YellowSub1962
12-03-2001, 06:12 PM
:mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:
Legislation to buy up all grazing allotments and close that land to the public!!!
(The # columns are kinda mixed due to forwarding through different mailing programs, but you can get the hang of reading them :)...)
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Grazing Permit Buyout LegislationSection XX.
(a) General. A permittee or leasee may relinquish a valid existing
grazing permit
or lease authorizing livestock grazing on federal public land to the
Secretary of
Agriculture or Interior.
(b) Termination. The Secretary of Agriculture or Interior shall retire
grazing
permits or leases acquired under subparagraph (a) and permanently
terminate
livestock grazing on the associated allotments.
(c) A permittee who relinquishes their permit or lease to the Secretary
of
Agriculture or Interior under subparagraph (a) shall no longer be liable
for paying
grazing fees under that permit or lease and shall be compensated at $175
per
animal unit month based on the average grazing use over the last ten
years the
allotment was grazed as stipulated by the permit or lease and paid for
by the
permittee or leasee or their predecessor. Years of grazing nonuse are
excluded
from this average.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the federal
government's
authority to otherwise modify or terminate grazing permits or leases.
Compensation disbursed pursuant to this section shall not create a
property right
in grazing permitees or leasees.
(e) The Secretary of Interior and Agriculture shall not issue grazing
permits or
leases for grazing allotments that are vacant or retired at the time of
enactment
of this section.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a permittee or leasee
may opt not
to graze their allotment(s) as authorized by their grazing permit or
lease.
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Grazing Permit Buyout:
Savings to Taxpayers
To encourage participation in the voluntary permit retirement program,
the National Public
Lands Grazing Campaign is proposing compensating grazing permittees and
leasees at $175
per animal unit month (AUM), based on the average of the last ten years
of grazing use as
stipulated by the permit or lease and paid for by the permittee or
leasee or their
predecessor(s).
Although this rate is more than the fair market value of an animal unit
month, it still delivers
tremendous savings to the federal treasury (taxpayers)—as well as
incalculable ecological
benefits.
Federal grazing costs are spread across many federal agencies and
programs. Not
surprisingly, the total loss to taxpayers is calculated differently by
different economists from
different viewpoints. However, depending on the figure derived for the
cost of public lands
grazing per AUM (estimated at approximately $25, but it does need to be
definitively
determined), and assuming the present costs remains constant and a
perpetual obligation to
the taxpayers (history supports such an assumption), an analysis of
total present value (the
current cost of the future obligation to taxpayers) still supports
paying permittees much more
than market value to retire their permits. The total present value is
determined by discounting
future costs back to the present.
Taxpayer Savings of Federal Grazing Permit Buyout
Annual Taxpayer Cost
(per AUM per year)
5.3% Nominal Interest Rate
3.2% Real Interest Rate
Total
Present
Cost
Savings per
AUM after
Buyout
Benefit-
Cost
Ratio
Total
Present
Cost
Savings per
AUM after
Buyout
Benefit-
Cost Ratio
$20.00
$376
$201
1.15
$623
$448
2.56
$25.00
$470
$295
1.69
$759
$584
3.34
$30.00
$564
$389
2.22
$911
$736
4.21
$35.00
$658
$483
2.76
$1063
$888
5.07
Interest rates are Office of Management and Budget recommendations for
discount analysis
based on 30-year treasury notes and bonds. Nominal interest does not
factor in inflation,
real interest does.
Savings per AUM after buyout is the amount saved by the taxpayer after
relieving
themselves of the continuing cost obligation by paying $175 per AUM.
The benefit-cost ratio is factored by dividing the net benefit to the
taxpayers by the cost of
the payout to the grazing permittee.
The simple payback to the taxpayers for buying a grazing permit at $175
per AUM is seven
years.
Currently, federal lands provide 18,768,177 AUMs of forage. If each were
bought at the
price of $175/AUM, the initial outlay to the taxpayers would be $3.3
billion. The total net
savings to the taxpayer would be $5.5 billion (at 5.3% nominal interest)
to $11 billion (at
3.2% real interest rate).
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Federal Grazing Permit Reform
Proposal
Domestic livestock grazing is the most pervasive and destructive use of
western federal
public lands. Cattle, sheep, horses and goats graze lands managed by the
Bureau of Land
Management, Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
National Park
Service. Scientific studies conclude livestock grazing threatens native
species, reduces water
quality, spreads noxious weeds, alters natural fire regimes, and
accelerates soil erosion,
damaging both riparian and upland ecosystems.
The federal grazing program operates at a loss, costing taxpayers at
least $500,000,000
annually. This figure includes direct program costs and millions of
dollars spent on
emergency feed, drought and flood relief, and predator control to
support or mitigate
damage from public lands grazing.
Some ranchers have already voluntarily relinquished their grazing
permits to the government
in exchange for compensation from third parties, and we believe many
more would sell their
permit interest to the government and retire the associated allotments
from grazing.
To promote recovery of native ecosystems and save taxpayer funds, we
support legislative
reform to allow retirement of federal grazing permits voluntarily
relinquished by public land
grazing permittees and leasees to the federal government in exchange for
$175 per animal
unit month.
American Lands Alliance
Center for Biological Diversity
Committee for Idaho's High Desert
Endangered Species Coalition
Forest Guardians
The Larch Company
Oregon Natural Desert Association
Western Watersheds Project
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Livestock versus Wildlife
Livestock Feed and Acreage Requirements
Forage consumed by one cow each month: 800-1000 pounds.
Average number of acres required to feed one cow for one month on
all
Bureau of Land Management rangelands: 13.7 acres.
Number of acres required to feed one cow for one year on farmlands
in the
East: 2 acres.
Federal Grazing Program
Federal Lands
Animal Unit Months
Acres
Bureau of Land Management
10,612,562
163,311,163
National Park Service
81,752
<
3,000,000
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
258,166
1,416,005
USDA-Forest Service
7,815,697
89,550,382
Total Grazed Federal Public Lands
±
257,277,550
Total Federal Public Lands
341,615,932
Grazing Competition with Native Wildlife
In one study, scientists found that domestic livestock grazing
consumed
88.8 percent of the available forage (cattle 82.3 percent, feral
horses 5.8
percent, sheep 0.7 percent), leaving 11.2 percent to wildlife
species (mule
deer 10.1 percent, pronghorn 0.9 percent, bighorn sheep 0.1
percent, elk
0.1 percent).
Percentage of prairie dog towns eliminated for ranching in the 20th
century:
98 percent.
Number of species, including ferrets, hawks, owls, mice and snakes,
dependent on prairie dogs and their burrows: 170.
Predator Control to Protect Livestock
Predators Killed by USDA Wildlife Services FY1999
Animal
Number
Coyote
85,938
Fox
6,182
Bobcat
2,435
Badger
601
Black bear
359
Mountain lion
347
Total
95,862
Percent of cattle deaths attributed to predation (1995): 2.7
percent.
Footnotes.
GAO. 1988. Public rangelands: some riparian areas restored but
widespread improvement will
be slow. RCED-88-105. General Accounting Office. Washington, DC: 12.
GAO. 1988. Public rangelands: some riparian areas restored but
widespread improvement will
be slow. RCED-88-105. General Accounting Office. Washington, DC: 12.
Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 3S.
AUMs in eleven western states (AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA,
WY). Bureau of
Land Management. 2001. Public Land Statistics 2000. Vol. 185. Available
from
www.blm.gov/natacq/Pls00/.
Acres in eleven western states. GAO. 1992. Rangeland management: profile
of the Bureau of
Land Management’s grazing allotments and permits. RCED 92-213FS.
Government Accounting
Office. Washington, DC.
Joyce, L. A. 1989. An analysis of the range forage situation in the
United States: 1989-2040.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-180. USDA-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Exp. Stn.
Fort Collins, CO.
Parks, monuments, and memorials administered by the National Park
Service in eleven
western states. Jacobs, L. 1991. Waste of the West. Lynn Jacobs, Tucson,
AZ: 473.
All units of National Wildlife Refuge System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 2001. National
wildlife refuges – grazing and haying. Available at
www.refuges.fws.gov/habitat/grazinghaying.html. (data from 1994;
accessed May 2001).
All units of National Wildlife Refuge System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 2001. National
wildlife refuges – grazing and haying. Available at
www.refuges.fws.gov/habitat/grazinghaying.html. (data from 1994;
accessed May 2001).
Authorized AUMs on national forests and national grasslands. USDA-Forest
Service. 1999.
Grazing statistical summary FY 1998. USDA-Forest Service, Range
Management. Washington,
DC: 1.
Forest Service acres grazed in all or parts of fifteen western states
(AZ, CA, CO, ID, KS, MT,
ND, NE, NV, NM, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY). GAO. 1993. Rangeland management:
profile of the
Forest Service’s grazing allotments and permittees. RCED 93-141FS.
Government Accounting
Office. Washington, DC.
Total federal acreage managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest
Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Park Service as of September 30, 1994.
Government Accounting
Office. 1996. Land ownership: information on acreage, management and use
of federal and
other lands. Washington, DC.
Cited in R. R. Kindschy, C. Sundstrom, and J. D. Yoakum, 1982, Wildlife
habitats in managed
rangelands—the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: pronghorns, Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW 145,
USDA-Forest Service; USDI-BLM, Portland, OR: 6.
Baskin, Y. 1997. The Work of Nature: How the Diversity of Life Sustains
Us. Island Press.
Washington, DC: 165.
Miller, B., G. Ceballos, R. Reading. 1994. The prairie dog and biotic
diversity. Cons. Biol. 8(3):
678 (citing R. Reading, 1993, Toward an endangered species
reintroduction paradigm: a case
study of the black-footed ferret. Ph.D. Diss., Yale Univ., New Haven,
CT).
Predators killed in 17 western states. Predator Conservation Alliance.
2001. Wildlife
"Services?" A presentation and analysis of the USDA Wildlife Services
Program’s expenditures
and kill figures for fiscal year 1999. Predator Conservation Alliance.
Bozeman, MT: 7.
Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): S6.
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Livestock and Water
Livestock grazing has damaged 80 percent of the streams and riparian
ecosystems in the arid
West.
"Extensive field observations in the late 1980s suggest
riparian areas
throughout much of the West were in the worst condition in
history."
Although they represent only 0.5 to 1 percent of the surface area of
federally owned Western
arid lands, riparian zones are critically important to over 75 percent
of terrestrial species in
southeastern Oregon and southeastern Wyoming, and 80 percent of wildlife
in the Arizona and
New Mexico.
"Improvident grazing…has been the most potent desertification
force, in
terms of total acreage [affecting 225 million acres or 351,562
square miles],
within the United States."
Nearly all surface waters in the West are fouled with livestock wastes
that produce harmful
waterborne bacteria and protozoa such as Giardia.
Belsky, et al. reviewed grazing impacts on water quality and quantity…
• Water quality: livestock deposit pathogenic bacteria into
streams and increase nutrient
content, water turbidity, and water temperatures, all of which
harm cold water fish and other
species.
• Stream channel morphology: grazing results in streambank
downcutting that shrinks the
channel, and reduces streambank stability and the number and
quality of deep pools and stream
meanders.
• Hydrology (stream flow patterns): grazing causes increased
runoff, flood water velocity,
number of flood events, and peak flow, while reducing (or
stopping) summer flow and lowering
the water table.
• Riparian soils: grazing exposes bare ground, compacts soil and
causes erosion, while reducing
water infiltration and soil fertility.
• Streambank vegetation: grazing reduces the cover, biomass, and
productivity of herbaceous
and woody vegetation, and impedes plant succession.
• Instream vegetation: grazing increases algal populations while
causing declines in other,
beneficial water plants.
• Aquatic and riparian wildlife: grazing reduces the diversity,
abundance, and productivity of cold
water fish, amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates and alters the
composition and diversity of
birds and mammals.
Footnotes
Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock
influences on stream and riparian
ecosystems in the western United States. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 54(1):
419.
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, W. S. Platts. 1993. Livestock grazing on western
riparian areas. Northwest
Resource Information Center. Eagle, ID: 5 (fourth printing; produced for
the Environmental
Protection Agency).
U.S. Government Accounting Office. 1988. Public rangelands: some
riparian areas restored by
widespread improvement will be slow. RCED-88-105. Government Accounting
Office. Washington,
DC; Ohmart, R. D. 1996. Historical and present impacts of livestock
grazing on fish and wildlife
resources in western riparian habitats. Pages 245-279 IN P. R. Krausman
(ed.). Rangeland Wildlife.
Society for Range Management. Denver, CO.
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, W. S. Platts. 1993. Livestock grazing on western
riparian areas. Northwest
Resource Information Center. Eagle, ID: 2 (fourth printing; produced for
the Environmental
Protection Agency).
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, W. S. Platts. 1993. Livestock grazing on western
riparian areas. Northwest
Resource Information Center. Eagle, ID: 5 (fourth printing; produced for
the Environmental
Protection Agency).
Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. The global 2000 report to the
president of the United
States: entering the twenty-first century. Pergamon Press. New York, NY.
Suk, T., J. L. Riggs, B. C. Nelson. 1986. Water contamination with
giardia in backcountry areas in
Proc. of the National Wilderness Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212.
USDA-Forest Service,
Intermountain Res. Stn. Ogden, UT: 237-239.
Paraphrased from A. J. Belsky, A. Matzke, S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of
livestock influences on stream
and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J. Soil & Water
Conserv. 54(1): 419-431.
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Goals and Plan
The National Public Lands Grazing Campaign is a multi-year,
multi-organization
strategy to end abusive livestock grazing on the nation's public lands.
The
campaign has three major components: (1) public education; (2)
enforcement and
accountability; and (3) legislation. A steering committee representative
of public
lands grazing activists and organizations across the West is
coordinating the
NPLGC that seeks to (a) educate the American people of the ecological,
economic
and social harm caused by public lands livestock grazing; (b) fully
enforce
environmental law to end abusive livestock grazing and/or hold public
grazing
permittees accountable for their activity; and (c) amend federal law to
allow the
voluntary retirement of federal grazing permits for $175 per animal unit
month. If
voluntary permit buyout legislation is enacted, livestock grazing can be
ended for
an average of $13.45 for each acre in the program.
Campaign Goals
1. Public Education
Most of the American public does not realize that livestock in the arid
West have caused
more damage than the chainsaw and bulldozer combined. One of the
educational activities
of the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign is to promote and
distribute Welfare
Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West (in press),
featuring nearly
400 pages of articles and photographs by expert authors and
photographers on the subject.
2. Enforcement and Accountability
Current federal statutes including, but not limited to, the Endangered
Species Act, Clean
Water Act, National Forest Management Act, and the Federal Land Policy
and
Management Act, when properly administered, require less or even no
grazing on public
lands. NPLGC member organizations and others are increasing their
enforcement efforts
through administrative appeals, litigation and species listing efforts.
3. Legislative and/or Administrative Reform
NPLGC is advocating for legislation to allow permanent retirement of
federal grazing
permits voluntarily relinquished by public land grazing permittees in
exchange for $175 per
animal unit month. (Due to the magnitude of ongoing subsidies to federal
grazing programs,
the taxpayers will greatly benefit by this proposal.) NPLGC is also
seeking administrative
reform to allow third parties to facilitate permanent permit retirement.
How would Voluntary Permit Buyout Work?
Under NPLGC's proposal, if the holder of a grazing permit or lease chose
to relinquish their
entire permit or lease back to the federal government, the government
would compensate
the permittee for $175 per animal unit month (the amount of forage
necessary to graze one
cow and calf for a month). The allotment would then be permanently
retired from domestic
livestock grazing and the forage reallocated to native wildlife.
Most ranchers who graze federal lands pay $1.35/month for the privilege,
only a fraction of
which returns to the federal treasury to offset grazing subsidies
totaling up to $500,000,000
annually. It would be much more cost effective for the taxpayers to
buyout such permits,
even at the generous price proposed, than to continue subsidizing this
ecologically
destructive and economically irrational activity.
Campaign Steering Committee
Katie Fite Committee for Idaho's High Desert
Mollie Matteson co-editor, Welfare Ranching
Bill Marlett Oregon Natural Desert Association
Jon Marvel Western Watersheds Project
Randi Spivak American Lands
Martin Taylor Center for Biological Diversity
George Wuerthner co-editor, Welfare Ranching
Additional groups may be represented in the future.
Campaign Staff
Andy Kerr of The Larch Company is directing the campaign. Mark Salvo, on
loan from
American Lands, is Legislative Counsel. Other staff will be hired as
funds are raised.
Information, Get Involved
Please subscribe to our listserve (we will not bombard you with
electronic mail!) by sending
a blank e-mail to "NPLGC-subscribe@yahoogroups.com." We will update you
on the
campaign and occasionally ask for your help in contacting government
officials.
Donations gladly and graciously accepted.
Please visit our website at www.publiclandsranching.org (under
construction).
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Federal Grazing Permit Buyout Program will Not
Create New Rights in Permits
Grazing permits do not convey rights to graze federal lands.
Grazing permits issued under the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) of 1934 allow
the permit holder
the privilege to use publicly owned forage. The permits do not instill a
right in permittees to
graze federal lands. This distinction was intended by Congress in the
TGA, articulated in
agency regulations, restated in federal grazing studies, confirmed by
scholars, and upheld by
the Supreme Court as recently as 2000. Federal grazing permits are
revocable, amendable,
non-assignable ten-year licenses to graze that do not convey property
rights.
Grazing permit buyout does not create new rights in permits.
One fear of creating a permit buyout program is that it would create a
new, unintended
compensable property right in grazing permits. Such a right, it is
feared, could require the
government to reimburse ranchers every time federal managers eliminate
grazing privileges.
Such a fear is unfounded. Since 1948 federal law has mandated that the
government
compensate federal grazing permittees when their grazing permit
privileges are reduced or
eliminated for military purposes without creating new property rights.
Appended to the
Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), the "savings clause" in the following
provision protects the
government from any extraneous claims of permit-property rights:
Whenever use for war or national defense purposes of the public domain
or other
property owned by or under the control of the United States prevents its
use for
grazing, persons holding grazing permits or licenses and persons whose
grazing
permits or licenses have been or will be canceled because of such use
shall be paid out
of the funds appropriated or allocated for such project such amounts as
the head of
the department or agency so using the lands shall determine to be fair
and reasonable
for the losses suffered by such persons as a result of the use of such
lands for war or
national defense purposes. Such payments shall be deemed payment in full
for such
losses. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to create
any liability not
now existing against the United States.
For nearly half a century, no public lands grazier who has had their
grazing permit eliminated
for non-military purposes has claimed they are nevertheless owed
compensation under the
military exception. It is unlikely that such a challenge would ever be
brought.
The proposed permit buyout program will avoid creating new rights in
permits.
In a variety of different contexts, the Supreme Court has stated that
the provision of a
government benefit does not create a property right in potential
recipients when Congress
has explicitly excluded that interpretation in the authorizing
legislation. Congress need only
include a savings clause similar to the TGA military provision in
legislation authorizing a
federal grazing permit buyout program to avoid wildcat claims to grazing
permit property
rights.
The National Public Lands Grazing Campaign will only support a
legislated buyout program
with the necessary savings language. If, during the political process,
such language is
dropped or modified and the legislation becomes a problem, the NPLGC
will kill the bill.
Some are concerned that permit buyout legislation could be "hijacked" by
the cattle industry
which would insert a takings provision into the bill. In Washington,
D.C., it's much easier to
kill a bill than pass one. And it is easier to kill your own bill than
someone else's. If the cattle
industry thought they had the votes to enact such "takings" legislation,
they would have
already done so; they would not need a legislative vehicle created by
the conservation
community.
footnotes
43 U.S.C. §315b.
See, e.g., 36 C.F.R. 222.3(b).
USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final
Environmental Impact
Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, D.C.: 125.
Donahue, D. 1999. The Western Range Revisited: Removing Livestock from
Public Lands to Conserve
Native Biodiversity. Univ. Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK: 38.
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728, 741 (2000). See also U.S.
v. Fuller, 409 U.S. 488
(1973) (holding that the federal government is not required by the Fifth
Amendment to compensate a
property owner in a condemnation action for the extra value of his
private property attributed to his
federal grazing permit).
43 U.S.C. § 315q.
Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, 477 U.S.
41 (1986), citing Nat’l
Rail Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, 477 U.S. 41 (1985) and Sinking Fund
Cases, 99 U.S. 700 (1879).
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Grazing Impacts on Threatened and
Endangered Species
Threatened and endangered plant and animal species inhabiting federal
rangelands and imperiled by livestock grazing: more than 175.
Rank of livestock grazing as a cause of species endangerment in
…southern Arizona and western New Mexico No. 1
…southern Nevada and central Arizona No. 3
…California No. 4
…northern Arizona, southern Utah and southern
Colorado No. 5
In the United States, grazing has contributed to the demise of 22
percent of
federal threatened and endangered species—almost equal to logging (12
percent) and mining (11 percent) combined.
Livestock grazing is especially harmful to plant species, affecting 33
percent
of endangered plants.
Sensitive Focal Species Adversely Impacted by
Livestock Grazing
Sage grouse
Pronghorn (especially Sonoran subspecies)
Bighorn sheep (California subspecies and Rocky Mountain
subspecies)
Black-footed ferret
Wolves
Grizzly bear
Yellow-billed cuckoo
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Economic Facts of Public
Lands Grazing
Public lands grazers are a minority of livestock producers in the West
and
throughout the country…
Number of livestock producers with federal grazing permits: 27,000.
Percentage of livestock producers with federal grazing permits in
the
United States: 3%.
Percentage of livestock producers with federal grazing permits in
eleven Western states: 22%.
Number of livestock producers without federal grazing permits:
880,000.
Subsidized by taxpayers, public lands grazers pay far less than market
value for federal forage and grazing fees on comparable state and
private
lands…
Fee to graze one cow and calf for one month (AUM) on federal public
lands (2001): $1.35.
Average fee per AUM on state lands in the West (excluding Texas)
(1998): $12.30.
Average fee per AUM on private lands in eleven Western states
(1999): $11.10.
The forage provided, and the beef produced from federal public lands is
insignificant…
Percentage of total feed for livestock in the United States
supplied
from federal lands: 2%.
Percentage of American beef produced from federal
rangelands: less than 3%.
Federal grazing programs contribute very little to Western states’
economies…
Aggregate Federal Grazing Statistics for Eleven Western States
Federal grazing jobs
17,989
Federal grazing jobs as percentage of total employment
0.06
Federal grazing income as percentage of total income
0.04
Days of normal job growth to replace all federal grazing jobs
11
Days of normal income growth to replace all federal grazing jobs
6
Alternative uses of federal public lands contribute much more income to
local and regional economies than livestock grazing. In the Central
Winter
Ecosystem Management Area in the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona, dispersed
recreation is worth $200,000 annually to the local and regional
economies;
fuelwood is worth $48,984; livestock grazing is worth $45,988; and deer
and
turkey hunting is worth $1,324,259.
The vast majority of "livestock producers" on public lands are beef
growers.
FOOTNOTES.
Grazing permits for BLM and Forest Service allotments; includes sheep
growers; accounts for
permittees who operate on both BLM and Forest Service allotments.
USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final
Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 3; see also
Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 2S
(reporting 26,300 permittees
on BLM and Forest Service allotments).
USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final
Environmental Impact
Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26.
USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final
Environmental Impact
Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26.
See USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final
Environmental Impact
Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26.
BLM and Forest Service allotments.
USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1998. Agricultural
graphics—17 state grazing fees
adjusted AUM. USDA-NASS. Washington, DC. Available at
http://www.usda.gov/nass/aggraphics/graphics.htm.
Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 2S.
USDI-BLM. 1992. Grazing fee review and evaluation: update of the 1986
final report. USDI-BLM.
Washington, DC: 2.
Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 1S;
Jacobs, L. 1992. The Waste of the West: Public Lands Ranching. Lynn
Jacobs,
P.O. Box 5784, Tucson, AZ: 354.
T. Power. 1996. Lost Landscapes and Failed Economics: The Search for a
Value of Place. Island Press. Washington, DC: 184-185.
Souder, J. 1997. How does livestock grazing fit into the larger societal
uses
of wildlands?, in Proc. Symp. on Environmental, Economic, and Legal
Issues
Related to Rangeland Water Developments. Arizona St. Univ. Tempe, AZ:
305.
Legislation to buy up all grazing allotments and close that land to the public!!!
(The # columns are kinda mixed due to forwarding through different mailing programs, but you can get the hang of reading them :)...)
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Grazing Permit Buyout LegislationSection XX.
(a) General. A permittee or leasee may relinquish a valid existing
grazing permit
or lease authorizing livestock grazing on federal public land to the
Secretary of
Agriculture or Interior.
(b) Termination. The Secretary of Agriculture or Interior shall retire
grazing
permits or leases acquired under subparagraph (a) and permanently
terminate
livestock grazing on the associated allotments.
(c) A permittee who relinquishes their permit or lease to the Secretary
of
Agriculture or Interior under subparagraph (a) shall no longer be liable
for paying
grazing fees under that permit or lease and shall be compensated at $175
per
animal unit month based on the average grazing use over the last ten
years the
allotment was grazed as stipulated by the permit or lease and paid for
by the
permittee or leasee or their predecessor. Years of grazing nonuse are
excluded
from this average.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the federal
government's
authority to otherwise modify or terminate grazing permits or leases.
Compensation disbursed pursuant to this section shall not create a
property right
in grazing permitees or leasees.
(e) The Secretary of Interior and Agriculture shall not issue grazing
permits or
leases for grazing allotments that are vacant or retired at the time of
enactment
of this section.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a permittee or leasee
may opt not
to graze their allotment(s) as authorized by their grazing permit or
lease.
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Grazing Permit Buyout:
Savings to Taxpayers
To encourage participation in the voluntary permit retirement program,
the National Public
Lands Grazing Campaign is proposing compensating grazing permittees and
leasees at $175
per animal unit month (AUM), based on the average of the last ten years
of grazing use as
stipulated by the permit or lease and paid for by the permittee or
leasee or their
predecessor(s).
Although this rate is more than the fair market value of an animal unit
month, it still delivers
tremendous savings to the federal treasury (taxpayers)—as well as
incalculable ecological
benefits.
Federal grazing costs are spread across many federal agencies and
programs. Not
surprisingly, the total loss to taxpayers is calculated differently by
different economists from
different viewpoints. However, depending on the figure derived for the
cost of public lands
grazing per AUM (estimated at approximately $25, but it does need to be
definitively
determined), and assuming the present costs remains constant and a
perpetual obligation to
the taxpayers (history supports such an assumption), an analysis of
total present value (the
current cost of the future obligation to taxpayers) still supports
paying permittees much more
than market value to retire their permits. The total present value is
determined by discounting
future costs back to the present.
Taxpayer Savings of Federal Grazing Permit Buyout
Annual Taxpayer Cost
(per AUM per year)
5.3% Nominal Interest Rate
3.2% Real Interest Rate
Total
Present
Cost
Savings per
AUM after
Buyout
Benefit-
Cost
Ratio
Total
Present
Cost
Savings per
AUM after
Buyout
Benefit-
Cost Ratio
$20.00
$376
$201
1.15
$623
$448
2.56
$25.00
$470
$295
1.69
$759
$584
3.34
$30.00
$564
$389
2.22
$911
$736
4.21
$35.00
$658
$483
2.76
$1063
$888
5.07
Interest rates are Office of Management and Budget recommendations for
discount analysis
based on 30-year treasury notes and bonds. Nominal interest does not
factor in inflation,
real interest does.
Savings per AUM after buyout is the amount saved by the taxpayer after
relieving
themselves of the continuing cost obligation by paying $175 per AUM.
The benefit-cost ratio is factored by dividing the net benefit to the
taxpayers by the cost of
the payout to the grazing permittee.
The simple payback to the taxpayers for buying a grazing permit at $175
per AUM is seven
years.
Currently, federal lands provide 18,768,177 AUMs of forage. If each were
bought at the
price of $175/AUM, the initial outlay to the taxpayers would be $3.3
billion. The total net
savings to the taxpayer would be $5.5 billion (at 5.3% nominal interest)
to $11 billion (at
3.2% real interest rate).
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Federal Grazing Permit Reform
Proposal
Domestic livestock grazing is the most pervasive and destructive use of
western federal
public lands. Cattle, sheep, horses and goats graze lands managed by the
Bureau of Land
Management, Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
National Park
Service. Scientific studies conclude livestock grazing threatens native
species, reduces water
quality, spreads noxious weeds, alters natural fire regimes, and
accelerates soil erosion,
damaging both riparian and upland ecosystems.
The federal grazing program operates at a loss, costing taxpayers at
least $500,000,000
annually. This figure includes direct program costs and millions of
dollars spent on
emergency feed, drought and flood relief, and predator control to
support or mitigate
damage from public lands grazing.
Some ranchers have already voluntarily relinquished their grazing
permits to the government
in exchange for compensation from third parties, and we believe many
more would sell their
permit interest to the government and retire the associated allotments
from grazing.
To promote recovery of native ecosystems and save taxpayer funds, we
support legislative
reform to allow retirement of federal grazing permits voluntarily
relinquished by public land
grazing permittees and leasees to the federal government in exchange for
$175 per animal
unit month.
American Lands Alliance
Center for Biological Diversity
Committee for Idaho's High Desert
Endangered Species Coalition
Forest Guardians
The Larch Company
Oregon Natural Desert Association
Western Watersheds Project
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Livestock versus Wildlife
Livestock Feed and Acreage Requirements
Forage consumed by one cow each month: 800-1000 pounds.
Average number of acres required to feed one cow for one month on
all
Bureau of Land Management rangelands: 13.7 acres.
Number of acres required to feed one cow for one year on farmlands
in the
East: 2 acres.
Federal Grazing Program
Federal Lands
Animal Unit Months
Acres
Bureau of Land Management
10,612,562
163,311,163
National Park Service
81,752
<
3,000,000
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
258,166
1,416,005
USDA-Forest Service
7,815,697
89,550,382
Total Grazed Federal Public Lands
±
257,277,550
Total Federal Public Lands
341,615,932
Grazing Competition with Native Wildlife
In one study, scientists found that domestic livestock grazing
consumed
88.8 percent of the available forage (cattle 82.3 percent, feral
horses 5.8
percent, sheep 0.7 percent), leaving 11.2 percent to wildlife
species (mule
deer 10.1 percent, pronghorn 0.9 percent, bighorn sheep 0.1
percent, elk
0.1 percent).
Percentage of prairie dog towns eliminated for ranching in the 20th
century:
98 percent.
Number of species, including ferrets, hawks, owls, mice and snakes,
dependent on prairie dogs and their burrows: 170.
Predator Control to Protect Livestock
Predators Killed by USDA Wildlife Services FY1999
Animal
Number
Coyote
85,938
Fox
6,182
Bobcat
2,435
Badger
601
Black bear
359
Mountain lion
347
Total
95,862
Percent of cattle deaths attributed to predation (1995): 2.7
percent.
Footnotes.
GAO. 1988. Public rangelands: some riparian areas restored but
widespread improvement will
be slow. RCED-88-105. General Accounting Office. Washington, DC: 12.
GAO. 1988. Public rangelands: some riparian areas restored but
widespread improvement will
be slow. RCED-88-105. General Accounting Office. Washington, DC: 12.
Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 3S.
AUMs in eleven western states (AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA,
WY). Bureau of
Land Management. 2001. Public Land Statistics 2000. Vol. 185. Available
from
www.blm.gov/natacq/Pls00/.
Acres in eleven western states. GAO. 1992. Rangeland management: profile
of the Bureau of
Land Management’s grazing allotments and permits. RCED 92-213FS.
Government Accounting
Office. Washington, DC.
Joyce, L. A. 1989. An analysis of the range forage situation in the
United States: 1989-2040.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-180. USDA-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Exp. Stn.
Fort Collins, CO.
Parks, monuments, and memorials administered by the National Park
Service in eleven
western states. Jacobs, L. 1991. Waste of the West. Lynn Jacobs, Tucson,
AZ: 473.
All units of National Wildlife Refuge System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 2001. National
wildlife refuges – grazing and haying. Available at
www.refuges.fws.gov/habitat/grazinghaying.html. (data from 1994;
accessed May 2001).
All units of National Wildlife Refuge System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 2001. National
wildlife refuges – grazing and haying. Available at
www.refuges.fws.gov/habitat/grazinghaying.html. (data from 1994;
accessed May 2001).
Authorized AUMs on national forests and national grasslands. USDA-Forest
Service. 1999.
Grazing statistical summary FY 1998. USDA-Forest Service, Range
Management. Washington,
DC: 1.
Forest Service acres grazed in all or parts of fifteen western states
(AZ, CA, CO, ID, KS, MT,
ND, NE, NV, NM, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY). GAO. 1993. Rangeland management:
profile of the
Forest Service’s grazing allotments and permittees. RCED 93-141FS.
Government Accounting
Office. Washington, DC.
Total federal acreage managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest
Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Park Service as of September 30, 1994.
Government Accounting
Office. 1996. Land ownership: information on acreage, management and use
of federal and
other lands. Washington, DC.
Cited in R. R. Kindschy, C. Sundstrom, and J. D. Yoakum, 1982, Wildlife
habitats in managed
rangelands—the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: pronghorns, Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW 145,
USDA-Forest Service; USDI-BLM, Portland, OR: 6.
Baskin, Y. 1997. The Work of Nature: How the Diversity of Life Sustains
Us. Island Press.
Washington, DC: 165.
Miller, B., G. Ceballos, R. Reading. 1994. The prairie dog and biotic
diversity. Cons. Biol. 8(3):
678 (citing R. Reading, 1993, Toward an endangered species
reintroduction paradigm: a case
study of the black-footed ferret. Ph.D. Diss., Yale Univ., New Haven,
CT).
Predators killed in 17 western states. Predator Conservation Alliance.
2001. Wildlife
"Services?" A presentation and analysis of the USDA Wildlife Services
Program’s expenditures
and kill figures for fiscal year 1999. Predator Conservation Alliance.
Bozeman, MT: 7.
Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): S6.
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Livestock and Water
Livestock grazing has damaged 80 percent of the streams and riparian
ecosystems in the arid
West.
"Extensive field observations in the late 1980s suggest
riparian areas
throughout much of the West were in the worst condition in
history."
Although they represent only 0.5 to 1 percent of the surface area of
federally owned Western
arid lands, riparian zones are critically important to over 75 percent
of terrestrial species in
southeastern Oregon and southeastern Wyoming, and 80 percent of wildlife
in the Arizona and
New Mexico.
"Improvident grazing…has been the most potent desertification
force, in
terms of total acreage [affecting 225 million acres or 351,562
square miles],
within the United States."
Nearly all surface waters in the West are fouled with livestock wastes
that produce harmful
waterborne bacteria and protozoa such as Giardia.
Belsky, et al. reviewed grazing impacts on water quality and quantity…
• Water quality: livestock deposit pathogenic bacteria into
streams and increase nutrient
content, water turbidity, and water temperatures, all of which
harm cold water fish and other
species.
• Stream channel morphology: grazing results in streambank
downcutting that shrinks the
channel, and reduces streambank stability and the number and
quality of deep pools and stream
meanders.
• Hydrology (stream flow patterns): grazing causes increased
runoff, flood water velocity,
number of flood events, and peak flow, while reducing (or
stopping) summer flow and lowering
the water table.
• Riparian soils: grazing exposes bare ground, compacts soil and
causes erosion, while reducing
water infiltration and soil fertility.
• Streambank vegetation: grazing reduces the cover, biomass, and
productivity of herbaceous
and woody vegetation, and impedes plant succession.
• Instream vegetation: grazing increases algal populations while
causing declines in other,
beneficial water plants.
• Aquatic and riparian wildlife: grazing reduces the diversity,
abundance, and productivity of cold
water fish, amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates and alters the
composition and diversity of
birds and mammals.
Footnotes
Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock
influences on stream and riparian
ecosystems in the western United States. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 54(1):
419.
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, W. S. Platts. 1993. Livestock grazing on western
riparian areas. Northwest
Resource Information Center. Eagle, ID: 5 (fourth printing; produced for
the Environmental
Protection Agency).
U.S. Government Accounting Office. 1988. Public rangelands: some
riparian areas restored by
widespread improvement will be slow. RCED-88-105. Government Accounting
Office. Washington,
DC; Ohmart, R. D. 1996. Historical and present impacts of livestock
grazing on fish and wildlife
resources in western riparian habitats. Pages 245-279 IN P. R. Krausman
(ed.). Rangeland Wildlife.
Society for Range Management. Denver, CO.
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, W. S. Platts. 1993. Livestock grazing on western
riparian areas. Northwest
Resource Information Center. Eagle, ID: 2 (fourth printing; produced for
the Environmental
Protection Agency).
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, W. S. Platts. 1993. Livestock grazing on western
riparian areas. Northwest
Resource Information Center. Eagle, ID: 5 (fourth printing; produced for
the Environmental
Protection Agency).
Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. The global 2000 report to the
president of the United
States: entering the twenty-first century. Pergamon Press. New York, NY.
Suk, T., J. L. Riggs, B. C. Nelson. 1986. Water contamination with
giardia in backcountry areas in
Proc. of the National Wilderness Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212.
USDA-Forest Service,
Intermountain Res. Stn. Ogden, UT: 237-239.
Paraphrased from A. J. Belsky, A. Matzke, S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of
livestock influences on stream
and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J. Soil & Water
Conserv. 54(1): 419-431.
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Goals and Plan
The National Public Lands Grazing Campaign is a multi-year,
multi-organization
strategy to end abusive livestock grazing on the nation's public lands.
The
campaign has three major components: (1) public education; (2)
enforcement and
accountability; and (3) legislation. A steering committee representative
of public
lands grazing activists and organizations across the West is
coordinating the
NPLGC that seeks to (a) educate the American people of the ecological,
economic
and social harm caused by public lands livestock grazing; (b) fully
enforce
environmental law to end abusive livestock grazing and/or hold public
grazing
permittees accountable for their activity; and (c) amend federal law to
allow the
voluntary retirement of federal grazing permits for $175 per animal unit
month. If
voluntary permit buyout legislation is enacted, livestock grazing can be
ended for
an average of $13.45 for each acre in the program.
Campaign Goals
1. Public Education
Most of the American public does not realize that livestock in the arid
West have caused
more damage than the chainsaw and bulldozer combined. One of the
educational activities
of the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign is to promote and
distribute Welfare
Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West (in press),
featuring nearly
400 pages of articles and photographs by expert authors and
photographers on the subject.
2. Enforcement and Accountability
Current federal statutes including, but not limited to, the Endangered
Species Act, Clean
Water Act, National Forest Management Act, and the Federal Land Policy
and
Management Act, when properly administered, require less or even no
grazing on public
lands. NPLGC member organizations and others are increasing their
enforcement efforts
through administrative appeals, litigation and species listing efforts.
3. Legislative and/or Administrative Reform
NPLGC is advocating for legislation to allow permanent retirement of
federal grazing
permits voluntarily relinquished by public land grazing permittees in
exchange for $175 per
animal unit month. (Due to the magnitude of ongoing subsidies to federal
grazing programs,
the taxpayers will greatly benefit by this proposal.) NPLGC is also
seeking administrative
reform to allow third parties to facilitate permanent permit retirement.
How would Voluntary Permit Buyout Work?
Under NPLGC's proposal, if the holder of a grazing permit or lease chose
to relinquish their
entire permit or lease back to the federal government, the government
would compensate
the permittee for $175 per animal unit month (the amount of forage
necessary to graze one
cow and calf for a month). The allotment would then be permanently
retired from domestic
livestock grazing and the forage reallocated to native wildlife.
Most ranchers who graze federal lands pay $1.35/month for the privilege,
only a fraction of
which returns to the federal treasury to offset grazing subsidies
totaling up to $500,000,000
annually. It would be much more cost effective for the taxpayers to
buyout such permits,
even at the generous price proposed, than to continue subsidizing this
ecologically
destructive and economically irrational activity.
Campaign Steering Committee
Katie Fite Committee for Idaho's High Desert
Mollie Matteson co-editor, Welfare Ranching
Bill Marlett Oregon Natural Desert Association
Jon Marvel Western Watersheds Project
Randi Spivak American Lands
Martin Taylor Center for Biological Diversity
George Wuerthner co-editor, Welfare Ranching
Additional groups may be represented in the future.
Campaign Staff
Andy Kerr of The Larch Company is directing the campaign. Mark Salvo, on
loan from
American Lands, is Legislative Counsel. Other staff will be hired as
funds are raised.
Information, Get Involved
Please subscribe to our listserve (we will not bombard you with
electronic mail!) by sending
a blank e-mail to "NPLGC-subscribe@yahoogroups.com." We will update you
on the
campaign and occasionally ask for your help in contacting government
officials.
Donations gladly and graciously accepted.
Please visit our website at www.publiclandsranching.org (under
construction).
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Federal Grazing Permit Buyout Program will Not
Create New Rights in Permits
Grazing permits do not convey rights to graze federal lands.
Grazing permits issued under the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) of 1934 allow
the permit holder
the privilege to use publicly owned forage. The permits do not instill a
right in permittees to
graze federal lands. This distinction was intended by Congress in the
TGA, articulated in
agency regulations, restated in federal grazing studies, confirmed by
scholars, and upheld by
the Supreme Court as recently as 2000. Federal grazing permits are
revocable, amendable,
non-assignable ten-year licenses to graze that do not convey property
rights.
Grazing permit buyout does not create new rights in permits.
One fear of creating a permit buyout program is that it would create a
new, unintended
compensable property right in grazing permits. Such a right, it is
feared, could require the
government to reimburse ranchers every time federal managers eliminate
grazing privileges.
Such a fear is unfounded. Since 1948 federal law has mandated that the
government
compensate federal grazing permittees when their grazing permit
privileges are reduced or
eliminated for military purposes without creating new property rights.
Appended to the
Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), the "savings clause" in the following
provision protects the
government from any extraneous claims of permit-property rights:
Whenever use for war or national defense purposes of the public domain
or other
property owned by or under the control of the United States prevents its
use for
grazing, persons holding grazing permits or licenses and persons whose
grazing
permits or licenses have been or will be canceled because of such use
shall be paid out
of the funds appropriated or allocated for such project such amounts as
the head of
the department or agency so using the lands shall determine to be fair
and reasonable
for the losses suffered by such persons as a result of the use of such
lands for war or
national defense purposes. Such payments shall be deemed payment in full
for such
losses. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to create
any liability not
now existing against the United States.
For nearly half a century, no public lands grazier who has had their
grazing permit eliminated
for non-military purposes has claimed they are nevertheless owed
compensation under the
military exception. It is unlikely that such a challenge would ever be
brought.
The proposed permit buyout program will avoid creating new rights in
permits.
In a variety of different contexts, the Supreme Court has stated that
the provision of a
government benefit does not create a property right in potential
recipients when Congress
has explicitly excluded that interpretation in the authorizing
legislation. Congress need only
include a savings clause similar to the TGA military provision in
legislation authorizing a
federal grazing permit buyout program to avoid wildcat claims to grazing
permit property
rights.
The National Public Lands Grazing Campaign will only support a
legislated buyout program
with the necessary savings language. If, during the political process,
such language is
dropped or modified and the legislation becomes a problem, the NPLGC
will kill the bill.
Some are concerned that permit buyout legislation could be "hijacked" by
the cattle industry
which would insert a takings provision into the bill. In Washington,
D.C., it's much easier to
kill a bill than pass one. And it is easier to kill your own bill than
someone else's. If the cattle
industry thought they had the votes to enact such "takings" legislation,
they would have
already done so; they would not need a legislative vehicle created by
the conservation
community.
footnotes
43 U.S.C. §315b.
See, e.g., 36 C.F.R. 222.3(b).
USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final
Environmental Impact
Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, D.C.: 125.
Donahue, D. 1999. The Western Range Revisited: Removing Livestock from
Public Lands to Conserve
Native Biodiversity. Univ. Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK: 38.
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728, 741 (2000). See also U.S.
v. Fuller, 409 U.S. 488
(1973) (holding that the federal government is not required by the Fifth
Amendment to compensate a
property owner in a condemnation action for the extra value of his
private property attributed to his
federal grazing permit).
43 U.S.C. § 315q.
Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, 477 U.S.
41 (1986), citing Nat’l
Rail Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, 477 U.S. 41 (1985) and Sinking Fund
Cases, 99 U.S. 700 (1879).
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Grazing Impacts on Threatened and
Endangered Species
Threatened and endangered plant and animal species inhabiting federal
rangelands and imperiled by livestock grazing: more than 175.
Rank of livestock grazing as a cause of species endangerment in
…southern Arizona and western New Mexico No. 1
…southern Nevada and central Arizona No. 3
…California No. 4
…northern Arizona, southern Utah and southern
Colorado No. 5
In the United States, grazing has contributed to the demise of 22
percent of
federal threatened and endangered species—almost equal to logging (12
percent) and mining (11 percent) combined.
Livestock grazing is especially harmful to plant species, affecting 33
percent
of endangered plants.
Sensitive Focal Species Adversely Impacted by
Livestock Grazing
Sage grouse
Pronghorn (especially Sonoran subspecies)
Bighorn sheep (California subspecies and Rocky Mountain
subspecies)
Black-footed ferret
Wolves
Grizzly bear
Yellow-billed cuckoo
NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING CAMPAIGN
Economic Facts of Public
Lands Grazing
Public lands grazers are a minority of livestock producers in the West
and
throughout the country…
Number of livestock producers with federal grazing permits: 27,000.
Percentage of livestock producers with federal grazing permits in
the
United States: 3%.
Percentage of livestock producers with federal grazing permits in
eleven Western states: 22%.
Number of livestock producers without federal grazing permits:
880,000.
Subsidized by taxpayers, public lands grazers pay far less than market
value for federal forage and grazing fees on comparable state and
private
lands…
Fee to graze one cow and calf for one month (AUM) on federal public
lands (2001): $1.35.
Average fee per AUM on state lands in the West (excluding Texas)
(1998): $12.30.
Average fee per AUM on private lands in eleven Western states
(1999): $11.10.
The forage provided, and the beef produced from federal public lands is
insignificant…
Percentage of total feed for livestock in the United States
supplied
from federal lands: 2%.
Percentage of American beef produced from federal
rangelands: less than 3%.
Federal grazing programs contribute very little to Western states’
economies…
Aggregate Federal Grazing Statistics for Eleven Western States
Federal grazing jobs
17,989
Federal grazing jobs as percentage of total employment
0.06
Federal grazing income as percentage of total income
0.04
Days of normal job growth to replace all federal grazing jobs
11
Days of normal income growth to replace all federal grazing jobs
6
Alternative uses of federal public lands contribute much more income to
local and regional economies than livestock grazing. In the Central
Winter
Ecosystem Management Area in the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona, dispersed
recreation is worth $200,000 annually to the local and regional
economies;
fuelwood is worth $48,984; livestock grazing is worth $45,988; and deer
and
turkey hunting is worth $1,324,259.
The vast majority of "livestock producers" on public lands are beef
growers.
FOOTNOTES.
Grazing permits for BLM and Forest Service allotments; includes sheep
growers; accounts for
permittees who operate on both BLM and Forest Service allotments.
USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final
Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 3; see also
Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 2S
(reporting 26,300 permittees
on BLM and Forest Service allotments).
USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final
Environmental Impact
Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26.
USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final
Environmental Impact
Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26.
See USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final
Environmental Impact
Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26.
BLM and Forest Service allotments.
USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1998. Agricultural
graphics—17 state grazing fees
adjusted AUM. USDA-NASS. Washington, DC. Available at
http://www.usda.gov/nass/aggraphics/graphics.htm.
Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 2S.
USDI-BLM. 1992. Grazing fee review and evaluation: update of the 1986
final report. USDI-BLM.
Washington, DC: 2.
Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 1S;
Jacobs, L. 1992. The Waste of the West: Public Lands Ranching. Lynn
Jacobs,
P.O. Box 5784, Tucson, AZ: 354.
T. Power. 1996. Lost Landscapes and Failed Economics: The Search for a
Value of Place. Island Press. Washington, DC: 184-185.
Souder, J. 1997. How does livestock grazing fit into the larger societal
uses
of wildlands?, in Proc. Symp. on Environmental, Economic, and Legal
Issues
Related to Rangeland Water Developments. Arizona St. Univ. Tempe, AZ:
305.