7 Government Subsidies Ranchers Receive That You Don't

Despite vocal opposition to government intervention, many ranchers benefit from substantial government subsidies. This article explores the various forms of financial support they receive and the implications for public lands and wildlife.

One of the central complaints of the individuals currently occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon is about “government overreach.” This term is frequently used by those on the right to describe various government actions they oppose, from income tax to background checks for gun sales. For instance, Ben Carson criticized the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as an example of regulatory overreach. Similarly, Ted Cruz has expressed concerns about government programs like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts. However, actions like mandating a woman seeking an abortion to listen to her fetus’ heartbeat are not considered overreach by these individuals, as they align with their beliefs.

The rogue ranchers in Oregon misuse the term in the same way. The Bundy family, which is leading this protest, is upset that the government won’t allow them to graze their cattle on public lands for free, citing “overreach.” They are also angry about the sentencing of Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond to five years in prison for setting fire to federal lands. However, when government actions benefit them, these armed cowboys do not see any overreach at all.

In fact, the Bundys and Hammonds have been generously subsidized by the very government they claim to oppose. Here are just a few examples of welfare programs these families and other ranchers receive:

• The Hammonds, whose arson conviction inspired the action in Malheur, received almost $300,000 in federal disaster payments and subsidies from the mid-90s to 2012.
• Ammon Bundy, spokesperson for the Malheur action, got a $530,000 Small Business Administration loan in 2010, costing taxpayers more than $22,000. And we don’t know if he’s even paid the loan back.
• The Hammonds benefited from a government program that kills predators to protect ranchers’ and farmers’ livestock. Specifically, the U.S. government shot five coyotes from the air for the Hammonds between 2009 and 2011, which, according to one expert’s estimate, would have cost taxpayers about $8,000. USDA Wildlife Services — an opaque and ironically named agency — spends $100 million annually to kill millions of animals, much of that in support of ranching and agricultural interests.
• The Bundys graze cattle on federal land at a significantly reduced rate. Federal grazing fees were just $1.35 for a cow and calf per month in 2012, while the going rate on private land was about $20 — that’s a 93 percent discount for ranchers using federal land, as FiveThirtyEight points out. Cliven Bundy, the family patriarch, has grazed his cattle on federal land without a permit since 1993 and refused to pay more than $1 million in fines and fees, leading to his infamous standoff last year.
• Half of the grazing fees that ranchers pay the federal government come right back to benefit the ranchers. As U.S. News reported, “50 percent of grazing fees collected by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service (or $10 million, whichever is greater) go to a range betterment fund in the Treasury. According to the bureau, these so-called ‘Range Improvement Funds’ are used ‘solely for labor, materials, and final survey and design of projects,’ presumably benefiting ranchers.”
• Ranchers can cash in on a federal drought disaster relief program. In a particularly ironic case, some Nevada ranchers illegally grazed their cattle on public land closed to protect it during the ongoing Western drought, denying that the drought existed at all. But it turns out that two of the families leading that rebellion had received $2.2 million in federal drought relief funds the previous year.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management routinely removes wild horses from public lands to make way for cattle. In 2015, according to the BLM, this program cost the American public $75 million. All of these subsidies to ranchers also cost the environment. The Center for Biological Diversity sums up the ecological costs of cattle grazing: “By destroying vegetation, damaging wildlife habitats and disrupting natural processes, livestock grazing wreaks ecological havoc on riparian areas, rivers, deserts, grasslands and forests alike — causing significant harm to species and the ecosystems on which they depend.”

Clearly, the vigilante ranchers — and Republican presidential hopefuls — are only concerned about “government overreach” when they see it as a threat to their own agendas. When it’s lining their pockets? Well, that’s just good government.

Originally posted by Grist