Red Lodge Clearinghouse

The fee applies to nearly 18,000 grazing permits and leases issued by BLM and more than 8,000 permits issued by the Forest Service. The fee applies to public lands in 16 Western states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

The fees, effective March 1, are determined by a formula established by Congress and extended by executive order since 1986. Based on a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM, the fee is adjusted according to current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.

BLM said, "In effect, the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market conditions, with livestock operators paying more when conditions are better and less when conditions have declined. Without the requirement that the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per AUM, this year's fee would have dropped below $1 per AUM because of declining beef cattle prices and increased production costs from the previous year."

A handout or fair fee?

Environmental groups want a fee increase, saying a price closer to $6 is more appropriate. The groups decry the current fee, charging that hidden costs are passed on to taxpayers while allowing grazing practices that negatively affect wildlife and degrade water resources.

"This is a huge handout to public land ranchers," claimed Jon Marvel, executive director of Western Watersheds Project.

"What people may be surprised to know is that this de facto subsidy only benefits a very small percentage of ranchers who have public lands permits. So why should we subsidize this marginal industry? What is the benefit to the broader American public to be giving away the bounty and biological integrity of our public lands while degrading our watersheds, water supplies and wildlife habitat?" charged Greta Anderson, Arizona director for Western Watersheds Project.

Karen Batra, director of public affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, countered, "There is actually a huge return in terms of environmental and land management provided by the producers working the land. They're the ones engaging in pest control and enhancing wildlife habitat and environmental sustainability." Batra also contended that the producers are "helping control some of the biggest sources of wildfires by managing underbrush and overgrowth."

Melissa Hailey, staff attorney with WildEarth Guardians, said, "If you look at the cost to graze on private lands, it's sometimes up to $9 or $10 for equivalent privileges."

Hailey explained that the lower federal fee is based on the assumption that the ranchers will share the land for other uses, "but we don't see that all the time." She noted that predator control programs often run in conflict with ranchers. For example, efforts to protect the Mexican gray wolf have suffered when there are conflicts with cattle and ranchers shoot the wolves (see related story).

Environmental groups have sought to increase the grazing fees in the past. In a 2005 petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Natural Desert Association and Western Watersheds Project and two other groups that have since merged to form WildEarth Guardians, the groups said the fee fails to even come close to paying for the program and remains far below fees charged on comparable private rangeland, on state trust lands throughout the West, and even on other federal lands, such as those managed by the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service.

The petition came on the heels of a Government Accountability Office report released in October 2005 that found that the federal government spent more than six times more on programs related to grazing on public lands than it collected from grazing fees in fiscal 2004. Specifically, the Forest Service and BLM collected about $21 million in grazing fees, of which about $15.5 million went to the federal Treasury. Meanwhile, the agencies spent at least $133 million on grazing-related activities, GAO reported.

The GAO report revealed that, in order to cover costs in 2004, BLM needed to charge $7.64 per AUM and the Forest Service needed to charge $12.26 per AUM, in contrast to the $1.43 per AUM that was actually charged.

But in defending this year's fee, Batra reiterated the claim made by BLM and the Forest Service that the fee would have actually been lower had it not been for the mandated minimum level of $1.35. "We're very supportive of the government formula," she said.

'Super-sized' cows

Also of concern to environmental groups are "super-sized" cows that they say further devalue the fee recovered. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average weight of cows increased 23 percent between 1984 and 2004, meaning that forage consumption increased too.

"These 'super-sized' cows are eating more forage than their smaller predecessors, raising the profits for the livestock industry and reducing the amount of vegetation available for wildlife," the Western Watershed Project said.

However, Batra disputed the relevance to grazing cattle. She said increased weight is associated with corn and grain-fed cattle, not cattle grazing on grass and forage.

On a different note, the two federal agencies also announced last week that a separate fee for Forest Service grasslands was set for $1.35 per AUM, down from $1.37 in 2007. Yet to be determined is a Forest Service fee for Eastern and Midwestern states and parts of Texas that will be out later this month and will also take effect March 1.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment