Giving cattle the boot: Ruling in hand, environmental group seeks grazing leases to rest the land

The Sierra Times ^ | 4 December, 2001 | Arizona Daily Star

[brityank]

Giving cattle the boot: Ruling in hand, environmental group seeks grazing leases to rest the land Arizona Daily Star 12.04.01 With a landmark court victory in hand, a Southwest environmental group wants to raise $1 million so it can kick cattle off tens of thousands of acres of Arizona and New Mexico. Aaron J. Latham / Staff John King, whose family has ranched in Altar Valley since 1895, says the grazing-lease ruling adds "just adds one more uncertainty." Forest Guardians says it already has $50,000 to spend on a list of "biological hot spots" - including some near Tucson - that ranchers now control with state-issued grazing leases. On Nov. 21, the Santa Fe-based group won a case before Arizona's Supreme Court that upended a decades-old policy of giving ranchers a monopoly on 8.3 million acres of state school trust land. The court said people with no intention of raising livestock could still bid on the 10-year grazing leases, which cover about 10 percent of the state. An Arizona Daily Star review of State Land Department records has found that 497 grazing leases in Pima County covering 205,068 acres will expire in 2002. Environmentalists say the decision will let them rest land that has been overgrazed to resemble "moonscapes" and end a subsidy for "cowboy socialists" that shortchanges the state's public school system. Aaron J. Latham / Staff Cattle graze on about 50,000 acres of school trust land on the King family's ranch in Altar Valley. Arizona's high court also gave a boost to a free-market approach to land management that has gained favor with conservative environmental groups in ascendancy in Washington under the Bush administration. But the ruling outraged many local ranchers. They fear it could kill their businesses and promote housing development on ranches that have hosted livestock since Arizona's territorial days and grazing by other animals for eons longer. For the Kings, the ruling means land they've ranched for four generations, since 1895, is up for grabs. In Altar Valley, 35 miles southwest of Tucson, in the shadow of Kitt Peak's telescopes and what author Edward Abbey called "the big aching tooth" of Baboquivari Peak, the Kings run cattle on about 50,000 acres, most of it school trust land. "I don't believe I've abused this land, be it state land or our own private land. We care for it just the same," Pat King said. "We've done lots of conservation work and we're very proud of it." Her son John said that in a business already fraught with doubt - will it rain? will the grass grow? will a mountain lion kill your cattle? - the court's ruling "just adds one more uncertainty to deal with." Jim Chilton, another Altar Valley rancher, said opening up grazing leases to the free market could create confusion and "pit neighbor against neighbor" since state lands are often interspersed with private property in a checkerboard pattern. Of the 1.6 million acres of grazed land in Pima County, 51 percent is state trust, 27 percent is federal and 12 percent is private property, according to county figures. Chilton also worries that ranchers who've built fences and dams on state land - improvements they now pay property taxes on - will watch their hard work end up in someone else's hands. "I'll be outraged if someone comes in and tries to bid away my state leases without paying me for my initial investments, plus the improvements I put on the land. That will be theft, it will be stealing, and in legal terms, it's a takings," he said. Many ranchers say the new rules are akin to turning owner-occupied homes into rental units with high turnover - the short-term tenants won't be good stewards of the land. But grazing opponents counter that cattle pollute water sources, introduce exotic species and destroy habitat for endangered wildlife. Forest Guardians' Web site calls livestock grazing "by far the single most destructive activity on Southwestern public lands." Ranchers respond that well-managed grazing actually improves range conditions. "These plants have evolved over the last 100,000 or 200,000 years with grazing," Chilton said. "We have all kinds of evidence that horses, camel, bison, mammoth and other grazing animals have been on the land for eons." The disputed grazing leases make up most of the 10.6 million acres the federal government gave Arizona as it progressed from a territory to a state. Federal law required the state to sell or lease the land to the "highest and best bidder at a public auction," with the proceeds earmarked for public schools. Since then, Arizona has retained a greater percentage of its trust land in state hands than any other Western state. For decades, ranchers have had a lock on the grazing leases, paying an average of 25 cents per acre annually, according to State Land Department officials. But in recent years, environmental groups tried bidding on those leases, sometimes offering five times as much money as ranchers did. Until last month's Supreme Court decision, those bids were rejected out of hand. Although the State Land Department still has some leeway in determining who's the "best" bidder, environmentalists say it will now have to prove why livestock is better for the land than a period of non-grazing. John Horning, conservation director for Forest Guardians, said his group has begun using the map-layering technology of geographic information systems "to figure out how to get our biggest biological bang for our buck." The group is creating a list of targets by overlaying biological diversity data on top of maps that show which grazing leases are expiring. "We're looking at the 10 to 15 sites that are the ecological crown jewels of state trust lands," said Horning. In the arid Southwest, that usually means areas with water. If Forest Guardians raises $1 million, it could control 50,000 to 100,000 acres in Arizona and New Mexico, Horning said. "With a level playing field and a fair and open process, many other groups will be coming out of the woodwork to bid on state school trust lands," he said. "The end result may be upwards of a million acres of land are held by fishing, bird hunting, birding, hiking and plain old conservation groups who want to put their cold hard cash to work in a very tangible way." Forest Guardians' court victory earned harsh words from State Land Commissioner Mike Anable, who called the ruling "a risky new precedent" that could "seriously harm the income generated from trust lands for the schools of this state." Anable said the ruling might allow environmental groups to limit access to state trust land and set up camping, recreation and restoration projects without paying fees. It might also "have a destabilizing effect on the ranching community" since banks might be wary of loaning money to ranchers with less-certain grazing leases. Forest Guardians counters that it's not interested in wiping out ranching, nor does it intend to profit from the leases it acquires. And it says more competitive bidding will benefit the school fund, which only pulled in $2.3 million in revenues for grazing leases last year. Environmentalists' new power in acquiring grazing leases may not sit well with Anable or the ranchers, but it represents a favorable reform in the eyes of some prominent Republican environmental thinkers. "In my mind it's a great way to find out what the best value of the land is," said Holly Fretwell, a researcher at the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Mont. "By forcing the land to be used for grazing, we have no idea what other values of the land are." PERC favors free-market solutions to environmental problems - advocating privatization of public lands and paying landowners who protect endangered species. Its leader, Terry Anderson, has become an important adviser to President Bush on environmental policy. By letting economics, rather than politics, decide the value and use of public land, Fretwell said open bidding promises to boost revenue for the state school trust system. A similar program has done just that in Montana, she said. Arizona ranchers, however, think the open-bidding system will hurt the school trust fund in the long run. Charles "Doc" Lane, lobbyist for the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association, said the new rules could put so many ranchers out of business that when environmentalists' 10-year grazing leases expire there won't be anyone else around to bid on them. Lane and many ranchers fear that if activists "cherry-pick" the grazing leases with water, they could dry up entire ranching operations and force long-standing rural landowners to sell their private property to developers. Since the high court's decision last month, Lane said ranchers have been calling him. "They're asking: 'Now what do I do? Where can I get someone to buy my 40-acre ranchette?' "

Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com
All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2001 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)

[brityank]

The court said people with no intention of raising livestock could still bid on the 10-year grazing leases, which cover about 10 percent of the state.

The watermelon orgs have millions of dollars they have stolen out of your pockets through tax deductions and charities. The ranchers and farmers are a target.

[brityank]

Charles "Doc" Lane, lobbyist for the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association, said the new rules could put so many ranchers out of business that when environmentalists' 10-year grazing leases expire there won't be anyone else around to bid on them. Lane and many ranchers fear that if activists "cherry-pick" the grazing leases with water, they could dry up entire ranching operations and force long-standing rural landowners to sell their private property to developers.

Here's a salute to all of the morons who think that the 'Services Work Model' can retain America's industries and self-sufficiency breadbasket through NAFTA and GATT.

Get ready for $10/loaf; $20/milk; and $50/steak.

[Quila]

This is capitalism at it's best! Finally, an end to the socialist government-sponsored monopoly that the powerful cattle ranchers associations have been able to lobby into effect.

The land will now be leased for what it is worth, and the broken business models of the ranchers will no longer be subsidized by our tax dollars.

Even better, the environmentalist groups will have to buy their influence directly in cold cash to the benefit of the people, rather than in lobbying dollars going to the rich.

I only hope this example is followed in forestry, where now if you buy the rights to a section of forest, you MUST cut down the trees there. Let the environmental groups pay top dollar instead of spiking trees. They'll only be able to afford it for so long, since they make no money off of the land. Any maybe it'll empty the lobbying coffers.

But my greatest hope is that this marks the beginning of the end for our government's socialist farm and ranching subsidies.

[Aquamarine]

Bump!

[Mike Darancette]

Forest Guardians counters that it's not interested in wiping out ranching, nor does it intend to profit from the leases it acquires.

Beware the unintended consequences. Grazing land is taken out of service - the ranchers have to overage the parcels they are using to keep their volume up. Maybe some ranchers go out of business and sell their ranches to developers.

Also, won't this effect the tax base of the local governments since the land will not be in any type of production?

[Issaquahking]

Make sure to go to the stock market and buy LEAPS in ammunition. A country divided against itself cannot stand, therefore, I prepare for the future.The day will come when there will be a bounty on the idiots who are today referred to as 'greenies' and I plan on getting rich on the bounty!!!

[brityank]

Don't have enough time right now, but can't let this go unanswered.

This is capitalism at it's best! Finally, an end to the socialist government-sponsored monopoly that the powerful cattle ranchers associations have been able to lobby into effect.

Wrong. This is outright welfare-state communism; "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities."

The land will now be leased for what it is worth, and the broken business models of the ranchers will no longer be subsidized by our tax dollars.

It is worth what you can grow on it; corn, cows, or million dollar estates. You can't eat million dollar estates.

Even better, the environmentalist groups will have to buy their influence directly in cold cash to the benefit of the people, rather than in lobbying dollars going to the rich.

Except for the few agribusinesses, the farmers and ranchers are cash-poor; their wealth is tied up in the land and equipment. And where do you thing the watermelon groups get their money? Hint: Look at the tax code sometime.

I only hope this example is followed in forestry, where now if you buy the rights to a section of forest, you MUST cut down the trees there. Let the environmental groups pay top dollar instead of spiking trees. They'll only be able to afford it for so long, since they make no money off of the land. Any maybe it'll empty the lobbying coffers.

Their coffers have become the bottomless pit of the government and charity largess 'cause it feels good and right.

But my greatest hope is that this marks the beginning of the end for our government's socialist farm and ranching subsidies.

This I can agree with; subsidies are killing all types of productive endeavors in this country.

[poet]

So what else is new? We let them get away with it for all these years. Those of us who called them totalitarians in the beginning were radical nay sayers, of course, now they call us "tin foil hat" wearers.

Bottom line, we get what we deserve whether it be by actions or just mere acceptance.

[Quila]

"Wrong. This is outright welfare-state communism; "

How is putting the land out to the true highest bidder a welfare state, as opposed to keeping the bidding closed to a small group of people, and ensuring an undervalued sale to benefit those people?

"It is worth what you can grow on it; corn, cows, or million dollar estates. You can't eat million dollar estates. "

We already produce more corn, etc., than we can eat, bringing on the infamous subsidies. At least a mansion will produce tax revenue rather than costing the taxpayer money.

"Except for the few agribusinesses, the farmers and ranchers are cash-poor; their wealth is tied up in the land and equipment."

I hate to say this, especially at a time where I'm personally looking for another job due to losing this one, but if they are in a business that requires government subsidies (our tax dollars) and protection to survive, my sympathy level isn't really that high.

"Their coffers have become the bottomless pit of the government and charity largess 'cause it feels good and right. "

AFAIK, the the eco groups lobby just like everyone else. If they get any government money, it's through the same method the farmers get their money. It's a level, albeit corrupt, playing field. They do get charitable donations as farmers get profits.

You agree with killing subsidies, but you also desire for this particular one to continue? Ending subsidies is always painful, but it must be done.

[farmfriend]

You guys want to tackle this one? Two days of lobbying and I'm all talked out.

Grange Leader Calls for More, Not Less Farming
Calls Dairy Compacts Most Innovative Agricultural Innovation of 1996 Farm Bill

Cedar Rapids, IA (November 12, 2001) - Speaking to the 135th annual convention of the National Grange, Kermit W. Richardson, National Master (President), called on Congress to create a new Farm Bill that will "…encourage increased participation in agriculture by the largest number of individuals and families through the broadest possible distribution of agricultural assets possible." Contrary to popular thinking that the United States currently has too many farmers and too much production, Richardson hammered home the point that, "Our nation does not suffer from having too many farmers. Our nation's food security is threatened by having too few farmers!"

Richardson called for legislation that will benefit a broad spectrum of farmers rather than favor the few and to reject legislation that will lead to continued consolidation in American agriculture. He also called for legislation that will allow the current generation of farmers to retire with dignity and to easily pass on farm assets to the next generation without onerous financial burdens.

Technical Assistance vs. Land Retirement

Keeping with his theme of "more, not less farming," Richardson pointed out that 92% of all Federal conservation dollars go to land retirement programs and that nearly every state is woefully under funded in technical assistance programs that "help farmers to produce food and fiber in harmony with the environment." He revealed that the host state, Iowa, had funding to cover only 37% of its technical assistance needs. Richardson strongly pointed out that current House legislation would only exacerbate the shortcomings in technical assistance.

[farmfriend]

Natural Process:
That Environmental Laws May Serve the Laws of Nature

This new book introduces a free-market environmental management system that gradually eliminates the need for permits, regulations, and agency law-enforcement. The system's design starts with proven manufacturing process-verification techniques with risk-management and quality-assurance principles used to assure consumer product integrity. These components are organized into a system of checks and balances that induce a market, capable of objectively pricing the use of natural assets, without political intervention. It can improve our care of the environment in harmony with an advanced economy.

This five-part work demonstrates that regulatory government operates under false premises, leaving agencies dependent upon continuing problems, incapable of balancing competing risks, and subject to corrupt influences. The book makes its case with detailed analyses of original source data that reveal a new way to do better for nature. It proposes specific examples and suggests an implementing strategy. It is a thought-provoking work that handles an emotional subject with a delightful sense of humor.

[marsh2]

Take a look at the first slide. Most ranchers already own the state water use rights on these allotments. Most also own structural improvements like fencing. Why is it a subsidy that they are charged a low dollar amount per Animal Unit Month for such miserable forage? Why do envirals always compare the fee with private pasture rentals and call it a subsidy? Private pasture or range is much easier access. There is usually good water and good forage. Fencing/structures and other services are provided?

When the envirals "rent" these allotments, what happens to the local communities that are dependent upon the circulating dollars initiated by agriculture? (Usually circulates from 5-7 times through the community.)

As for the checkerboard issue, in an open range state, people who don't want cattle on their land must fence it off. (The feds. are an exception.) I think what will happen here is that the cattle will continue to graze the land rented by the envirals under open-range. That is unless the envirals wish to fence miles and miles of land.

[Quila]

It seems to all boil down to "We don't like the way the government is giving us farmers your tax dollars. So give us more but in a different way."

To everyone here: what industry are you in? Does the government directly subsidize your industry (doesn't count contracts for goods and services the government wants)? Is the government going to spend billions on "technical assistance programs" to help auto mechanics as a whole fix cars "in harmony with the environment"? No, they'll just pass a regulation telling you not to dump your old oil. Farming seems to have a special place in everyone's hearts, and its put on a higher level than other businesses.

I really like "legislation that will allow the current generation of farmers to retire with dignity." Please, I'd like to retire with dignity now without having to worry about social security or how much is in my 401K -- give me the money!

This guy is talking about more and more subsidies. Subsidies cost us twice: once in taxes and again in higher prices at the grocery store. The only beneficiaries are a small number of farmers. As brityank said, This is outright welfare-state communism; "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities."

However, "easily pass on farm assets to the next generation without onerous financial burdens" is right. The estate tax on farmers is one of the worst things I've ever seen, making farmers incorporate just to shield their assets, and making it literally too expensive to die.

And get real everyone. Do you actually think a farm bill that is fair to small farmers will ever get passed anyway? ADM and ilk have far too much power in Congress, with most farming state Reps and Senators in their pockets.

[Quila]

"When the envirals "rent" these allotments, what happens to the local communities that are dependent upon the circulating dollars initiated by agriculture?"

They'll not necessarily get to rent them. The land is now out to fair, open bid, and the farmers can still get them if they are willing to pay (oh, I tremble at the concept of a farmer paying this...) fair market value.

As far as the towns, we have had ghost towns before. Did the government keep subsidizing mining to protect towns then the metals ran out? What about old steel towns in PA? Why do farmers deserve such special consideration?

However, one safeguard that I think would be apropriate is if they require that all funds to lease land with must originate within the state. This would keep large national coffers from unfairly affecting local actions (kind of like when the Christian Coalition descends upon a local school board election that was amateur and low-budget until then).

[marsh2]

The biggest subsidy is to the price that the American consumer pays for his food. Agriculture is not in the free market. It is a highly price-regulated industry filled with choking monopolies. (For instance, I believe that there are only a handfull of meat packing business in the U.S.)

FDR began tinkering with the prices in the 1940s, but promised "parity" with other prices would be built into such tinkering. (He lied.)

It should be no surprise that Americans pay the least percentage of their income for food than any other country. You would be shocked if you looked at comodity income, (as to what the farmer/rancher gets for raw product,) in comparison with what he got 50 years ago. There is no appreciable difference. It is a scandal.

American farmers are seeing wave after wave of foreign growers dumping on an segment of the industry just like they have done with the steel industry. American growers can't compete and down come permanent orchards, etc. More and more fields are converted to tract housing and suburbs grow bigger and bigger.

Ask Carey Okie....Except for a few subsidized products with price supports, America has become a net importer of food. Think about that...we no longer grow enough food to feed our population. Think about that trend and how it impacts national security. Think about what that means for American international affairs and for trends toward globalization. Think about transfer of wealth to other nations, impact on world environments, health and safety standards for the food you eat, importation of pests.

Under basic economic theories, the entire economy rests on the foundation of supplying raw materials. Every dollar of raw material produced creates at least 7 dollars in the overall economy (value added.) It is the source of real wealth and it is renewable. Can't you see the shift to other countries and how this is affecting our standard of living and economy?

You whine about mechanics and farmers, but that is like comparing apples and rocks. Farmers have talked among themselves for a long time about striking to get a decent return on their product. Unfortunately, they live so tightly, and service such large debt, they can't. I almost wish they would just to bring to urban people's attention the fact that their entire "civilization" and economy rests on the shoulders of these hard-working folks.

websites on "parity": http://www.countrylovin.com/morefacts.html http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/agriculture/ag-60.cfm http://www.normeconomics.org/parity.html http://waysandmeans.house.gov/fullcomm/106cong/4-13-00/4-13powe.htm

[Quila]

"American farmers are seeing wave after wave of foreign growers dumping on an segment of the industry just like they have done with the steel industry. "

We already have ways of dealing with dumping -- tariffs. We do it all the time. However, don't call all importing "dumping."

"Ask Carey Okie....Except for a few subsidized products with price supports, America has become a net importer of food."

1996 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program:

• U.S. goods export growth was led by sales of agricultural products...
• Agricultural exports also increased by 9 percent.
• ...since 1992, agricultural and manufacturing exports have grown by 43 and 42 percent, respectively

Interesting -- this same report mentions vastly increased imports from Mexico. Not because of any dreaded trade imbalance thing, but because the peso took a dive, allowing us to import more for our dollars.

"Under basic economic theories, the entire economy rests on the foundation of supplying raw materials. "

Under about the most basic economic theory, specialization, if Mexico can grow oranges cheaper and better than we can, while in the U.S., we're moving to a more highly-developed, high-tech economy, then we should import Mexico's oranges. It makes no sense economically for us to continue to produce them.

"I almost wish they would just to bring to urban people's attention the fact that their entire "civilization" and economy rests on the shoulders of these hard-working folks."

This reminds me of the time in the Army. The fuel supply people telling tankers they'd get nowhere without them, the tankers saying that without them, there'd be no reason to be there, etc.

Our entire civilization rests on more than farmers. I'm in IT -- what would happen if all the comptuers went away? Cars? Electricity? Actually, I'd say the sewage treatment people are the most important.

Why is it that farmers are always accorded such special status? They're in a business just like the rest of us. If they can't make it, they should get out of the business. For the record, I mostly grew up in rural Colorado.

My solution: remove the price suports, subsidies and incentives for farmers to not grow crops (which in themselves shows you we grow too much -- maybe that land should be converted). Remove all but the basic food safety regulations. Then let, for example, milk be sold for what it's worth. Lots of farmers will go out of business, and lots of farmers will get rich. The prices will fluctuate wildly for a little while, then settle down to probably a little less than now. The plus side is no more tax dollars wasted.

It may be a somewhat radical solution, but then I'm a bit crazy. For some reason I thought we had a captialist system, not a socialist one.

[Smokin' Joe]

Although the State Land Department still has some leeway in determining who's the "best" bidder, environmentalists say it will now have to prove why livestock is better for the land than a period of non-grazing.

Easy enough. The plants will find far less nutritional value in the environmental BS than there is in the Bovine variety.

[Smokin' Joe]

Thank you for explaining. Private pasture may be irrigated, aerially seeded, or even planted crops for forage. The terms of federal leases do not permit these improvements. I don't know about your state land rules.

A local rancher (North Dakota)wanted to run a water line on the surface to a water tank 1/4 mile away along an existing fenceline. The BLM wanted him to have Archaeological, botanical, raptor, and other surveys conducted at a cost of over $50,000 to run a water line along the ground.

He told the BLM "I guess everything is going to have to walk a little farther to get a drink.

The BLM ignored the fact that antelope, deer, and other animals benefit as well as the livestock, as well as the fact that existing structures (The fence) had already disturbed things more than laying plastic pipe on the surface would.

If local hunters could lease the land, and sub lease the grazing rights (while retaining the ability to hunt there), maybe this would help solve the problem, after all, the ecowhackos want to eliminate both groups. Could be a mutually beneficial partnership. Most 'grazing' land left to go to pot is pretty lousy after a short period. CRP has shown that to be the case. It provides habitat, but the old growth reduces the food value.

[Smokin' Joe]

Under about the most basic economic theory, specialization, if Mexico can grow oranges cheaper and better than we can, while in the U.S., we're moving to a more highly-developed, high-tech economy, then we should import Mexico's oranges. It makes no sense economically for us to continue to produce them.

Not until the Mexicans get a monopoly on oranges, it doesn't. All the high tech in the world won't put a bite in your belly, but high tech devices have made US farmers some of the most efficient in the world.

[Smokin' Joe]

Our entire civilization rests on more than farmers. I'm in IT -- what would happen if all the comptuers went away? Cars? Electricity? Actually, I'd say the sewage treatment people are the most important.

We had farms before computers, cars, or electricity. While these have made farming more efficient (so fewer people have to farm), they do not replace growing food. Without food, the sewage treatment people would be out of a job in short order.