Ranching Subsidies ProPublica Article

[COEngineer]

https://www.propublica.org/article/grazing-public-lands-investigation-takeaways

 

[Wild Bill]

Good article.

I'm by no means an expert, but it seems like getting any kind of reform or updating of the archaic rules and procedures of public land grazing seems like a major uphill battle, if not completely futile. The entire thing has been so abused and mismanaged for so long.

 

[SAJ-99]

Good article.

I'm by no means an expert, but it seems like getting any kind of reform or updating of the archaic rules and procedures of public land grazing seems like a major uphill battle, if not completely futile. The entire thing has been so abused and mismanaged for so long.

Executive Orders have shown to be effective at a lot of things. Throwing up our hands and saying “can’t be fixed” is simply a way to clear our conscious of any guilt for putting us in this situation. It can be fixed, but like all fixes, someone is going to bear the cost.

 

[BuzzH]

I don't have anything against grazing on public land. If done properly it can be done without degrading the land. I also think that there absolutely needs to be regulations and over-sight by the managing agencies, whether State or Federal.

Unfortunately, the problematic part is the "properly" piece. In a past job I inventoried several thousand miles of riparian habitat on Federal, Tribal, State, and Private lands in Montana, Idaho, and both Dakotas. What I found probably isn't out of the ordinary and over those places I inventoried it seemed to me that about 60% of the riparian habitat is degrading in some way. What did surprise me somewhat is that in many cases, the private property was in no worse condition than the surrounding public.

I think too many times we hear that ranchers treat their private very good and their grazing leases like crap. I didn't experience that often. What I experienced is that if a particular ranchers private looked pretty good, usually their leases looked pretty good too. Meaning, they were putting some thought into how they managed their grazing as a whole. It was also pretty common to see the worst looking private lands have surrounding state and federal leases that were in rougher shape too, but often times somewhat better than their private. I believe the reason for that was, they just didn't have enough private land to support the livestock they were carrying. To maximize their profits they ran as much livestock as they could to simply survive, and to maximize their federal and state leases.

In some cases too, I suspect that some of the ranchers would have been open to trying different things to improve range health if given the resources and education to do it. Not all were receptive of change, but some most definitely seemed the type to want to do what's best for their operations, land, and wildlife, etc. Also, some I inventoried could have been used as a "how-to" guide to doing things properly. Some just the opposite. I think there was a lot to be learned, both good and bad from what I saw.

IMO, the agencies need to be given the latitude to ensure that public land grazers follow plans that don't negatively impact the over-all land health. If that means fines and lose of leases, so be it. But, there needs to be cooperation and consensus about best grazing practices. Using the stick, rather than carrot, should be reserved for those just not wanting to play ball and violate lease terms (Bundy types).

As far as the lease rates, subsidies, etc. that's really up to congress.

I'd much rather focus effort and money for "on the ground" results, ensuring that best grazing practices are used to support the health of the land, water, wildlife etc.

 

[rogerthat]

Great post Buzz. I would caution everyone in just jumping on board with the premise of this article. There is a subset of people that their sole focus is to end public land grazing. This isn’t a straight forward issue. One thing I would highlight is that these “subsidies” sometimes help to keep the adjacent private lands as working lands vs lands to be subdivided and developed. It’s a lot more complicated issue than the article lays out. From a conservation standpoint in some cases these “subsidies” might be a better trade off than collecting market rates that could lead to other conservation negative impacts. I think Buzz hits a lot of the other good points. I have seen a decent number of ranchers in my area that treat the public much poorer than their private. Ticks me off but the solution is range specialists empowered to deal with the issue which just isn’t happening often.

 

[Salmonchaser]

I’ll be the first to acknowledge the system needs to be improved upon, reformed and in some cases outright eliminated. There are certainly some poor operators out there. My wife has her Dr. on this subject and would/did at breakfast articulate much of what Buzz had to say.
I only skimmed the article this morning and as I would with any article, I take exception to a broad brush approach such as this. The article alluded to but didn’t elaborate on the benefits of properly applied grazing. If you stop and think about it for a moment a family that has been grazing the same ground for 100 years is doing something right. Yes they are getting a great deal on price but they didn’t over graze year after year or it wouldn’t support cattle or wildlife. As Roger that points out there are very good reasons for some of the tax subsidies. Land sold for a housing developement with utilities and such will result in 3 or 4 houses per acre. Now if I didn’t get a tax break because I grow timber and cattle on my ground as well as deer and elk, I simply would have to sell most of it to a developer. As long as I keep managing my property within the states guidlines I get that tax break. We will have to pay the back taxes when we sell the property.
If you’re truly interested in grazing and the private/public exchange there is a great book, Grass grows green in the spring by Tony Malberg. He was a 4th generation rancher in Wyoming and Oregon and a no bull shit real cowboy and a true land conservationist. Read the book, gain an understanding of what is going on and how it could generally be better and then from an informed understanding push for empowering the on the ground managers to have the ability to enforce regulations as Buzz points out.

 

[SAJ-99]

...informed understanding push for empowering the on the ground managers to have the ability to enforce regulations as Buzz points out.

The article said this below, which I take at face value. I assume it is an easier process to "renew" a permit than issue a new one, and that makes the number pretty high. But I also concerned that a good impact review will never take place with the cuts to staffing. I also point to the recession of the Conservation and Landscape rule as an instance where any attempt to change or improve is turned into a political mess. I'm skeptical these days that any low to medium level federal employee is "empowered" to do anything.

"In 2013, the BLM approved grazing on 47% of its land open to livestock without an environmental review, our analysis of agency data showed. (The status of about an additional 10% of BLM land was unclear that year.) A decade later, the BLM authorized grazing on roughly 75% of its acreage without review."

 

[COEngineer]

Seems like the best thing that could (or could have) happened is that the rules are changed so that the permits are not renewed unless there is an ecological assessment done. That would keep the ranchers and billionaire absentee landowners honest, maintain range health, and keep the BLM/USFS staffing from getting cut to shreds.

If the rangeland is destroyed, does it matter if it's 5 acre ranchettes instead?

 

[Straight Arrow]

If the rangeland is destroyed, does it matter if it's 5 acre ranchettes instead?

Yes! Rangeland can be reconstituted, reclaimed, and improved. Once it becomes developed into "5 acre ranchettes", that is "permanent".
"They paved Paradise and put in a parking lot!" is the theme for so many areas of the west that once were wildlife habitat. Those areas will never be good habitat or viable livestock grazings lands again.

 

[Handlebar]

Ecological assessments are not done that quickly or easy,

 

[Straight Arrow]

Ecological assessments are not done that quickly or easy,

Many worthwhile processes (assessments) are not done quickly or easily. Your point is???

 

[Bonasababy]

Ecological assessments are not done that quickly or easy,

Especially when staff to do them have been cut back.

Make no mistake, theres nefarious intent here. Cut back staff without reducing work. Reviews not surprisingly take much longer. Pressure employees to approve without diligence to first agree renewal is warranted.

All part of the plan.

Its an issue much broader than this too. Staff to manage Pittman Robertson/Dingell Johnson grants have been cut in half, I heard earlier today.

 

[Nameless Range]

I have a gut reaction to this article, and the way certain groups talk about public land ranchers, and my reaction comes from actually knowing the humans in my neck of the woods that they are talking about. I can’t speak to other states, but can to the geography I know. Just focusing on the USFS lessees I know within a half hour of my house in the county in which I live, you're mainly looking at half a dozen families – none of which are reflected in group’s like Western Watersheds Project’s or other’s rhetoric about public land ranchers. Between all of them, they provide over 30,000 acres of Block Management Access – again that’s within a half hour of my home address, and they count on those public land leases. Not a damn one of them would I consider “wealthy” beyond the land they own, and they don’t live like it either.

That’s not to say that better lease contracts shouldn’t be implemented - offsite watering, riparian fencing, more leeway for enforcement and protection of the land, etc. But I see that as a federal issue and not one to be directed at locals. Instead of putting the onus on the lessor, and more accurately those who dictate what the lessors can do, where it should be, I see a direction chosen by a lot of groups who are distant from the land and its people to vilify lessees, who are my neighbors.

From last hunting season, I have a pronghorn, an elk, and 2 deer in the freezer - all from public lands and all in the presence of cowpies. In many ways, the subsidization of agriculture on public land is the subsidization of a culture and a people. Though I live in a subdivision, I grew up here, and they are my people and it is my culture.

It's similar to putting any other cohort in a bucket – treating a very diverse group as a monolith – nearly always a mistake in terms of encapsulating the second and third order consequences of the finger pointers getting what they wish for .

 

[Handlebar]

Many worthwhile processes (assessments) are not done quickly or easily. Your point is???

Did not say there were not worthwhile but the idea that you are going to do Ecological assessments for grazing permit every time they come up for renewal is not realistic nor needed

 

[Forkyfinder]

Did not say there were not worthwhile but the idea that you are going to do Ecological assessments for grazing permit every time they come up for renewal is not realistic nor needed

They renew on 10 year leases i think?

 

[Bonasababy]

I have a gut reaction to this article, and the way certain groups talk about public land ranchers, and my reaction comes from actually knowing the humans in my neck of the woods that they are talking about. I can’t speak to other states, but can to the geography I know. Just focusing on the USFS lessees I know within a half hour of my house in the county in which I live, you're mainly looking at half a dozen families – none of which are reflected in group’s like Western Watersheds Project’s or other’s rhetoric about public land ranchers. Between all of them, they provide over 30,000 acres of Block Management Access – again that’s within a half hour of my home address, and they count on those public land leases. Not a damn one of them would I consider “wealthy” beyond the land they own, and they don’t live like it either.

That’s not to say that better lease contracts shouldn’t be implemented - offsite watering, riparian fencing, more leeway for enforcement and protection of the land, etc. But I see that as a federal issue and not one to be directed at locals. Instead of putting the onus on the lessor, and more accurately those who dictate what the lessors can do, where it should be, I see a direction chosen by a lot of groups who are distant from the land and its people to vilify lessees, who are my neighbors.

From last hunting season, I have a pronghorn, an elk, and 2 deer in the freezer - all from public lands and all in the presence of cowpies. In many ways, the subsidization of agriculture on public land is the subsidization of a culture and a people. Though I live in a subdivision, I grew up here, and they are my people and it is my culture.

It's similar to putting any other cohort in a bucket – treating a very diverse group as a monolith – nearly always a mistake in terms of encapsulating the second and third order consequences of the finger pointers getting what they wish for .

Would you amenable to some means test for lease rates?

The fact that very wealthy people and corporations are granted exclusive rights at well below market prices is the thing most cant swallow. Good deeds those people and corporations are responsible for does not wash out the sweetheart deals they get for many.

I've been out of college since the mid 80s...and not much has changed. Well managed and controlled grazing is what was said was needed back then...but in 40 years it still has not been allowed.

Id love to think we can make that work...but I don't think its possible after all this time.

 

[Nameless Range]

Would you amenable to some means test for lease rates?

The fact that very wealthy people and corporations are granted exclusive rights at well below market prices is the thing most cant swallow. Good deeds those people and corporations are responsible for does not wash out the sweetheart deals they get for many.

I've been out of college since the mid 80s...and not much has changed. Well managed and controlled grazing is what was said was needed back then...but in 40 years it still has not been allowed.

Id love to think we can make that work...but I don't think its possible after all this time.

I guess maybe, though I don't know how that would work in terms of legality. The article mentions a couple billionaires, and the folks I know may very well be worth millions - that is if they were to cash in on their land. Perhaps the geography and people I know aren't representative of the whole, but that's where I become skeptical. I do think most of the organizations decrying the grazing that occurs on public lands, though they leverage the fact that it comes at a huge discount, would still bellyache if we charged market rates. I'd wager that if grazing was raised to market rates, we'd have an even larger consolidation of grazing leases to fewer ranching outfits - those billionaires and such.


A friend of mine recently gave me a 3 volume series of books produced by the USFS in 1944 titled, "Early Days in the Forest Service". It's a collection of recollections of the first USFS rangers and staff that pioneered the implementation of the whole concept public lands across the west. They were foresters, but they were also diplomats. In the 1940s they were dying off, and I am glad the USFS had the foresight to document their stories. This little story from Sheridan, MT in the early 1900s kind of exemplifies the spirit I hope continues, and that very well mean stricter standards for the land on which they graze, but I have a personal soft spot for the local and familiar few remaining ranchers and the open lands they own, and through all the pieces together they allow access, and they keep the place from being given wholly over to the tourists and this increasingly less-warm new culture replacing the old.

 

[Nunjagottam]

Link to another fairly well written article on this topic. My 2 cents = raise the rates, or let hunter/conservation groups bid against the cattlemen when the leases come up for renewal. I have to chuckle evertime I see one of those stupid "Save the Cowboy" signs. Like I GAF if Rancher Bill goes tits-up when he doesn't allow public hunting. Maybe there is some carrot-and-stick to be applied? Perhaps require public hunting access in order to qualify for reduced grazing prices. But then you're injecting state wildlife agencies into federal land management decisions. Hmm,
lots to chew on for sure...

The wealthy profit from public lands, and taxpayers pick up the tab - High Country News

Roughly two-thirds of grazing on Bureau of Land Management land is controlled by just 10% of permit holders.

www.hcn.org

 

[COEngineer]

Did not say there were not worthwhile but the idea that you are going to do Ecological assessments for grazing permit every time they come up for renewal is not realistic nor needed

How are they not needed? You own this land we are talking about. You don't want someone to take a look at it every ten years to see if the lessees are abusing it?

 

[COEngineer]

Yes! Rangeland can be reconstituted, reclaimed, and improved. Once it becomes developed into "5 acre ranchettes", that is "permanent".
"They paved Paradise and put in a parking lot!" is the theme for so many areas of the west that once were wildlife habitat. Those areas will never be good habitat or viable livestock grazings lands again.

That's a good point. I was mostly expressing my frustration and I typed without really thinking, but I suspect there are people (the huge percentage of Americans that will never see or care about rangelands) who would see it that way (housing as a better use than desertified pasture).