Livestock Grazing on Public Land

[JackieB]

September 2005
LIVESTOCK GRAZING
Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary,
Depending on the Agency and the
Purpose of the Fee Charged
The 10 federal agencies managed more than 22.6 million AUMs on about 235
million acres of federal lands for grazing and land management in fiscal year
2004. Of this total, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service
managed more than 98 percent of the lands used for grazing. The agencies
manage their grazing programs under different authorities and for different
purposes. For BLM lands and western Forest Service lands, grazing is a
major program; the eight other agencies generally use grazing as a tool to
achieve their primary land management goals.
In fiscal year 2004, federal agencies spent a total of at least $144 million. The
10 federal agencies spent at least $135.9 million, with the Forest Service and
BLM accounting for the majority. Other federal agencies have grazingrelated
activities, such as pest control, and spent at least $8.4 million in fiscal
year 2004.
The 10 federal agencies’ grazing fees generated about $21 million in fiscal
year 2004—less than one-sixth of the expenditures to manage grazing. Of
that amount, the agencies distributed about $5.7 million to states and
counties in which grazing occurred, returned about $3.8 million to the
Treasury, and deposited at least $11.7 million in separate Treasury accounts
to help pay for agency programs, among other things. The amounts each
agency distributed varied, depending on the agencies’ differing authorities.
Fees charged in 2004 by the 10 federal agencies, as well as state land
agencies and private ranchers, vary widely. The grazing fee BLM and the
Forest Service charge, which was $1.43 per AUM in 2004, is established by
formula and is generally much lower than the fees charged by the other
federal agencies, states, and private ranchers. The other agencies, states,
and ranchers generally established fees to obtain the market value of the
forage. The formula used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service grazing fee
incorporates ranchers’ ability to pay; therefore the current purpose of the fee
is not primarily to recover the agencies’ expenditures or to capture the fair
market value of forage. As a result, BLM’s and the Forest Service’s grazing
receipts fell short of their expenditures on grazing in fiscal year 2004 by
almost $115 million. The BLM and Forest Service fee also decreased by 40
percent from 1980 to 2004, while grazing fees charged by private ranchers
increased by 78 percent for the same period. If the purpose of the fee were
to recover expenditures, BLM and the Forest Service would have had to
charge $7.64 and $12.26 per AUM, respectively; alternately, if the purpose
were to gain a fair market value, the agencies’ fees would vary depending on
the market. Differences in resources and legal requirements can cause fees
to vary; however, the approaches used by other agencies could close the gap
in expenditures and receipts or more closely align BLM and Forest Service
fees with market prices. The purpose of the grazing fee is, ultimately, for the
Congress to determine.

[JackieB]

I posted only the report above because I was having trouble with my fonts.

I read something saying that we spent a lot more to administer this grazing program than it earns, so I did some research. A friend once referred to it as "Cowboy Socialism", which I thought was pretty funny.

More of an indictment of our government than ranchers. But another example of how virtually everyone feels that the federal aid they receive is the "good" expenditure. I don't think many of the ranchers would lease their own land to others for grazing at those rates.

[WashingtonBay]

Can't explain why it costs so much to administer the program, nor why the rates are so cheap... I do promise, if you make me king, I'll fix both problems!

We should say that in many cases, particularly in the West... the grazing land is not exactly high quality cultivated pasture, it's pretty scrubby desert. Not sure if that was figured into the 'comparable rates'... But it's not top dollar land.

[natisha]

I think the money spent is going to a lot more than the actual running of programs. More likely to those running the programs. How much can it cost to say 'OK' to someone wanting to use grazing land?

[mare]

To call the acreage "grazing" lands is misleading. They are public lands. The costs would at least remain the same, if not rise, if there was not grazing because ranchers do some of the work (required) with monitoring and eliminating noxious weeds and maintaining and improving fences (that allow or direct migration per BLM and Forest Service guidelines) and maintaining or improving water for wildlife and livestock. Don't forget the ranchers, like the recreationist, are often the only eyes in these lands and often are the first to observe illegal activity.

The lands are managed according to a ponderous set of regulations. And we can thank ourselves and any special interest group we donate to for making more and more regulations.

Thank you for posting the article. I always appreciate knowing of new attacks on the multiple use of public lands.

[mare]

Also, the land that was not purchased and/or homesteaded in the 1800s and early 1900s is most of what makes up the BLM and non-wooded Forest Service lands today. It was the land of last choice. So, since one has to bid for the grazing rights on BLM and Forest Service lands, and those agencies get fewer bids and can't get as much money as privately held lands do, it is most likely because it is less valuable.

Some BLM lands that are leased, the rancher has to haul water for the livestock. Good thing for the wildlife, huh? Believe me the antelope, etc. share, and we don't mind since we care for all the animals in our areas of influence. And, if we use that type of land we have to provide access to the water for rodents, etc. and escape ramps out of stock tanks for anything (bird, rodent, coyote) that might end up in the water. We are told where we can put the water tanks (and sometimes a rancher's idea of a good spot differs from that of agency personnel). We are told what route we can drive the water truck to the water tank, even if it is a longer route.

[JackieB]

Good points, everyone.

Natisha, I also wondered about how many people it takes to run the program. Probably a hefty multiple of what it really would require.

Mare, thanks for educating me on some of the regulations, along with some of the non-livestock benefits such as providing a water source for some animals that I'm guessing might otherwise perish during a lengthy drought.

So this is one of those issues that definitely isn't as it first appears.

[gabhainn]

Like Mare pointed out, the cost of maintaining and improving the land is never mentioned or figured in the deal the government gets. So its not quite the albatross people like to point out...............Kevin

[Tiz]

I have an idea. The federal government should sell the land they refer to as "public" land. It isn't public, it's owned and overseen by the government. Do you think that Alaska, for instance, would be the leading "on the dole" citizen state if it's lands weren't tied up by DC?

[WashingtonBay]

There are exceptions to the rule, but most of the publicly held lands are, as mare said, desert or mountaintop. They are lands that are public because no one wanted them. Some may have value, but much is not easily reachable or developable.

There's nothing wrong with there being public lands, as long as the public has reasonable access to use them, IMHO.

[Tiz]

File:Federalland.gif

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


File (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federalland.gif#file)
File history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federalland.gif#filehistory)
File links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federalland.gif#filelinks)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Federalland.gif (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Federalland.gif)

[Tiz]

I think the acreage in federal land reflects the shift in our government's attitude more than the land's usefulness.

[mare]

I don't mind the concept of public land. I'm not even grazing on any now or for the last 6 years, either, so it's not that I have a vested interest.

Public land is used by so many people. And if it is in the middle of a private holding and not fenced (and even if it is), the landowner has to, HAS to, allow and maintain good access to the public land (state, BLM, school sections, county, Federal).

Campers use it at no charge. Hikers, bikers, and ATV riders, hunters and fishermen. Horse people, llama people, town people who want to run a dog, people who like to look for tipi rings and arrowheads. Schools and colleges and youth groups and elderhostels. You'd be surprised who you bump into 20+ miles from town. All doing their different things.

Even when I've had to ask campers to move away from the water tank because the cows and wildlife wouldn't come in to drink with them there (the campers thought the cows were cute and curious - not thirsty and they didn't even see the wildlife). Even when I've come on people sic-ing their pet dog on my cows (because they didn't know the cows belonges to anybody). Even then, I'm happy to see people out enjoying our public lands.

Without them, many, many people wouldn't get the chance to experience the remote outdoors. And, that is something I think is valuable in a person's life.

[WashingtonBay]

I think the acreage in federal land reflects the shift in our government's attitude more than the land's usefulness.

Look at WA and OR - where we're most familiar. It's mountaintops. And they've not been taken from anyone, they were not owned by anyone.

Much of Nevada public land is the same way. It's desert... roadless, no power, and little water.

I know there's a lot of people who think there was this great land grab... and there certainly have been cases like that. But not the lion's share of it.

[Tiz]

http://standeyo.com/NEWS/10_USA/10_USA_pics/100528.federal.land.jpg

[Tiz]

Mountaintops covered in timber, deserts over gold, silver, natural gas, frozen tundra over oil reserves.

[WashingtonBay]

Yes :) Mountaintop, desert, or frozen roadless tundra.


Smaller tracts that are military bases and indian reservations. A few parks.

You can buy some pretty big tracts in Nevada for cheap. There's no shortage... Pershing County, Nevada land for sale - 145.8 acres at LandWatch.com (http://www.landwatch.com/Pershing-County-Nevada-Land-for-sale/pid/123001863) - Even cheaper on tracts that don't have any water on them. :) Most are not places you're going to want to develop into a new strip mall just yet. You can't get to them, and if you can, there's no water, and no power.

Similar results can be found on a search of Alaska. Go for it!

[WashingtonBay]

Mountaintops covered in timber, deserts over gold, silver, natural gas, frozen tundra over oil reserves.

I don't know about mineral contracts, but lots of smaller loggers make a living on public land timber contracts. Not all loggers and prospectors can be a Weyerhauser, who owns much of the prime timber land. Common sense (not reality - reality needs a reality check) says it could be somewhat profitable for everyone to efficiently use public lands.

For starters, there's far too many departments doing basically the same thing. There isn't need for that many different colors :) Maybe two: Land mgmt and military.

[mare]

Mineral rights to government land are sold to private individuals and companies all the time. At least where special interest groups haven't stopped exploration and or production. And, boy, are there regulations to contend with in those industries operating on public land!

The map Tiz posted is very misleading. I live, work and own property in some of the areas that are shown to be BLM and Forest Service. And I ain't squatting! lol

Most of the government land, of any agency, is little blocks strewn amongst private holdings. One reason for that is a result of homesteading. A homesteader might file on a square mile, his wife would file on a square mile of her own not adjoining his, but with a section of land in between. Their adults children would also file claims in a staggered pattern. When it was done, they had their own sections, plus the sections in between that were made even less desirable because they were interspersed between those of a family or group of friends or the claims of employees of a wealthy person who fronted everyone the money in exchange for the titles plus some cash once the claims were proved up. Folks could get double the land, via access that way.

Not the original intention of homesteading, but it was sometimes the result