alan, if that were to happen, we would see a rebellion beyond the likes of any Sagebrush Rebellion experience so far. My observation is that the livestock industry has survived for the simple reason that it is well-financed and well-connected. If in doubt, look at how grazing was considered during the passage of the Wilderness Act.

      I concur with your objective – the pragmatics of accomplishing it give me pause.

      Reply
    • I’ll go for that as long as we use the same standard for hunters and fishermen, mountain bikers, river rafters, etc.

      No more subsidies for anyone and the only users of government-owned land are those that pay the true costs, directly, of managing their own uses.

      Reply
    • In the case of grasslands, they need some kind of grazing animals to be “healthy” so you would have to get some kind of grazing animals back (bison).

      In other areas, you would make the current summer grazing operations unprofitable so that would possibly make people sell off their home ranches (tend to be along streams) to developers (think of the Shoshone River valley) which may not be great for wildlife either.

      With enough bucks the ranches could possibly be sold to rich folks/NGO’s who wouldn’t graze animals nor build houses? Of course rich people may tend to want to reduce access to adjoining federal lands to the public… and so it goes.

      Reply

Leave a Comment