The Obama administration recently rejected a petition from several environmental groups asking to raise the fees for ranchers whose animals graze on public lands. But the fight’s far from over.
Currently, ranchers can pay $1.35 for each cow or calf eating grass on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. A report from the Government Accounting Office, however, shows the actual cost of administrating public lands grazing is about $7 per animal.
According to Taylor McKinnon, the public lands director for the Center for Biological Diversity, taxpayers shouldn’t have to supply the $115 million gap between what’s paid by ranchers and what grazing costs the public. His organization is among those petitioning the federal government.
The goal, he said, is to raise the grazing fee to the point of covering BLM and forest service administrative costs, as well as “the cost of correcting environmental damage,” he said.
“Livestock grazing alters ecosystems,” said McKinnon. He points to a 1994 study published in “Conservation Biology” that links livestock grazing to soil erosion, stream degradation, water pollution, species imperilment and fire regime alteration. “In total,” he said, “it’s an ecological and economic loser.”
McKinnon said the problem is especially pervasive in Arizona, which is ranked highest in the U.S. for regions that have endangered species because of livestock grazing. Animals including sage grouse, bighorn sheep and grizzly bears are said to be hurt by livestock grazing.
But ranchers and the BLM say, if managed, livestock grazing is beneficial.
Kim Baker is president of the Montana Cattlemen’s Association. She said she and most ranchers rotate their cattle to make sure they’re not overusing an area. “Ranchers have always been good stewards of the land,” she said. “We understand that if we destroy an area, it takes a long time to rebuild it.”
If grazing fees were raised, Baker said it would hurt ranchers. “When you’re grazing in the forest, I gotta tell you, it’s not just like taking your cattle out to an irrigated meadow,” she said. Baker said ranchers who graze their cattle on public lands deal with rough terrain, weeds and wolves. A higher cost wouldn’t be worth it for most, she said.
Further, Baker believes cattle help reduce forest fires by grazing on the dry grasses that often fuel blazes. And, she said, cattle encourage wildlife by removing dead foliage. After moving cattle from the pasture around her house, Baker has watched deer and elk move into the area to feed. “I really think public-lands grazing is very beneficial for the wildlife, and also for the sake of fires and for ranchers,” she said.
BLM spokesman Tom Gorey agrees with those benefits to grazing and adds one more: controlling invasive species.
Where the Center for Biological Diversity’s McKinnon points to soil erosion and damage to trees and plans as harming endangered species, the BLM’s Gorey talks about a Nevada rancher who, in 2010, one an annual award for rangeland stewardship for improving sage-grouse habitat on his grazing lands.
Gorey added it’s important to remember that grazing is an authorized use of public land. “If you want to ban grazing, you should work for a legislative solution,” he said.
The BLM and Forest Service both issued official statements denying the petition because they have higher priority issues. McKinnon’s position, essentially, is they’re shooting themselves in the feet. “If their agencies recouped lost revenues, if those agencies revised the fee, they would have a lot of money left over,” he said.
The denial has the groups planning their next effort. “We’re considering legal action,” he said.