Report Says Keeping Public Lands Open for Grazing Costs $123 Million a Year

AP ^ | November 01, 2005 | Jennifer Talhelm

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

WASHINGTON — Federal agencies spend at least $123 million a year to keep public lands open to livestock grazing, according to a government report that environmentalists say bolsters their argument that grazing should be limited.

"If we are going to allow grazing on our public lands, the very least we should be doing is we should be recovering the costs," said Greta Anderson, a Tucson, Ariz., botanist and the range restoration campaign coordinator for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Jim Hughes, deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management -- which, with the Forest Service, manages 98 percent of grazing permits -- said the agency charges a fee set by law and is not advocating a change or an increase.

"We have many programs that cost us more ... to operate than we take in," Hughes said. "It's never been our mission to be run totally like a business."

Ranching on the millions of acres of public lands has been a mainstay of western life for more than a century. Ranchers pay a fee often based on the amount of grass and other vegetation their cows will eat. The agencies spend the money on managing permits and leases, building fences and developing water projects, among other activities.

The arrangement increasingly has caused friction as more demands are put on western lands. Environmentalists question whether taxpayers should support public lands grazing.

According to the analysis released Monday by the Government Accountability Office, grazing fees cover only about a sixth of the cost of managing the program.

In 2004, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and several other agencies spent $144 million and generated just $21 million from grazing fees.

Ranchers who hold public lands grazing permits get a deal, paying as little as $1.43 per animal unit month -- the amount of forage a cow and her calf can eat in a month -- according to the GAO.

Jeff Eisenberg, executive director of the Public Lands Council, which advocates for ranchers, said the numbers in the report don't represent the whole picture. The benefits of maintaining a way of life and keeping land free from development are difficult to quantify, he said.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Doing some back reading and came across this. It kind of let me torn. I don't like the idea of subsidizing ranchers, farmers or pretty much anything that isn't both threatened and vital to national security. It does not seem these criteria are fulfilled here.

I am sure the ranchers are great, but the argument they give for a low-price for grazing rights is, I am sorry to say, very French.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

I'm Interested in what you think.

[prisoner6]

My question is ...How much would it cost if the public lands are CLOSED to grazing?

I'm thinking the grazing cuts down on some maintenence, risk of fire along with other things.

prisoner6

[KeepUSfree]

My first question would be: " Let's see what they spent the $144,000,000 on."

I wouldn't think that just letting livestock roam around, builing a few fences and watering holes would cost 144 million. Not that I'd EVER think our government was mis-managing the program and wasting money (then whining about how they get shortchanged). I'd bet $100 right now that if management was turned over to the private sector, they'd be able to make a profit off the 21 million they get in fees.

[kenth]

The government should sell the land, the ranchers can buy it. They can then be responsible for upkeep, fencing, etc.

[Iconoclast2]

Here we see the evil genius of the environmentalist strategy, which fools even Freepers. Environmentalists demand that the Federal government spend untold gobs of money processing their appeals from every conceivable decision involving grazing, pay for an army of high-priced biologists and lawyers to fight against them (or collude with them) in litigation involving grazing, and then pay their legal fees when they prove that one of ten thousand factors relating to the environment was not adequately considered by one of the harried bureaucrats. And then the environmentalists turn around and say, "look how much money we're spending on grazing".

We're not subsidizing grazing. We're subsidizing environmentalists.

[Freedom4US]

Bingo! You nailed it..

As an aside I've hiked thousands of miles through our great wilderness areas over the years - I'd rather live next to a honest-to-god rancher than any environmental weenie, in aggregate they are a sorry lot.

[Adder]

Ahhhh. I think you might be spot on.

I can't figure how they spent so much and would like to know where it went. Its certainly not like they mow it or nothing.....

[brityank]

"If we are going to allow grazing on our public lands, the very least we should be doing is we should be recovering the costs," said Greta Anderson, a Tucson, Ariz., botanist and the range restoration campaign coordinator for the Center for Biological Diversity.

And how much is CBD and the rest of the back-to-caves-or-tenements / Nature Conservancy / Sierra Club /ad nauseaum Federal Teat Suckers paying for their use of the 'Public Lands'?

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

The government should sell the land, the ranchers can buy it. They can then be responsible for upkeep, fencing, etc.

Ding Ding Ding.

Right Answer!!!

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

What else are we going to do with all of those PhD's? They need jobs somewhere and only a few can be genious enough to actually invent something.

The rest focus their talents on finding ways to create jobs. Some venture here.

Still, I am not sure this is really very clear cut. Privatization is my preference. It will absolutely work. Either the ranchers will buy it themselves or a corporation will and make a profit.

[G.Mason]

While we can eat the cattle and wear the leather that comes from them, just how much does it cost to, say ... to keep our poor folks in the undersea areas of New Orleans?

Let's keep the cattle high and dry.

[Jaysun]

Doing some back reading and came across this. It kind of let me torn. I don't like the idea of subsidizing ranchers, farmers or pretty much anything that isn't both threatened and vital to national security. It does not seem these criteria are fulfilled here.

I am sure the ranchers are great, but the argument they give for a low-price for grazing rights is, I am sorry to say, very French.

Perhaps if the blankety-blank FEDS would stop putting red velvet ropes around every spare lot in the country and calling it "public lands" this wouldn't be a problem. How in the #%*@ can they charge a fee to let some guy's cows eat grass - in the middle of nowhere - and lose money? Do they have federal employees following the cows around to point out the choicest grass? I don't get it. The expenses associated with allowing cows to graze must be minuscule. Are they throwing in other expenses or are they just that incompetent?

To hell with the environmental idiots. They want to "protect" the grass just like they want to "protect" the frozen tundra from the nefarious oil companies. We give those sonsabitches too much authority. God forbid that some barren territory which has never seen a human footprint be made beneficial to someone.

I wouldn't really consider this a subsidy to ranchers. They're paying the fee, and it's not their fault that the FEDS are losing money.

[OldFriend]

No doubt about it, as with Kyoto, this will ensure the costs of food go higher, harming the economy.

[Appalled but Not Surprised]

Oh the cowman and the environmentalist should be friends
Oh the cowman and the environmentalist should be friends
One man wants to raise a cow
One man wants us to kowtow
But that's no reason why they can't be friends

(From the Hammer and Sickelstein musical "Oklahoma")

[bkepley]

Ranching on the millions of acres of public lands has been a mainstay of western life for more than a century

Long before these Federal agencies got involved.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

No doubt about it, as with Kyoto, this will ensure the costs of food go higher, harming the economy.

Hold on a minute, that doesn't make any sense. If Americans really are subsidizing farmers then they are making food more expensive not less expensive.

Secondly this has no relevance whatsoever to Kyoto. What are you talking about?

We may be on the same side, but you sound like you have zero clue about economics.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

No doubt about it, as with Kyoto, this will ensure the costs of food go higher, harming the economy.

Hold on a minute, that doesn't make any sense. If Americans really are subsidizing farmers then they are making food more expensive not less expensive.

Secondly this has no relevance whatsoever to Kyoto. What are you talking about?

We may be on the same side, but you sound like you have zero clue about economics.

[Sacajaweau]

Either way, the consumer gets the actual cost attached to their meat at the supermarket. My guess would be that the programs administration costs are the culprit.

[OldFriend]

So if the ranchers are charged more, they won't raise the price of their product?

I have no clue about economics?

Did you see the reference to Bio Diversity? A group like that hardly has the wellbeing of human beings as their priority.