[VMI70]

If the range is privatized, then ranchers would own worthless land for grazing.

"Am I missing something here?"

Yes and no. You need to keep the sentence cited in context. but I'll reword it to try to better explain the idea that I was attempting to convey.

"If private land was worthless for grazing, then why pay for grazing rights on government land?"

If you pay for grazing rights, then you don't have to worry about the value of the land as an asset. You can walk away without effect. You are, in effect, renting land, and the cost is a simple, predictable (very important) expense of doing business. You can price your product accordingly which keeps market stable.

Hoever, if you buy the land, it becomes an asset, but it's value is unpredictable as a result of the uncertainty caused not by market forces but by decisions that are forced upon you by the government.
If the value of the foundational asset, land in this case, is unpredictable, think of all the problems that arise. First and foremost, it would be extremely difficult to find a banker willing to lend money to you, for either the asset, the value of which could easily go to zero, or the future value of your product, which would be affected not by market forces, but by governmental decisions as aforementioned.


Governmental decisions that bear no relationship to market forces make the market risk of private ownership simply too high

Therefore, private land in this case is, for all intents and purposes, worthless, because of the unpredictability of it's value.

[Sangamon Kid]

Thanks for clearing that up. I was under the assumption that the capricious edicts of the Federal government only applied to BLM lands, not private holdings. I understand now that marginally profitable grazing land becomes worthless in light of the increased cost of abiding by government regulation.

It seems we have a common enemy...the Federal bureaucracy.