Ranching Subsidies ProPublica Article

[Nameless Range]

What if there was a sliding scale for lease rates based on total federal acres leased? People who graze less than say 4-5 sections (completely arbitrary number because I have no experience in this area) would get the current base rate and then it would ramp up from there.

Yeah, things definitely need to change. I’m not an expert on lease rates, nor monitoring, etc. maybe a creative solution like that would work. Maybe it would have problems.

I agree that this is a one-sided article, and I really like your comparison to hunting.

...but, do you really think that raising the grazing fees is going to lead to more consolidation? I don't think that petty amount moves the needle, not compared to the other larger economic forces at play.

Just honestly, I’m not sure. It’s a hunch that the leases of certain people who are priced out would be consolidated by those who could afford them.But maybe they wouldn’t be priced out. Kind of similar to land ownership. Except for unlike land, grazing leases are not subdivided.

Just trying to observe myself, I notice a gut reaction I have when I read that article. Part of it might be I don’t like hearing the truth, but I also think a part of it is that being embedded in this community going on four decades - which has a lot of public land grazing- and being involved with a lot of the things they’re talking about and caring about the people they’re talking about, I feel like there’s more to the story.

 

[Irrelevant]

Yeah, things definitely need to change. I’m not an expert on lease rates, nor monitoring, etc. maybe a creative solution like that would work. Maybe it would have problems.


Just honestly, I’m not sure. It’s a hunch that the leases of certain people who are priced out would be consolidated by those who could afford them.But maybe they wouldn’t be priced out. Kind of similar to land ownership. Except for unlike land, grazing leases are not subdivided.

Just trying to observe myself, I notice a gut reaction I have when I read that article. Part of it might be I don’t like hearing the truth, but I also think a part of it is that being embedded in this community going on four decades - which has a lot of public land grazing- and being involved with a lot of the things they’re talking about and caring about the people they’re talking about, I feel like there’s more to the story.

All of those things can be true at the same time.

The most regraded landscapes I've seen were BLM range lands.

 

[Handlebar]

Comparing private grazing land rates with federal allotment rates is for the most part a apples to oranges comparison

 

[antlerradar]

Though if someone didn't live where I do they might find it more compelling, I don't find the argument that public land grazing contributes only 1.6% of the American beef supply, as one powerfully against public land grazing. Maybe it's brought forth as a retort to ranchers saying they are "feeding America" or some such thing.

It is not 1.6% of the beef supply, It is 1.6% of the forage.
The 1.6% is just one link in a chain of forage that the cattle eat before they are slaughtered. Remove one of the links and the hole chain fails.
For example a rancher could only have cattle on public for say three months of the year, so a small amount the feed the steer consumes, but with out the public there likely is no steer. You don't just change your operation over night and even if you could the percentage drop in your cow herd is going to be more than the percentage loss in the public forage.
Also a big part of the total feed needed is corn that is feed in the feedlot. A corn farmer is not going to change and all of a sudden start to raise cattle without a substantial investment.
Using the amount of forage provided to estimate the loss to the beef supply is misleading at best.