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 degraded 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.

 

[Nameless Range]

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.

Misread the quote from the article. Thank you

 

[antlerradar]

Misread the quote from the article. Thank you

Like I said the article is very misleading, They quote the 1.6% of forage and a few sentences later go into the total beef supply. The 16% they say it is not is probably closer to the number of the herd cattle that spend at least some time on Public.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Like I said the article is very misleading, They quote the 1.6% of forage and a few sentences later go into the total beef supply. The 16% they say it is not is probity closer to the number of the herd cattle that spend at least some time on Public.

I get that 1.6% forage doesnt translate to 1.6% percent of the beef we consume. If it is 6x that (seemingly generous) we are still talking around 1 in 10 lbs of beef.

So if it isnt 1.6% - what do you think is the percentage of the beef that we consume in the us was grazed on public land?

 

[Forkyfinder]

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

State lands were randomly selected, private lands were picked, and blm/fs is what is left over.

Do you feel the state lease fees are high? Does it include more infrastucture than blm?

 

[antlerradar]

I get that 1.6% forage doesnt translate to 1.6% percent of the beef we consume. If it is 6x that (seemingly generous) we are still talking around 1 in 10 lbs of beef.

So if it isnt 1.6% - what do you think is the percentage of the beef that we consume in the us was grazed on public land?

The article refutes a 16% number, They got that number from somewhere. I could see this as close. The actual number is hard to put a finger on.
For example the BLM provides 12 million AUMs. Even if all of the allotments are year long, it is 1 million of the 27.6 million cow herd or 4%. Of course some of those AUM's are sheep and some are yearling cattle and this would reduce the percentage. On the other hand, most of those allotments are not year long, Most are used for the five month summer grazing season. Out cattle graze BLM for less than 2 months of the year and even then those pastures have a large % of private and State land incluced.. This could easily bring the percentage up to around 8% and this is not including forest service and national grasslands grazing.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The article refutes a 16% number, They got that number from somewhere. I could see this as close. The actual number is hard to put a finger on.
For example the BLM provides 12 million AUMs. Even if all of the allotments are year long, it is 1 million of the 27.6 million cow herd or 4%. Of course some of those AUM's are sheep and some are yearling cattle and this would reduce the percentage. On the other hand, most of those allotments are not year long, Most are used for the five month summer grazing season. Out cattle graze BLM for less than 2 months of the year and even then those pastures have a large % of private and State land incluced.. This could easily bring the percentage up to around 8% and this is not including forest service and national grasslands grazing.

I don't see 16% in the article - the article also seems to be referring to all usfs/blm/nps grazing. Maybe im missing somewhere its saying its only blm?

I did ask a few ai sources - and they too pointed out its hard to pin down based on the lack of data. Perhaps thats by design? When i forced it to provide an answer - they provided around 5-8% of beef.

Notable to me that the good ol USA exports at least 50% more than that (10-12% of beef production). With even the most generous figures - we are exporting as much cattle as are grown on public land.

 

[Handlebar]

State lands were randomly selected, private lands were picked, and blm/fs is what is left over.

Do you feel the state lease fees are high? Does it include more infrastucture than blm?

My bigger problem is that it seems that many want to assume that all grazing leases are the same regardless if private, state or federal. There is absolutely more flexibility with private than with state or federal, for example cross fencing or water development would not require an archelology assesement. I don't think that state leases are too high at least in South Dakota the grazer is still responsible for property tax. I would agree that the federal rate is absurdly low. I am a proponent of public land grazing. But the demographics of the ranching community are changing and with it will come changes to the grazing of public lands. My biggest fear is that we will adopt a one size fits all.

 

[Bonasababy]

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

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

I would add BLM forest lands to that based on my time with them years ago.

 

[Forkyfinder]

My bigger problem is that it seems that many want to assume that all grazing leases are the same regardless if private, state or federal.

I dont think thats necessarily fair, either.

Saying public land grazing is steeply discounted and subsidized can still be true independent of it not being directly comparable in all facets.

It would be a near certainty that grazing fees wouldnt come close to paying the property taxes (if fed were private with the same aum lease fee). Wouldnt it be fair to say youd want to fire a land manager (in this case the gov) if the leasing/commercial activity wouldnt cover the taxes on your land?

 

[Handlebar]

I dont think thats necessarily fair, either.

Saying public land grazing is steeply discounted and subsidized can still be true independent of it not being directly comparable in all facets.

It would be a near certainty that grazing fees wouldnt come close to paying the property taxes (if fed were private with the same aum lease fee). Wouldnt it be fair to say youd want to fire a land manager (in this case the gov) if the leasing/commercial activity wouldnt cover the taxes on your land?

Federal land is subsidized no argument. Recreation on federal lands is the most highly subsidized activity on public lands (or it used to be). Compare hunting public vs hunting private. But private land lease rates are often brought up as a comparison when many readers would not know the difference between a high production meadow versus Blum shrub lands, hence my statement about comparing apples to oranges. Federal land is not taxed and there are PIlT payments to provide to the counties/state to make up for the difference, if you are suggesting raising the grazing fee to cover what the county charges in property tax that would be an interesting suggestion. Understanding that grazing rates would be highly variable from state to state.

 

[BuzzH]

My bigger problem is that it seems that many want to assume that all grazing leases are the same regardless if private, state or federal. There is absolutely more flexibility with private than with state or federal, for example cross fencing or water development would not require an archelology assesement. I don't think that state leases are too high at least in South Dakota the grazer is still responsible for property tax. I would agree that the federal rate is absurdly low. I am a proponent of public land grazing. But the demographics of the ranching community are changing and with it will come changes to the grazing of public lands. My biggest fear is that we will adopt a one size fits all.

It's not one size fits all now based on federal grazing fees?

I'm not opposed to public land grazing at all either, in fact, I support it if done correctly. Support it even more when grazing is part of a larger landscape level management plan.

I view these cheap lease rates along the same lines as $20 Resident elk tags in Montana, when they tell you an AUM is only worth $1.35 what's the incentive to improve it or take care of it? Same with $20 Resident elk tags, why take care of the resource when you're telling the public that's the value you place on them?

 

[kwyeewyk]

I would add BLM forest lands to that based on my time with them years ago.

It's important to remember that BLM inherited lots of heavily degraded land that was used and abused and abandoned by multiple extractive industries, including insanely high stocking rates of sheep, horses and cows, before it was BLM.

Many of those acres, especially the worst stuff, crossed thresholds for natural recovery long ago, often before it was even BLM. Once the threshold is crossed, removing livestock won't make things better, it requires intensive restoration that is often cost prohibitive or unfeasible due to ground conditions like slope and soil type.

There is plenty of irresponsible grazing that occurs currently, but I think people tend to see the worst as a grazing problem, but take little note when they are in a well managed allotment and maybe even assume it is ungrazed.

Washington BLM is a bit unique compared to the rest of BLM, but i suspect things are pretty similar in other areas. If we had the intact vegetation communities that were present 200 years ago, I believe most modern day stocking rates would barely be noticeable on much of the landscape (you're always going to have highly impacted areas around troughs, corrals, etc). But when the bunchgrass was beat out 150 years ago, it doesn't matter how many cows you put on it it's going to look like shit.

I do agree that the actual ground level managers in BLM are hamstrung in being able to address non compliance and trespass issues due to the top down throttling of anything that might draw a congressional inquiry. That's a longstanding issue but it is at its worst right now.

 

[Handlebar]

It's not one size fits all now based on federal grazing fees?

I'm not opposed to public land grazing at all either, in fact, I support it if done correctly. Support it even more when grazing is part of a larger landscape level management plan.

I view these cheap lease rates along the same lines as $20 Resident elk tags in Montana, when they tell you an AUM is only worth $1.35 what's the incentive to improve it or take care of it? Same with $20 Resident elk tags, why take care of the resource when you're telling the public that's the value you place on them?

I don't disagree with you. Some view it as free grazing and will do whatever it takes to make it successful while others view it as a birthright

 

[Forkyfinder]

Federal land is subsidized no argument. Recreation on federal lands is the most highly subsidized activity on public lands (or it used to be).

Interesting assessment.

Hard to say - really. Generally private leasing includes an element of exclusion. As part owner - no one really is granted that as an American with much public recreation. Not just that - a lot of the infrastructure that exists and is now used for recreation was constructed for commercial activities. So it isnt really fair to say the development cost of that road should be solely related to recreation. Its comparing apples and orangutans.

Maybe the closest comparision is campsites - youre granted some of that exclusivity i was referring to earlier. On developed camp sites - fees range between 5-40 bucks or so in my experience. Ive "rented" private camp sites - id say theyre around twice as much.